David Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding me this time. We have had eloquent testimony and speeches dealing with the practicality of why this bill is unconstitutional. But more than that, let it be clear, let's pull the covers off of this, this is nothing but a bold attempt, a shameless attempt by the Republican Party to target those types of voters that they believe will not vote for them but would vote for Democrats. That is exactly what it is. I am here to tell you the truth about this because I am from Georgia where this very same bill has been ruled not unconstitutional once, not unconstitutional twice, three times it has been ruled unconstitutional by a Federal judge, and just yesterday by the Superior Court of Fulton County, the largest county in my State. It has been ruled unconstitutional. And the reason is this: The Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear. They said that the right to vote shall not be abridged, shall not be infringed upon. That is the anchor. That is the basic thrust. You come here and talk about needing a picture ID to get on a plane, to get on a bus. Well, the right to get on a plane must not be infringed was not written into the Constitution, but the right to vote was. And if Alexander Hamilton was right, if Thomas Jefferson was right, ought not we be right? If Madison was right, shouldn't we be right? If Abraham Lincoln was right, shouldn't we be right? If Martin Luther King, Jr., was right, shouldn't we be right? When Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he said the same thing. All throughout our history, and why? Here are you, the Republicans, doing this dastardly un-American act. And if John Lewis, who got his head bloodied on Edmund Pettus Bridge, says it is right, then it should be right. And the right thing to do is to vote down this dastardly un-American bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is very important on two points. The poll tax, which is a very important point of our argument, it has been said this is not a poll tax. It has been said that this is not an unfunded mandate. However, it is important to know that at the same time they say that this effort will be paid for, but there is no funding in this bill to pay for it, that makes it an unfunded mandate. That puts the onus on the individual senior citizens, those without it. Therefore, this was the consideration for the Georgia ruling that it was a poll tax and unconstitutional. It is also important to note within the case in Georgia it was pointed out that clearly there were 600,000 Georgians, and not just Georgians, but registered voters in Georgia, 600,000, who did not have either a driver's license or a birth certificate. In order for that to happen, they would have had to provide the costs for doing so, which was not in the bill. Subsequently, the Governor of Georgia said, to solve this we will put a bus to travel, follow it around the State. The bus made it for 2 hours and broke down. I wanted to make that clear for the Georgia record.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Would the gentlewoman yield just for one moment?

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me extend my deep appreciation and thanks to our distinguished chairman, Chairman Oxley of Ohio. As many of us know, Chairman Oxley will be leaving us and I want to take this opportunity to recognize what an outstanding chairman you have been to our Committee on Financial Services. It has been a pleasure serving with you, and you have been an outstanding chairman. It is also a pleasure to stand here as I represent our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has provided outstanding leadership on our Financial Services Committee, and has led the way for this to be a strong bipartisan effort, to Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Certainly it is a pleasure to work with you on this measure. I think this is a very important bill because of the timeliness of it, especially with so many of our military men and women in harm's way overseas, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we put forward a measure designed to help protect their financial security. Senate 418, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, the measure before us today, will address some serious problems of predatory lending and financial abuse targeted at our military men and women. In 2004, the New York Times ran a series of very good stories which detailed misleading sales practices of financial products to members of the military. A few unscrupulous agents had made misleading pitches to captive audiences by posing as counselors on veterans benefits, and they solicited soldiers while on duty. This issue is important to me, as it is to all of us in this Congress, but especially to me and those of us from Georgia, because so many of these reported scams occurred at Fort Benning in my State of Georgia. So I joined with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and we held hearings to investigate these predatory and abusive lending practices, and then we went to work on finding legislative remedies. This legislation that we worked on is very similar to Senate 418. Our legislation was passed by a large majority in the House, but was not brought up for action on the Senate floor until recently. What we have before us as Senate 418 represents the final bipartisan and bicameral product in addressing these important issues. This is indeed the work of the House and the Senate. What S. 418 will do, it will ban all future sales of periodic payment plans. It will require greater regulation of insurance sales on military bases. It will require the Department of Defense to create a registry of agents who are prohibited from selling financial policies on bases, and it will expand investor access to registration information for brokers, for dealers and advisers. I would like to give just a little more detail about a few of the protections afforded our military personnel in this measure. Senate 418 will give State insurance regulators jurisdiction over insurance sales on Federal facilities and bases within the United States as well as abroad. Many of the abuses that occurred on bases continued because of confusion about regulatory jurisdiction, and especially at overseas bases. This bill resolves that. This provision clears up that concern. Also my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), authored a provision contained in section 13 of this measure. This provision requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the appropriate State regulators when an insurance agent or financial adviser is added or deleted from a registry of agents or advisers banned from military bases. This provision will prevent unscrupulous sales agents from moving to other jurisdictions to avoid detection. Further, insurance companies could not sell or solicit policies to military personnel on a base without first providing clear written notice that federally subsidized life insurance is available through the Federal Government, and that the sale of the private plan is not sanctioned or recommended by the government. To ensure our servicemembers are capable of addressing their financial needs, we must first provide them with adequate compensation. At the same time, we must help our soldiers exercise financial responsibility. It is necessary that military personnel have financial literacy, something that I have worked very hard on since my first day arriving in Congress. These individuals can face financial questions from Internet-based sales, from sales off base, and from being faced with decisions in the civilian world. As we know, predatory sales practices are not limited to the base. Our military folks have enough to worry about. They constantly live in a life-and-death situation. They certainly do not need these added financial insecurity pressures that are placed upon them by predatory lenders and financial abusers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman who has long championed the military, and on this issue has been at the forefront in providing great leadership on this issue, protecting our military from financial abuses, and that is the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to extend my feelings of great appreciation to Mr. Davis from Kentucky, the distinguished