Denise Majette

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 230, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, On April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States visited Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitutional program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from Lakeside High School, a DeKalb County school in my district, represented the state of Georgia in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The 3-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. Independent studies by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) revealed that students enrolled in the We the People program at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' Another study by Richard Brody at Stanford University discovered that students involved in the We the People program develop greater commitment to democratic principles and values than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. Researchers at the Council for Basic Education noted: [T]eachers feel excited and renewed. . . . Students are enthusiastic about what they have been able to accomplish, especially in terms of their ability to carry out a reasoned argument. They have become energized about their place as citizens of the United States. The class from Lakeside High School recently participated in the national competition in Washington, DC. It was inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a Nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I commend these young ``constitutional experts'' for reaching the We the People national finals: Teacher--Richard Barbe; Students--Jordan Bailey-Hoover, William Bretherton, Stuart Cardwell, Morgan Clemons, Matt Connors, Ann Elise Cutrer, Ross Elliott, Susan Fang, Katherine Fountain, Zack Goodman, Heather Greenfield, Shabbnam Jeddi, Erika Larson, Jonathan Lesesene, Jerel Lewis, Matt Lipkin, Cara Lynch, Courtni Mills, Munira Mohamed, Vishal Patel, Clarence Quarterman, Ryan Rice, Caitlin Roberson, Kyle Smithers, Callan Steinmann, Karen Usselman, Karl Weidenmann, Jackie Williams, and Ethan Wu.

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, in our rush to pass this legislation, we have failed to consider the needs of the American worker today. I would like to note my thoughts about this legislation, including what it does and also, importantly, what it does not do. This bill includes a number of provisions that are necessary, including some that are long overdue, but fails to consider some other needs that should be addressed. For too long, investors have been putting their hard-earned money into investments, including the stock market, without understanding all of the benefits of diversification into different investment options. This bill will allow employers to provide workers with investment advice concerning the divestiture of their plan assets. I am very pleased that this bill also requires investment advisors to disclose any conflicts of interest. I know that plan fiduciaries take their obligations to provide good advice seriously and workers should expect from these advisors no less than the best, most honest financial advice possible. It is my hope that workers, armed with competent, professional investment advice, will translate this knowledge into secure retirement plans that meet their individual needs. I am pleased that workers will no longer be making investment decisions without receiving this financial education. For too long, workers have been forced by some companies to hold the majority of their assets in their own company's stock. This requirement resulted in many workers holding all of their eggs in one basket and, for many, this requirement resulted in their losing all of their retirement savings (along with their jobs) when companies went bankrupt. This law was outdated and overly-restrictive. I am excited that this bill prohibits employers from forcing workers to keep savings in their own company's stock for more than three years. Employees must be given the opportunity to diversify their investments and, where necessary, rescue their savings when the company's fortunes turn bad. Unfortunately, these changes to pension law fall short of the broad reform needed to adequately protect workers' retirement savings. Workers specifically need legislation today that will protect their pensions when a company converts to a cash balance plan. Many companies are considering adopting these plans without maintaining the benefits upon which many senior workers have planned their retirements. For a company to strip away promised benefits by changing the rules just before workers retire, is unconscionable; moreover, it should be criminal. This bill's failure to address the serious concerns many workers have about their pensions is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, this body's continued unwillingness to allow sufficient debate on significant issues is a practice that must end--and end soon. By disallowing debate on important amendments, we are failing to live up to our constituents' expectations. Our constituents sent us to Washington to discuss the nation's difficult issues and to debate these issues on their merits. Today, the important issue of whether we would extend unemployment benefits, currently set to expire at the end of the month, was not discussed. When we fail to allow discussion of important issues we are failing the American people. I vote in opposition of the ``pension security act'' for its failure to address the pressing needs of the American people today. I earnestly hope that consideration of future bills will include substantial debate on all of the issues that warrant attention, not just those that are easy to talk about.

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 684.

