Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the testimony that was just given by the gentlewoman spoke to another amendment, certainly not to the one that is on the floor. This amendment is tailored specifically to HIV/AIDS. It has nothing to do with intellectual property and any of the other areas that she described.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I speak today to honor a man who was a tribute to his court, his state, and his nation. Justice Stanley Mosk of the California State Supreme Court leaves behind a legacy of his strong belief in civil rights and free speech. It is my hope that Governor Gray Davis will seek out another advocate for the people to step into Justice Mosk's shoes. Justice Mosk will be remembered for many things. He was often on the forefront of legal issues. Back in 1947, when he was a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court, Justice Mosk threw out a racially restrictive covenant that prevented a black family from moving into a white neighborhood. That case, Wright v. Drye, came out a year before the United States Supreme Court made its own similar decision in Shelley v. Kramer. In 1978, Justice Mosk again led the U.S. Supreme Court in ground- breaking decisions. In that year, he ruled for a ban on racial discrimination in jury selection. The U.S. Supreme Court waited eight years before making the same ruling. Justice Mosk promoted civil rights from an early stage in his career. While serving as the California State Attorney General in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Justice Mosk established the office's civil rights division. He also successfully fought against the Professionals Golfers' Association bylaws that denied across to minority golfers. Justice Mosk went further than that--actually contacting each state's attorney general on this matter, to ensure that no state would provide the PGA with a place to hide. Charlie Sifford, the African-American golfer whose cause Justice Mosk took up, sent a note to the Mosk family after hearing of Justice Mosk's death. Justice Mosk worked to improve voting rights long before the disasters that occurred in last year's election. He fought successfully for Latino voting rights in the 1960 election in Imperial Valley. He did what we should do in our present day elections--he sent agents down to the Valley to be sure that the voters weren't being intimidated. Justice Mosk was also an extremely productive judge, producing nearly 1700 rulings during his tenure on the California State Supeme Court. The State of California has lost not only a great justice and strong advocate, but a true legacy. His presence will be missed by those who worked with him, and his absence will be felt by those on whose behalf he worked.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act, and in support of the substitute. I believe that its purpose is questionable and its approach excessive. The current fees on the sale of stock amount to just 33 cents per $10,000 of transactions. In other words, most individuals will likely presently spend more to buy a newspaper to read the stock prices than they do on these transactions. This bill would reduce revenues by approximately $14 billion between 2002 and 2011. I am concerned, especially in light of the recently- enacted tax cut and the need for funding such critical areas, including education, and some relief from high energy prices for my constituents in California, as well as ensuring the solvency of Social Security, that H.R. 1088 is simply cutting too much too soon. I am an original cosponsor of the Democratic alternative, H.R. 1480, the Fairness in Securities Transactions Act, which represents a reasonable approach to this issue. The substitute will lower fees by $4.8 billion over 10 years, as opposed to the $14 billion in the bill before us. In addition, the substitute, like the underlying bill, gives the SEC the ability to match the pay and benefits of Federal banking regulators to address the SEC's inability to attract and retain qualified staff, no matter what their pay grade or job title. It is important to resolve the differences between the salaries of SEC employees and employees of other Federal regulatory agencies, because the SEC pays as much as 40 percent less than the other financial regulatory agencies. The SEC has lost more than 1,000 employees over 3 years, which is more than one-third its total staff. Attrition at the agency has doubled the government average. With the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act last Congress, the distinctions between the job of an SEC lawyer and a Fed lawyer, for example, have become even more blurred. It is crucial that the SEC have the ability to obtain and retain qualified staff so that investors can receive the protection they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative and oppose H.R. 1088.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) very much for allowing me to take these 4 minutes to speak about my friend Shirley Chisholm. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for organizing us around this special recognition. I am delighted to join with my colleagues here today as we recognize the accomplishments of someone who has been truly a leader, a role model, and my friend. Shirley Anita Chisholm is one of the most inspirational women that I have ever met, and this is a woman with an impressive legacy. Early on, she spoke out on behalf of the people who most needed a voice. She spoke out for children, minorities and women. To this day, her commitment to the underrepresented has never failed. In 1964, Shirley Chisholm won by a landslide a seat on the New York State Assembly. There one of her initiatives was to author legislation that instituted a program known as SEEK, a program providing college funding to disadvantaged youth. Four years later, Shirley Chisholm made history. She became the first woman, the first African American and the first African-American woman to be elected to Congress. Mrs. Chisholm served seven terms as a Member of the House of Representatives. During that time, Shirley Chisholm advocated not only for the rights of blacks, but also for the rights of other people of