gentleman, who has truly provided the leadership on this bill. And you could tell from his eloquent statements earlier of his own experience in this issue that really clearly points to why we need this bill. And I thank you, and it has been a pleasure working with you on this, Mr. Davis. I again want to echo when he said about the chairman. I am very fortunate on this committee to have two mentors, Democrat and Republican. And as a Democrat, I am not ashamed to say one of my mentors is a Republican, and that is Oxley. Chairman Oxley. I call him ``Oxley.'' On top of everything else, he is a great baseball man. And, of course, with Ranking Member Frank, it gives a great balance to the bipartisanship on that committee, which I think enables us to deal with ticklish matters like this very appropriately. As far as the payday situation is concerned, we will visit that another day. There is no question about that. We want to make sure that we get the good apples out of the way of the bad apples and move forward. But this bill here clearly gives us a very important statement. And it is with this statement that we are saying to these predators, keep your grubby hands off of our soldiers. We have got 18- and 19-year-old kids who are just getting out of high school, many of them, and there these predators are, waiting on them at a time when they are faced with such life-and-death issues as going into harm's way, all of those pressures. It is not right. It is not fair. And this is why we are moving on this very important legislation, so that we can protect our fighting men and women against unscrupulous investment sales. I urge the House to move to pass this important bipartisan measure today.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Schiff. Of course, it is great to be here with you again, and my good friend Chris Van Hollen from Maryland. He is a tremendous advocate for national security. I have enjoyed his opening remarks and very thought-provoking remarks. And certainly it is always good to be on the floor with our leader, Steny Hoyer, who has long been a champion of national security. That is certainly the issue today. This is the issue that is on the minds of the American people. This is prime time, national security. We have got to make sure the American people not only feel safe, but we guarantee that they are safe. We have the capacity to do that. As I stand here, I was observing the remarks earlier about the contributions that the great State of Maryland and all of our great States have made to our strong defense and national security, and certainly I am proud to say that Georgia, my State, is certainly at the head of the list on that as well. I stand here on the shoulders of some great folks who have been strong on national security and helped to secure this country and make us the superior military power that we are, men like Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Russell from my fine State of Georgia. I stand here on the shoulders of those great Democratic leaders who have led the way.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Absolutely. Jim and I have traveled overseas together. He was a decorated war veteran from Vietnam. So we stand tall as Democrats when it comes to national security, without any question. I want to start my remarks off, because I think today will go down in history as a very profound day, starting with the United Nations. Today presented some very interesting pictures as we watched television. Two speeches, of course, stand out on this day. I don't think I can remember in history when the President of the United States addressed the United Nations, but yet one of our chief adversaries, one of which he labeled one of the ``axis of evil,'' the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, came in prime time, while the President spoke earlier, not in prime time. I am wondering how we got to this point? Where did this president of Iran come from? Five years ago we had never heard of him. Certainly I hadn't. But here he is at the United Nations, in fact upstaging our President. If I were working at the White House, I certainly would not have allowed the President of the United States to be over there on the same day. I felt that was very, very interesting. It might do us a little good to understand how we got to this point, and the way we do that, I think, is to start off this discussion by clearly pointing out to the American people something that they are gradually beginning to see, and that is this, that we are fighting two distinct wars; one war is on terror, the other war is in Iraq. One war is of necessity. It was necessary. That is the war on terror, which is where we went into Afghanistan to go after the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. That was a war of necessity, and we went there because that is where the enemy was that attacked us. That is where al Qaeda was. That is where bin Laden was, on that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We got the support of NATO and we got the support of the government of Afghanistan, with their help, and we went in there. But then we went into Iraq, and we went into Iraq on a lot of manufactured, now we know the truth, incomplete information, maybe false information, perhaps even manipulated information. Those are the facts. That is what is out there. But, nonetheless, we went into Iraq in a war of choice. Now we need to do a cost-benefit analysis, which brings me to the point I wanted to get to earlier, to segue back in, to show these two connecting points of what happened today, where the President of the United States is upstaged by the President of Iran, a president we did not even know about 5 years ago. But when you do the cost-benefit analysis on the war of choice, which is the war in Iraq, not the war on terror, which is the war of necessity in Afghanistan, and do a cost-benefit analysis, in other words, look at our cost: 2,600 soldiers, men and women who gave their lives, who were killed; nearly 20,000 wounded; over $600 billion expended at a rate of $3 billion every week. That is the cost. Who benefited? Who benefited? Who benefited? Iraq. When we went into Afghanistan, although we went in on the war on terror, we went after the Taliban, doing, again, Iraq's bidding. That was their enemy. When we went into Iraq, without question the chief beneficiary of that was Iran. They were the beneficiaries, because Saddam Hussein was their worst blood enemy. We did the dirty work for Iran. On the other account, we established a Shia regime there, a Shia government in Iraq. That, again, was a benefit to Iran. They were able to control that. The other thing, all the while we are doing this, they are busy developing their nuclear capacity so that now that they have the nuclear capacity, again, a checkmate and a benefit for Iraq. So that now my point is simply that because of some of our policies, most definitely going into Iraq, the major beneficiary of our going into Iraq is Iran, which now is boosted on the stage and is here this day, in this country, at the United Nations, giving a speech. And here is a man who is the sponsor of the very terrorist organization that controlled the Lebanon situation, as well as the Hamas, which controls the Palestinian. All I am simply saying is our national security policies, our foreign policies have had a devastating impact, and that when we do the cost/ benefit analysis, it certainly benefits Iraq. It has taken us away from pursuing the goal of finding and decapitating the head of the mastermind of the terrorist organization that came to destroy us. That is why the American people are beginning to see this differentiation, and we are not going to be able to find our way out of this unless we finally do so we can understand exactly what this situation in Iraq is doing, and like you, we are not standing here just talking. We are standing here explaining how we earnestly feel as Americans, strong, patriotic Americans, who care about this country, and who resent the President of the United States saying that anytime we question that, we are not patriotic. We are doing our duty that the American people sent us up here to do to raise these important issues. We cannot stay the course, not this course. Sixty-three percent of the American people say they want a new direction. It is up to Democrats to provide that direction. The other issue which concerns me is the state of our military. Not only must we explain to the American people and help to dramatize and explain clearly and show how we are dealing with two distinct wars, one of necessity, one of choice, but the drain on the military, we have got to correct that. Our military is in a draining state. We are not meeting our recruiting goals. We are on two and three tours of duty there. We are in a terrible hole in Iraq, and we have got to extricate ourselves out of it. The challenge is to do so with yet the dignity and the respect that we must do so to honor the sacrifice of our men and women who have given their lives there, while at the same time putting the responsibility on the Iraqis themselves to manifest their destiny. They want democracy. We cannot shove it at them with a gun. They have to feel it in their soul. They have to go forward and grab it. That is not happening, and that is what we have to do to get this moving forward in a way that gives the respect to our military who have given their lives there.