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a new Member of the House of Representatives. I know that each of us takes this responsibility very seriously. Each of us wants to represent our constituents to the best of our ability, and we all want to do what is right for our country. Yet this Congress cannot seem to do the right thing. This so-called tax cut is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Virtually every reputable economist agrees that it is the wrong thing for our economy. Alan Greenspan agrees that it is the wrong thing to do at this time, yet the President has seen fit to have Mr. Greenspan serve for another term while choosing not to listen to his advice. Republican and Democratic Members of the House are going along with the President's tax policy, and that, Mr. Speaker, will sink this ship of state into a sea of red ink. To me, this tax plan is about simple math and basic accounting. More importantly, it is about common sense. If you borrow money, somebody has to pay it back. This tax plan will result in the biggest increase in debt that our country has ever seen. Somebody is going to have to pay it back, and those somebodies are our children and our grandchildren. Many in our country are worried about the problem of predatory lending, but what they should be worried about is predatory borrowing. We are causing our children and grandchildren to incur huge debts in the future just so we can line the pockets of a precious few today. This predatory borrowing will doom the economic fortunes of generations to come because we refuse to get our fiscal house in order. Do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker; like anyone else, I could use a tax cut, and many of my constituents could use tax relief too. But this is not tax relief. Do I support relief from the marriage tax penalty? Of course I do. Do I support increasing the amount of the child tax credit? Of course I do. Do I support giving small businesses relief for their expenses? Of course I do. These are all tax cuts that help working families, exactly those families who are hurting and who are struggling to make ends meet. Unfortunately, none of these tax cuts is permanent in this bill, and in 3 years most of these cuts will evaporate and working families will be right back where they are today. But the Republican tax bill does not stop there. This tax bill will give huge tax relief to those who need it least, the wealthy; those people who already have an annual income of $1 million a year. The dividend and capital gains tax cuts, which are made permanent, by the way, will pile on debt for our children and our grandchildren. Long-term success in this country depends on high quality education, on stable and high paying jobs, and access to quality health care. But because of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we are not investing in those things that will secure our children's future. Not only are we abdicating our responsibility for our children's future, we are forcing them to pay the bill. What we need today is a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility. Let us restore the pay-as- you-go rules that led to the fiscal discipline during the 1990s and the first surpluses we saw in decades, surpluses that have totally evaporated under this President's economic programs. For the first time in decades, we have had the opportunity to begin to pay down the massive multi-trillion dollar debt and to begin to bring some financial stability to Social Security and to Medicare. But, instead, today we are being asked to incur more debt and to cast even further doubt on the viability of those programs. What we have here is a failure to communicate with the American people. So let me just make it plain: This is not really a tax cut we are talking about today. Read my lips; this will be the largest tax increase that the world has ever seen, only it is a tax increase on our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. This tax plan is a sham and a shame, and the American people deserve better than this.