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank you to my colleagues who have also risen to pay tribute to our nation's historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). September 10-16 is the week designated by the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities to recognize the work of HBCUs. As a graduate of Florida A&M University (FAMU), a historically black university in Tallahassee, Florida, this occasion holds special significance for me. Over 40 years ago, I arrived on Florida A&M University's campus in Tallahassee, Florida for my freshman year. At 16 years old, I was a young man with dreams and great ambition like scores of other black men and women who have filled the halls of historically black colleges and universities for more than a century. My story is theirs; like so many HBCU graduates, the invaluable education I received afforded me countless successes throughout my career. After graduating from Florida A&M University in 1967, I attended the Wharton school of business, ran a successful advertising firm, and served in the Georgia State Senate for 26 years. Today I represent the 13th Congressional district. Indeed just as my experience reflects the opportunities available to HBCU graduates, the evolution of Florida A&M represents the growth of many HBCUs from niche schools to solid academic institutions with national recognition. Florida A&M University evolved from a small, little known school in Florida's panhandle to a university ranked the best overall university for African American students by Black Enterprise in 2006. Florida A&M University has created a culture of achievement in its undergraduate and graduate programs. In 1997 Florida A&M University beat out thousands of institutions to receive the College of the Year honor from Time Magazine-Princeton Review. Florida A&M University's success is only a part of a larger story of achievement for numerous institutions and the students who fill their hollowed halls. Over 100 HBCUs continue to educate the best and brightest of America's emerging leaders. In 2001, HBCUs awarded one- fifth of all bachelor's degrees earned by black students nationally. HBCU graduates fill professional ranks, closing gaps in professional and economic attainment. One example of this can be found at Xavier University in Louisiana. Xavier University outranks all institutions in the country for the placement of black students into medical schools. Moreover, HBCUs are embedded within America's historical and cultural fabric. Their accomplished graduates have spurred social change, led political movements, forged divergent artistic paths, and heralded the dawning of new literary ages. To list all the prestigious alumni of HBCUs would require volumes. In summation, it can be said that without them and the institutions that honed their skills, there would have been no Harlem Renaissance, Civil Rights Movement, Brown vs. Board of Education, and countless other eras and historical turning points which redefined the lives of all Americans. Today I commend the work of HBCUs and the leaders and scholars that have dedicated their abilities to leading them into the 21st Century. I wish each institution a century's more of unparalleled achievement. Borrowing from the Black National Anthem. . . . We have come over a way that with tears have been watered, We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered, Out from the gloomy past, Till now we stand at last Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast. . . .

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well, I think you are absolutely right, and I think a part of that is those who are at the helm, President Bush and those in the White House, are good decent people, but they are oil people. I mean, they think like oil people. That is it, when our future is not in that way. We have got to have a clean energy policy. We have got to invest in our own farms and our agriculture products like corn and soybeans and sugar cane so that we can develop ethanol as an alternative. We have got to have a robust economy in this country that is based upon our own self-sufficiency of oil. We should be going down to Brazil by the planeloads, learning and seeing what they have done. If Brazil can take their own automotive industry, their main means of transportation, and run it 80 percent on ethanol made from sugar cane, what is keeping us from doing that? Why must we be so dependent on Middle Eastern oil? It is the way they think in the White House. Now, I am telling you, it is not just me here. You have been around this country; all the polls are saying it. Americans want a difference. They want a change in direction. Quite honestly, that is why you have two parties. That is why you have parties here. That is why the Founding Fathers made it that way. One party cannot have it all the time, and the American people deserve a change. I am convinced President Bush has stayed the course. America says, no, no, we want a new direction. Well, you can't take a new direction with somebody who says stay the course, do what the job has done, we are here, this is the way we are going with the Republican-led Congress. We have got to have some changes. Democrats are aggressive. Democrats are smart. We have shown time and time in the history of this country, when this country was in a world war. This President was in the world, the business talks about Naziism, he talks about fascism and he talks about all of that about Hitler. All that time, who stood up to Hitler? Who was it who said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself? A Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When the communists were threatening in South Korea and North Korea, who was there? Harry S. Truman, who said, the buck stops here. When we had that missile crisis down in Cuba, when we were on the throes, right on the edge of what many say meant the end of the world if that had happened, can you imagine? It was a Democrat with steely eyes who stood there and looked Khrushchev in the eyes and had the courage. It was John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Democrat. Now, the world can rest assured this Nation will be secure in the hands of Democrats. We are waiting on the chance to provide the change and direction. I am just proud of our national security review by myself and Mr. Israel, who for the past 3 years have provided leadership on this very issue where we have had great leaders like Senator Nunn, Senator Sam Nunn, who has provided the way, my friend from Georgia all the way in; and Sandy Berger, we have had men and women at the helm of national security that have done a fine job and we are here to do that job. This is the way for us to go, strong and smart.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. You know, that certainly doesn't sound like cutting and running to me. It says sticking and staying, but sticking and staying smart. Nobody is running away from this war on terror. You cannot run away from it. We are simply talking about putting our resources where they need to be. We are talking about building a military and not dragging it down. Let me give you one example of where I am talking about where we will make choices. Democrats will not make this mistake. Right now we are facing our military. We are trying to make choices about air superiority versus ground superiority. It should not be one versus the other. We have got to have both. But here we have got right now, in my home district in Atlanta, Georgia, in the Atlanta metro area, I represent CBO county, Marietta, which is the Lockheed Martin base where we make the F-22s. Right now there is debate, the Army, the Air Force wants 318 F-22s. Well, we have got 75 already moving off the line, but they cut down their request now to about 125. If the Air Force says we need 318, we should make 318. That is what the military says we need in order to maintain the superiority. The F- 22 fights in the air and on the ground. We need that, but here is the rub. The rub is the Defense Department right now is saying we cannot even afford the 125. Why? Because the war in Iraq is making us choose between how we are going to fit our military. That need not be. We need not allow the war in Iraq to be a drag on the resources of our military operation. No wonder you have Iran doing what they are doing. No wonder you have Syria and North Korea, China, even Russia. No wonder we can't get around and even talk with Russia and the Eastern European countries about gathering up those loose nukes. Sam Nunn brought that to our national security meeting and made it very clear that quite honestly that is a number one threat to the security of this country. So when you look at the entire fix we are in, we are talking about a reallocation of resources. Democrats are talking about being smart, taking our resources and using it, stopping the drain on it, making sure that we don't have soldiers who are going over into Iraq for the third and fourth tour, or having soldiers, last we had about 30,000 marines called up, their retirement was cut short and having to go back to Iraq.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. No, it is not, and more of the same means this, Mr. Schiff: this is the latest report on terrorism, what the facts are. On 9/11, more than 5 years ago, there was an estimated number of al Qaeda numbers worldwide, and on 9/11/2001 it was 20,000. Now, the estimated number of al Qaeda numbers worldwide is 50,000. Then on 9/11/ 2001, the number of al Qaeda terrorist attacks in the 5 years before 9/ 11, three. The number of al Qaeda attacks in the 5 years since 9/11, 30. The number of days Osama bin Laden has been at large since U.S. military operations commenced in Afghanistan, 1,784 days and counting. What do we have to show for that? If we look again at the 2,600 American soldiers that we have loss in this war on terror, good brave soldiers, where we score the more of the same, no more of the same, no more of this staying the course on this course. We have got to correct the course and stay and fight the war on terror, deal with the situation in Iraq, but do it smartly with the resources we have.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much. It is good to be here with you and my good friend, Congressman Van Hollen, always a pleasure, and I commend both of you on your expert comments and thought-provoking comments here today. Accountability is the issue that we just left trippingly off our tongues. Accountability. The timing is right now for accountability. ``The buck stops here,'' as Harry Truman said. ``The buck stops here.'' And the buck is stopping within 9 or 10 weeks, for we are right around the corner from true accountability. That is accountability with our customers, our clients, the people who put us here. They want some accountability. We have all just come back from our August recess. Paramount on their minds is security. The American people have lost faith with the direction in which we are headed. Every poll speaks that. I don't care if it is the Fox poll, the CNN poll, the Washington Post poll, the ABC poll, every poll that has been taken speaks clearly; 63 percent of the American people are dissatisfied with the direction this country is moving in, in Iraq, and half of the people in this country are finally getting the picture, the ability to separate the war in Iraq from the war on terror. That is very fundamental. That is a sea change. That has been a very serious part of our problem, and it has really been the Achilles' heel of this administration, of the Bush administration. I think a serious mistake was made in trying to link the war on terror with the war in Iraq, and we have had a muddled policy ever since. It is no wonder then that here we are on the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11. If you would have told me 5 years ago, right after 9/11, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Van Hollen, that 5 years from now we would not have been able to catch Osama bin Laden; if you had told me 5 years ago that we will have expended 2,600 precious lives of our American soldiers in the so-called war on terror, and yet and still al Qaeda is still running around stronger than ever before and Osama bin Laden is turning out more videotapes and CDs than Michael Jackson ever did, 25 at the last count that he has turned out. And yet for this President to say that we are winning this, that we are succeeding, that we are safer? We are not safer, Mr. Schiff, when the butcher that masterminded that mass murder of our citizens and citizens of the world on 9/11 is still alive, and yet we know where he is. And, Mr. Schiff, he is not in Iraq. That was the mistake. What have we done? We have wasted precious resources, not only just in the lives of our precious soldiers there, but to the tune of nearly $3 billion every week. But Osama bin Laden is alive. Al Qaeda is alive. Terrorist attacks have increased over 250 percent since 9/11. No, we are not safer than where we were. And, yes, we have an accountability coming, and the American people are saying one important thing; they are saying we need a change. We don't need more of the same. Yes, the Republicans will throw out to us, if you get up here and criticize the President here, you are being un-American or you are not being patriotic or you are talking about ``cutting and running.'' We are talking as Democrats about being courageous, being bold and being smart. We will win this war on terror, but we will never win the war on terror as long as Osama bin Laden is running around on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We will never win this war on terror if we do not realize we are going to have to develop better intelligence. Military might alone won't do it, not in this war. We are not fighting states or countries. We are fighting non-state actors. We are fighting rogues. We are fighting folks who, like rats in the night, are looking for holes to scurry in. Now they are secure in that hole over there on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And you tell me how far we have come, when the government of Pakistan just last week condescended to them to give the terrorists safe haven in that section of Pakistan and Afghanistan. No, no, no, that is not winning this war. That strategy is not right. There is something wrong with this picture. They can talk and say all they want to say about Democrats, but the American people are very delighted and very pleased that Democrats are finally getting this Congress to stand up and be Congress. That is what they elected us for, to provide the oversight, to ask the questions. We control the purse strings. And before we turn loose these purse strings, we have to ask the questions the American people want to know. They want to know when are we getting to get and cut off the head of bin Laden? They want to know when are we going to arrest and solve this worldwide terror problem? Who would have thought, 5 years? On this anniversary, as we look, let us look at the landscape. Let's look at it clearly. Who would have thought that a terrorist group named Hezbollah would be basically running the nation of Lebanon? Who would have thought that a terrorist group, Hamas, would be running the Palestinians over in Palestine? Who would have thought that Iran would be on the verge of nuclear weapons? Who would have thought that North Korea would have eight nuclear weapons as we speak and the capacity of producing at least six or seven in a year's cycle? Unstable regimes. And who would have thought that China would be eating