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 116 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I voted for those budget alternatives I supported today. The passage of the budget resolution to day represents the culmination of a long and arduous process involving 435 members of Congress and their often divergent views and priorities. As each member of Congress represents a unique constituency, each with its own concerns, it is entirely fitting that alternatives be considered and debated before the final federal budget is passed by this body. This budget outlines the manner in which our shared national resources will be allocated for the year, and, as such, the resolution must be a statement of both our immediate needs as well as our long- term priorities. Consequently, the budget process requires each of us to make tough choices when deciding how much to burden American families with taxes as well as how to allocate these limited resources to different categories of needs. The budget process often results in choices between imperfect alternatives that do not necessarily completely reflect any one member's priorities. In deciding which alternative to support, I balanced two primary priorities: my ardent desire to limit our spending's impact on the future, and my sincere belief that spending should be focused on programs that provide real investments in the future. To realize our long term goals, we ought to minimize our long-term debts. In doing so, we will allow our children to pay for their dreams without being saddled with our realities. I would like to bequeath to our children a world where we have tackled the problems of our day and provided them unfettered access to the tools they'll need tomorrow. If we are determined to spend our precious resources now (rather than saving them for our children's use) it is reasonable that we devote a large portion of these resources to the betterment of our children's future. Perhaps the most future-oriented use of a taxpayer's money is to invest in exploration of our world through research. Scientific inquiry, by its very nature, offers no guarantees; the paths of discovery are rife with pitfalls and stumbles. As the explosion of the Columbia tragically reminded us, exploring the unknown is never easy. It is often painful. In the end, however, scientific inquiry offers us our best hope that the world can be a better place. Through government assistance, some of the greatest minds of our time are working to find cures for the disease that plague us, young and old, rich and poor alike. Failing to fund these initiatives robs our children of their hopes for a better world. One day in the future, these scientists will discover a cure for cancer, a vaccine for AIDS, and a better method for reaching further into the galaxy. We must continue to make their efforts a priority--they are exploring for all of us. As we consider our nation's priorities, we must be absolutely certain that we fully fund education initiatives. Education is the ultimate mechanism for allowing social mobility by leveling the playing field of opportunity. The United States continues to be a beacon of hope for other nations as a place where anyone, regardless of socioeconomic background, race or parentage, is limited only by his or her dreams; a place where everyone can achieve their goals. Our promise as a nation rests on maintaining this ideal. As Thomas Jefferson once stated, ``If the condition of man is to be progressively ameliorated, as we fondly hope and believe, education is to be the chief instrument in effecting it.'' My preference today was to vote for a budget that is both fiscally responsible and that focuses the Public's resources on those programs for which we can expect the greatest return on our investment. After considering the alternatives, I voted in favor of more than one alternative. The Blue-Dog budget provides a fiscally responsible alternative. As presented, this plan would have reduced the national debt by $1.35 trillion, compared to the budget which passed. This reduction would have resulted in $250 billion less in taxes that our children would have to pay simply to pay the interest on this debt. While limiting the debt burden on our children, this alternative would also have cut taxes and focused resources to educational investments including student-loan and child nutrition programs. The budget committee's ranking member, Mr. Spratt, offered a budget which is a powerful statement of priorities and would have continued to fund our nation's important commitments to job creation, social security and medicare. This budget would have ensured that education and science programs be allocated the necessary funding to ensure that our nation continues to be a leader in the information age. It also would have allowed our children to meet the challenges of the future with the resources necessary to face them. Through none of the budget alternatives I supported passed, I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue to establish our priorities in the weeks and months ahead. It is crucial that as we do so we remember where we are going. IF we are truly committed to social equality and to leaving no child behind, we must provide our children with the tools necessary to create an even better world than the entirely too dangerous one in which we now find ourselves. If we endeavor to better understand our world through research, we give hope to our children that they will not be afflicted by the ailments that we suffer today and we give them the legacy of vision to look beyond that which is not imaginable. Finally, we must not bind our children with debt if we hope to allow them to rise above our own accomplishments.

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I am voting against the Human Cloning Prohibition Act today. I call to mind a previous case that I think closely resembles today's actions by this body. I refer to a trial that took place almost 40 years ago; the heresy trial of Galileo in 1633. Galileo was a scientist who studied the mysteries of the physical world--he dared to explore that which we did not understand. Unfortunately, the political leaders at the time were afraid, and justifiably so. They said that his ideas threatened their religious beliefs, they were afraid of where the research would lead. They were right to be afraid--they were wrong to take the actions they did as a result. Galileo's persecutors concluded that his research was immoral, and after his heresy trial he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It was not until 1992 that the church lifted its edict of inquisition against him. Galileo himself saw no conflict between science and religion. When asked about his research, he said that ``Holy Scripture and Nature are both emanation from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God's commands.' And he died a devout Catholic. Like the Roman Catholic Church in Galileo's time, I am scared. I am afraid of where cloning research may lead. I am afraid of its applicability in the wrong hands. But I refuse to be a part of a heresy trial today. This bill would make it a crime for scientists to pursue reasonable research, inspired by noble goals and performed by decent people. Supporters of this misinformed bill argue that this research should not be pursued. One of the reasons they gave is that there is no evidence that the research will work as intended. I submit that that is exactly why it should be pursued. After all, that is the point of research--to try to understand those things which we do not yet understand. I believe that we have some of the greatest minds of our time trying to find cures for the dozens of diseases that plague us--young and sold, rich and poor alike. I am unwilling to take away any of their tools out of fear. I am unwilling to persecute Galileo. My faith in God is strong and, perhaps, just as Galileo's research is not described by religious scholars as ``opening up new windows upon the wonders of God's creation,'' this research may one day be universally acclaimed--both for its ability to cure diseases as well as the insight it lends us to God's creation.

Ms. MAJETTE

Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, regarding the vote on the rule for the unemployment insurance, had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``no.'' I was on the floor at the time of the vote but was unable to vote within the time allotted.