our lunch in two ways, two essential ways; not only in terms of the free market and the market economy that they are developing over there at the same time they have a planned socialist economy, but the fact that they are one of our largest creditors, and we are one of their largest debtors. We are borrowing $328 billion from China, a huge debt. Are we safer? I don't think so. And this administration has some serious questions that they have got to answer, and the American people are expecting it. I hope, Mr. Schiff, that each night that we can come on this floor, and we are going to take this national security, and we are going to show the American people that Democrats are stronger on national security. You know why? Because we are smarter. We are going to find bin Laden, and we are going to destroy him. We are going to beef up our resources in intelligence and the State Department because we know that this war on terror cannot be won strictly with bullets and bombs. It cannot be, for we are not dealing with a standing target to bomb. Nations we can. But we need to make friends with these nations. We have got the world's best military, but because we are in Iraq, our military is coming off at the wheels. I am not going to get into very direct specifics on that; I don't want the enemy to know. This is going over C-SPAN to the Nation. I don't want our enemies to know just what our situation is. But you know what it is, and I know what it is. Without question, we are the superior force. But, by Jove, we have got to keep it that way. That is the greatest deterrent to these terrorists, to know that we have that military capacity. But we won't be able to win the war on military alone. We have got to beef up the State Department. We have got to make sure we have the kinds of relationships with these countries that no nation would do what Pakistan has done. That is unconscionable. That is one of the great defeats that we have had. Democrats can change that. No, we don't want the same course. We want to get smart. We want to fight this war on terror, and we want to win it. And in order to win it, we have got to be smart.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to emphasize the importance of raising awareness about Lupus, as well as recognizing it as one of America's major diseases. It is important to note more Americans have this disease than cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis combined. In raising awareness about this devastating disease, I joined many of my colleagues in supporting increased funding for public and health professional programs which raise awareness and understanding about lupus. Furthermore, I stand with many of my colleagues in strengthening the Nation's research efforts to identify the causes of and cure for lupus. I believe one of the more important ways of raising awareness is encouraging education about the disease and recognizing the symptoms. However, as many of the symptoms experienced by those who have lupus mimic other diseases, lupus is very often hard to diagnose. There is no cure for lupus and researchers have yet to learn what causes the disease. It is of interest to note, lupus occurs more frequently in women and is also two to three times more common among African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to support September 9 through 10 as Lupus Awareness Weekend. I am hopeful with increased professional awareness and improved techniques for diagnosing patients we can ensure early treatment options as well as early diagnosis. It is of utmost importance we remain vigilant in improving access to information about this disease and ensuring funding levels remain adequate.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much to my distinguished colleague from Chicago, Congressman Davis; my distinguished colleague and Congressman from Georgia, John Lewis; to my distinguished colleagues from Georgia, Mr. Kingston, Dr. Price. I appreciate so much having this opportunity, and I am also pleased to join with my colleague Mr. Gingrey. I am honored on this day to recognize one of our Nation's most prestigious institutions of higher learning, and that is indeed Spelman College. Singularly devoted to the education of women, Spelman College now celebrates its 125th anniversary this year. What an extraordinary story this is, Mr. Speaker, because when you tell the story of Spelman, you are telling a truly genuine American story that represents the heart and soul of what America is all about. Spelman College is a private and historically black college that opened its doors less than two full decades after the Emancipation Proclamation and the ratification of the 13th amendment, and out of necessity, and it was necessary to provide educational opportunities for black women in the south when none existed. To get the proper perspective on this, Mr. Speaker, we must understand that it was not long, just a few years before this, when the law of the land was not to allow African Americans to even read a book. Just think of that: In this country, it was against the law for African Americans to even learn to read. It is within this backdrop that Spelman College stepped forward. Sophia B. Packard and Harriet E. Giles founded Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia, naming it first the Atlanta Baptist Female Seminary. It began as a comprehensive academy that provided education for women from elementary school all the way through to college. It was renamed Spelman Seminary in 1884 and underwent one final change, becoming Spelman College in 1924. Let me stop for a moment to give the importance of this name Spelman. It originated from a member of the distinguished Rockefeller family. For without John D. Rockefeller, it can arguably be said that there would have been no Spelman. Reflecting on the early relationship forged by this institution's founders, it was a unique relationship with John D. Rockefeller himself who provided necessary resources that ensured the longevity of this college. So as we celebrate the 125th anniversary of Spelman College, let us pay direct homage to the Rockefeller family, without whom this college would not have been. The academic achievements of its students and the rigor of its academic programs have brought numerous honors to this private college. Spelman was awarded a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa honor society in 1998, one of only four historically black colleges and universities to receive such an honor. In 2003, Spelman was named one of six institutions to receive a $4.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities to eliminate health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities. They put together a health and wellness initiative that set the standard for academic institutions' outreach to the community to improve health care. Spelman College did that. Throughout its history, Spelman's campus has grown, reflecting the addition of new programs and the strengthening of its renowned liberal arts program. A new academic center that houses several departments, a museum and the college archives resulted from a $20 million donation from Bill and Camille Cosby. Indeed, an institution lives in the hearts and minds of the people who inhabit it, and Spelman's many accomplished graduates include the founder of the Children's Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman; actress Esther Rolle; Pulitzer Prize novelist Alice Walker; and writer, Pearl Cleage. Many distinguished presidents have been at its helm, notably Dr. Johnetta Cole, the institution's first black female president and current president of Bennett College; Dr. Audrey Manley, former deputy Surgeon General; and current president, Dr. Beverly Tatum, administrator and clinical psychologist. What a great day this is, Mr. Speaker, for us to be able to stand here in this wonderful country and pay homage to Spelman College on its 125th anniversary. What a distinguished institution, and we are proud of the great service that it has given to African Americans for sure, but most definitely to this great Nation of America and the world.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the ranking member very much. This is indeed a ploy of the highest nature. There is nobody in this House that is more concerned about raising the minimum wage than Democrats. Seven times we have tried to raise the minimum wage. If this is such an important effort to raise the minimum wage, we ought to ask the question, why is every group that represents working people calling and asking to vote down this sham? You know, Mr. Speaker, William Shakespeare wrote an excellent play. He called it ``Julius Caesar.'' In that play, just when Brutus and Cassius and all were digging in the swords, Julius Caesar grabbed Brutus and said, ``Et tu, Brutus. Yours is the meanest cut of all.'' Mr. Speaker, I am telling you what the meanest cut of all in this bill is. They say we don't read the bills. But the American people need to know what this bill says. It says the Tax Relief Act of 2006 excludes all of the tipped employees' tips from being considered as wages in determining if such tipped employees have been paid the applicable minimum wage rate. This is the meanest cut of all in this bill. If it is right to give the minimum wage for one person, isn't it right to give it for everybody? There is nobody that deserves the minimum wage more than those people who are at the bottom of the ladder; and none are at the bottom of the ladder more than those people who have to make it on tips. This bill will not only not raise the minimum wage of those who make it on tips, 2.5 million Americans, their minimum wage will go down under this bill. Indeed, the meanest cut of all. We must vote down this bill and put forward a genuine bill that will truly raise the minimum wage for everybody.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and special privilege to address this great body on such an auspicious occasion. The Centennial Convention of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., commenced yesterday, marking 100 years from the fraternity's founding in Ithaca, NY, at Cornell University. This week in Washington, DC, men from every discipline and geographic location convene to chart and plan for the fraternity's future, celebrate its 100th anniversary, and reinvigorate its founding principles, scholarship, fellowship, good character, and the uplifting of humanity. As a proud member of this fraternity, I feel special esteem in recognizing the historical significance of the centennial anniversary of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. I joined the ranks of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., as an undergraduate student at Florida A&M University to follow in the footsteps of many great men before me, such as W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Edward Brooke, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Andrew Young, William Gray, and Paul Robeson. I am pleased to join with the entire House in recognizing the fraternity's 100th anniversary with the passage of H. Con. Res. 384, ``Recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans.'' I commend my brethren and the leadership of the organization for the achievements and accomplishments made thus far. On this historic occasion let us march forth to lay the groundwork for another 100 years.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Ross, again, as always, it is a pleasure to join you on the floor. And I can tell you that our folks down in Georgia are really, really concerned about the debt, as they are all across this Nation. I think it is important for us to really draw some dramatic pictures of just how devastating this debt is. And you talked a few minutes ago about one feature that I want to spend just a few minutes on at the outset before we go into some of the other areas. But I think the American people need to understand this issue of foreign debt, of our indebtedness in the hands of foreign governments. Now, I want to say right up front that we have no problem with doing business with other countries, we have no problem with having indebted relationships with other countries. But when you look at this sterling fact, you will say enough is enough. And the one glaring fact is that in the last 5 years, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Speaker, this President in collaboration with this Congress, because the President couldn't do it by himself, we all must take blame. But we have borrowed more money from foreign governments and foreign financial institutions in the last 5 years than in the entire preceding 211 years of existence of the United States of America. Think about it. Since 1789 up to 2001, we borrowed $1.4 trillion from foreign governments. In the last 5 years, we have borrowed over $1.6 trillion just in the last 5 years. That alone is enough to scare the pants off of anybody. It is paramount, if we are going to say with any kind of a way in which we can look the American people in the eye and say we want to be good stewards of your money, we want to have financial security in this country, financial stability, then the wrong thing for us to do is to have this kind of indebtedness in the world. Now, let's look at where that indebtedness is. Up against a screen of what the world looks like as particularly as we look at the war on terror, that is of paramount concern. Where are we borrowing this money from? You went through the litany just now of the top ten places. They are concentrated in the Middle East, OPEC countries, and they are concentrated in the Far East, very, very volatile insecure places, and with countries particularly like China that is not exactly playing the way they need and should play as we tackle this war on terror. Then, if we add the oil dependency in and the energy dependence on the Middle East and where we are borrowing money from, coupled with what is happening over there right as we speak, who is it that apparently, as of this time, is running the Middle East? An interesting thing happened to me when I was in the Middle East not too long ago. I went up and traveled up on the Golden Heights. And if you go up on the Golden Heights and you go far to the outposts in that northeast boundary of Israel where Syria and where Lebanon are on one side, then you have Syria, and I looked over through the high-powered binoculars that the Israeli people had that we could look over the border. And do you know what I saw, Mr. Ross? Do you know what I saw, Mr. Speaker? It wasn't the flag of Lebanon that was flying, it was the flag of Hezbollah. That tells you something. The point that I am saying is not only is it against our financial security to have so much indebtedness in that unstable part of the world with some of those regimes, but it is not in the best interest of our national security as well. Now, on the other side of borrowing the money is an issue that we certainly need to touch upon, Mr. Ross, and that is the amount of money that we are spending and giving these countries just to borrow the money, the interest. It is the fastest growing element in our budget, over $185 billion just this past year we paid in interest just to borrow the money, which is more than what we spend for veterans, for education, to protect the environment, all together. So the point I am simply saying is that as we examine this issue, and like I say, I don't look at this as a partisan issue, I look at this as an American issue, an issue that we have all got to jump in here and deal with. This is the future of our country. And if we don't have financial security, we certainly are not going to have national security for long.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I just want to mention quite quickly, because I want the American people to understand that while we as Democrats are here and we are critiquing, we are providing the results of this oversight. And when you look at the front page of the USA Today on yesterday, they reported an interesting fact. They said that the Federal Government is now spending 20.8 cents of every dollar we make, of every dollar produced in this country, the Federal Government is spending 20.8 cents. That has increased in the last 5 years. That percentage was only 18.5 percent in 2001. This is serious business. And I am here to tell you that when you get out in the District, when you get out to my folks down in Georgia, they are concerned about their money. They are concerned about what we are doing up here to bring down this debt and bring some accountability to the finances of this country. We can't have this runaway train. We can't have this debt being held in the hands of foreign governments the way it is. We can't continue to be borrowing all of this money and laying it on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. This is not our money. It is the people's money. We have to start treating it much better. Now, what are we going to do about it? And I think the American people are probably saying, okay, we are listening to those Blue Dogs down there and they are talking about President Bush and the Republicans, but what are they going to do. Why don't we hear from you and see what you are going to do about this. Well, I want to offer and let the folks know that we Democrats are offering to do a couple of things. I want to draw attention, so that the American people will know, that we in the Blue Dog Coalition have a proposal that will restore accountability. It is contained in House Resolution 841 by our good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and it will require congressional hearings. Because remember what I mentioned at the first. We have two basic functions here, one is oversight and the other is tax allocation. So within 60 days of an IG report that identifies waste, that identifies fraud, that identifies abuse, that raises a red flag of mismanagement of more than $1 million, we immediately trigger congressional hearings. Let us get it before C-SPAN. Let the people know. Let us put the spotlight on it. Let us immediately say, whoa, whoa, this is wrong here. Let us have hearings on this and let us have oversight and insight into this issue. When the GAO names an agency high risk for mismanagement, that is cause for a hearing so that we can open that up and find out what is going on. You can't stick your head in the sand. That is bad management. That is not oversight. That is not taking care of your money. If your credit card runs up, mom and pop down home, they have to watch that. Red flag comes up, mom and pop are going to sit down at the kitchen table and say, wait a minute, we have to rein in some stuff here. Where is this money going; why is this happening. If mom and pop around the kitchen table back in Georgia can do this, surely this Congress must do it and be responsible for the money. At least twice a year to have hearings to review the Office of Management and Budget's performance based review, called program assessments rating, part two. Then we have another bill, H.R. 5315, by our friend from California, Representative Cardoza, another distinguished member of this Blue Dog Coalition, called Accountability in Government Act of 2006. It will require that each Federal agency produce an audit within 2 years that complies with the standards established in the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. Why pass the Act in 1996 as a tool if we are not going to use it? Congressman Cardoza is saying let us pull it out and let us use it. Let us have a measuring device. Secondly, that the Senate should hold reconfirmation hearings on any cabinet level official whose agency cannot fully account for its spending within 2 years. We have had agency after agency come before us. I am on the Financial Services Committee. We have the Treasury Department come, we have HUD, we have all these agencies coming before us that we are accountable for, and time and time again, I ask them the question, where did this money go? Do you have a measuring system in there? Do you have accountability? Well, no, Congressman, we just don't have it. We have to hold everybody's feet to the fire and bring financial security back into America's government.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention just one other point, too, that I think we need to bring out and that is government contracting under the Bush administration. We cannot be fearful to do our jobs. We get out here and we run every other year and we tell people we are going to go up there and do the job of a Congressman. As I mentioned, there are two things we have got to do: make sure we are good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and then do the oversight. Well, here is what our oversight has pulled out. Between 2000 and 2005, the value of Federal contracts increased by 86 percent, from $203 billion in 2002 to $377.5 billion in 2005. This growth in contracting was over five times faster than the overall inflation rate and almost twice as fast as the growth in other discretionary Federal spending over this period; and as a result of the rapid growth in procurement spending, nearly 40 cents of every discretionary Federal dollar now goes to private contractors, a record level, and Federal procurement spending is highly concentrated on a few, just a few, large contractors with the five largest Federal contractors receiving over 20 percent of the contracting dollars awarded in 2005. The fastest growing contractor under the Bush administration has been Halliburton. Federal spending in Halliburton contracts increased over 600 percent between 2000 and 2005. All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is we have got to look and examine how the taxpayers' dollars are being spent. I mean, you are talking about 24 cents out of every dollar we make we are spending. Ought not we ask these serious questions? Ought not we do the people's business of making sure how their money is being spent?

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. And finally, Mr. Ross, we must begin to search and use our creativity to develop a way to put a curb, a ceiling, some restraint on how much we can borrow from foreign governments. If there is one danger down the road that this country faces, history proves me out, the bleached bones of civilization that go far back of civilizations that waited too late to curb their borrowing from foreign countries. You look at so many of these great civilizations that have gone and nations, wars that happened. What happens if China over there just all of a sudden wants to sell our paper to another competing economy? When you have so much of your wealth, so much of your financial security in the hands of other countries who do not have your best interest at heart, we are asking for trouble. So that is why I say, finally, we must put a curb on how much money we can borrow and get in debt from these foreign governments.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Absolutely correct, and as we cannot talk about accountability, we cannot talk about the budget financial responsibility, national security without examining where we are in Iraq at this time. And we cannot do it for the obvious reason that the American people are expecting us now to ask the questions and to finally stand up as a Congress and do what the Constitution and the Founding Fathers laid out the Congress to do. They laid out the Congress to do two essential things. One was to determine how our tax dollars are appropriated, all of that starts here, and the other is oversight, and we have not done a good job of oversight. That is one of the reasons why the American people, in many ways, are very frustrated. We have not asked the tough questions. Some of us have asked the tough questions but not enough of us, and I am so thankful for the Dubai incident because that opened up everybody's eyes to really see. When that Dubai incident happened and all of the sudden we were going to turn over port security to the United Arab Emirates, a country in which we knew from our intelligence that terrorist financing was emanating from, a country that owned Dubai, that owned the company which we know was sending nuclear fusion material into Iran, and that did have direct financial relationships through their connecting financial centers in terrorist financing with al Qaeda, all of this came to our attention. When the administration said we are going to turn our port security over to a company owned by this country, it woke us all up; and finally, in a bipartisan way, we stood up and we rejected. That, to me, was a turning moment when Congress stood up and said let us be the Congress. So I think that Congress has a responsibility, definitely under the Constitution, to conduct oversight of the executive branch. We failed to conduct meaningful investigations of allegations of serious waste, fraud and abuse, much of what you talked about with Halliburton, and the people are expecting us to do this. Now, in the situation in Iraq, and let me just digress for just one moment, because I agree with you, President Bush is very good at saying, well, if you do not agree with me, you are weak on national security or you do not care about the war on terror. Nobody, there is not a Congressman in this place that stands stronger for national security, defense and support of our military than you and me and our Blue Dog Coalition. Our record speaks for itself. I have been to Iraq. I have been to Afghanistan. We all have been there to see about our soldiers. We know and we care, but the question has to be asked now, What are we doing there? What is the mission? I mean, when we decided to go in, I was not here to cast that vote. I was the first class of Congress to come in after it was decided, but the decision was made to go because we had evidence that came to us. Colin Powell went before national television and went before all of us and laid it out. We took them at their word. We took them at their word that Saddam Hussein had the capacity and demonstrated evidence of having weapons of mass destruction, that there was evidence that there was a direct link and relationship between al Qaeda. It was there. It would have been foolhardy for anybody to stand up and say you do not care about security to ignore that. We took the administration at the value of truth and we supported that to go in. We sent our troops into harm's way. We discovered there were no weapons of mass destruction. Okay. Job done. Should have been complete. Fine. Let us head on out of here. We have done the mission. But then the mission changed, on the dime. It then became we have got to get Saddam Hussein. Well, our soldiers went to work, did a remarkable job, found him in a hole and pulled him out. Mission accomplished. We were there. Then the mission changes again. We have got to rebuild the country. We have got put democracy in place. We have got to have free elections. Well, our soldiers went to work. They did not go over there to nation-build. They went over there to find weapons of mass destruction, but they become nation-builders. We got in there. Now all of the sudden we are into a civil war. We are into a situation there, terribly trying to climb out. We have got to solve this situation, but Congress has got to roll up its sleeves and play a clearer role and a more definitive role in how the American taxpayers' dollars, how we are being good stewards of their tax dollars in national security and financial security and all that we do. I want to just comment on, if I may, for a moment on the responsibility in terms of getting fraud and abuse and mismanagement of the taxpayer dollars out in the open. I just want to share a couple of points here. One is in fiscal year 2005, auditors of 19 of 24 Federal agencies could not routinely produce reliable, useful and timely financial audit information according to the General Accountability Office. In fiscal year 2003, $25 billion of taxpayers' money went unaccounted for according to the Treasury Department. That unreconciled money could have been used to fund the entire Department of Justice for a full year, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, not a liberal foundation. This is the Heritage Foundation. They stated this point.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much Representative Davis, and what a pleasure it is to join all of my fellow Members of Congress on this historic day for this historic occasion, which is to truly recognize 100 years of sojourning for truth by this extraordinary fraternal organization. I stand before you as living proof of the greatness of our Alpha Phi Alpha. I was brought into Alpha Phi Alpha when I was 18 years old, 1964, at Florida A&M University in the Beta Nu chapter, and it is not a stretch to say that if it were not for Alpha Phi Alpha, David Scott would not be standing in this prestigious place called the Congress of the United States, for I, like every Alpha member, and every Alpha brother, owe so much to the sturdiness of that organization to at an early age instill in so many young men, African American young men or boys and turn African American boys into men, to understand the importance of brotherhood, to understand the importance of commitment, of discipline, of focus, to learn early in your life that if you want to be something, if you want to be somebody, the first place you have to look is in the mirror because the answer lies deep within yourself. 1906 to 2006, 100 years of greatness that mirrors 100 years of greatness in the greatest country on the face of the Earth, the United States of America; and at every step of the way in that great journey of the last 100 years, the men of Alpha have played a pivotal role, all the way from World War I, where we had Alpha men who fought in Europe; all the way up through the Great Depression, when America had to go through the great economic throes that we did, men and women of Alpha worked in the work plant, worked right there with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's plan. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked America in the eye and said we do not have anything to fear but fear itself, Alpha was there to take that challenge. Through World War II, Alpha men fought on the beaches of Normandy. All the way from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, Alpha men were there fighting for this country. And when the challenge came to desegregate the schools, the leader of that, Thurgood Marshall, was an Alpha man who stood tall. And when the call came out, who would go for us and who shall we send to lead the charge in the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King stood strong, a 26-year-old man, and said here I am, Lord, send me. Alpha. So it is with great feeling and great expression that I join every Member of this House of Representatives to give the proper respect to an organization on whose shoulders we in this House rest. We are eight Members of Alpha in this House, and we are so proud because as we look back through our history, we know that we stand here on the shoulders of Adam Clayton Powell. When there were only a few, maybe one, maybe two, African Americans that sat in this Chamber, it gave hope that we, too, could one day come. I am so proud and I thank this House of Representatives for recognizing Alpha Phi Alpha.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment by Congressman Westmoreland, my colleague from Georgia, is the most treacherous and dangerous of the amendments. There is no amendment that clearly points out what the desires have been for all four of these amendments. Their goal has been one thing and one thing only, and that is to kill the Voting Rights Act. We cannot allow that to happen. We must understand what those words from Thomas Jefferson truly meant when he said that ``we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' And there is nothing to give us that right more succinctly and more importantly than the right to vote and to think that my colleagues from Georgia are the ones leading this dastardly fight to deny the right to vote to African Americans.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we understand, and I want to direct my remarks to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Congressman Norwood, who is a very good friend. But, unfortunately, Congressman Norwood is dead wrong in his amendment and his approach. When he talks about Georgia's record, he is dead wrong with that record. While, yes, we have made some progress in Georgia, I am a living testimony to that, the fundamental question of the Voting Rights Act is not if there has been progress made. The question is will that progress be in risk of being undone if we do not have the Voting Rights Act? And no State gives clearer evidence that progress will be undone than my own State of Georgia. Georgia leads this Nation in the violations of the Voting Rights Act in the last 25 years. No more glaring example than what is currently now whistling through the newspapers and whistling through this Nation, and that is the voter ID bill that has been passed in Georgia. Twice it has come up and twice it has been ruled as discriminatory. Yes, we have made progress. But my dear friend from Georgia, we have a much longer progress to go, and we desperately need to keep section 5 covered.