color, including Native Americans and Spanish-speaking migrants. She would not stand for discrimination of any kind. In her congressional office, Ms. Chisholm went against tradition of the time that paid men higher wages than women. In addition, she broke down barriers that prevented women from being promoted to certain positions. While in Congress, Shirley Chisholm continued the struggle for equality, leading the drive to expand the coverage of minimum wage legislation to include domestic workers. She also was a leader in the effort to end forced sterilization of mental health patients. The woman we honor today took other bold steps as well. In 1972, she broke boundaries by campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her efforts opened the door to later campaigns. Shirley Chisholm has been involved in numerous endeavors. She has written two books, including the one that we will hear discussed most when people talk about Shirley Chisholm, ``Unbought and Unbossed,'' her autobiography to 1970. From 1983 to 1987, she held the Purington Chair at Mount Holyoke College. In 1984, Shirley Chisholm and I joined with a group of 34 African- American women leaders to form the National Political Congress of Black Women. Ms. Chisholm later served as the first chair of that organization. That organization is still going strong today with C. Dolores Tucker as its leader. Shirley Chisholm's efforts must not be forgotten. The fact that they are so extraordinary provides us with a clear sign that we have not yet done enough. It is my hope that by honoring her today, we are taking one more step to the justice and equality we need in this country. Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) talk about how she was inspired by Shirley Chisholm. I think that all of us as women Members of Congress could not help but be inspired by Shirley Chisholm no matter on which side of the aisle we serve. Certainly we all knew about her, and certainly we all aspire to be like her. There is one thing that I would like to have said about me, is that I am as feisty as Shirley Chisholm and that I too am unbought and unbossed. If I could get that said about me, that would be worth everything.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, today the House passed a bill introduced by Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Gekas. This bill, H.R. 1885, seeks to extend for four months provision 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. I was not able to be present for that vote, but I write today to state my support for reinstatement of 245(i). 245(i) allows certain undocumented immigrants to adjust their status while remaining in this country. Without that provision, they are forced to return home for a period of three to ten years before they can gain legal residency. This means, for example, that if someone from the Phillippines who lacks legal status marries a U.S. citizen, the couple must either be separated for several years, or they must both move to the Phillippines for the necessary time period. Either option is problematic. In 1994, 245(i) was created to provide a third option--one which allowed the couple to remain together in the United States while the undocumented immigrant sought legal status. Unfortunately, that provision expired in 1998. Last December, 245(i) was revived for a four-month period. It has become clear that there were problems with that time frame. Specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was unable to process all of the applications by April 30, the date of expiration. In addition, immigrants were not able to comply with the complex paperwork requirements in that four month time frame. I applaud the efforts of Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Gekas in seeking to reinstate 245(i) again. However, their efforts do not go far enough. We should not stop by providing another four-month window of opportunity. Instead, we should reenact 245(i) as a permanent provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Punishing people who have legitimate claims to legal residency by forcing them to leave the country for several years is not an acceptable solution. We should provide them an avenue by which they can stay here while their application is pending.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, as I work with the committee members and as I listen to all that has been said here today, and as I stand here as an African American woman, and to my right I have a gentleman representing Texas of Hispanic descent, and I have here on my left the gentleman from Maryland, a Caucasian gentleman, we are really the rainbow of America on this issue. I think that all Americans, no matter where we are in this country, no matter what our backgrounds are, all Americans care about this cornerstone of democracy. Would the gentleman say this is a very central issue?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for participating with me today. They have both stated so clearly and in so many ways that something is wrong with the system and we perhaps fell asleep at the wheel, and we allowed the infrastructure to kind of fall apart. Many of us thought with the 1965 Voting Rights Act that we had gotten rid of all of the problems. Little did we know that we would reach a time when we could not recruit polling place workers. Little did we know that we would have a system that did not train them so they would know what to do when a provisional ballot was needed. Little did we ever dream that we would find ourselves at a time when there is a polling place with almost 100 percent Latino voters and no one to do translation, or to make sure that they have access to that vote and to that ballot. I want Members to know how proud I am to serve here in the Congress of the United States, and to serve with Members who care so much that they make this their priority work. I want Members to know how proud I am to be able to do the kind of work my ancestors would certainly have me do, and I am so proud that I have been given this opportunity, and that the people who have joined with me appointed to this committee are working very hard. Yes, we have been to Texas, we have been to Pennsylvania, and we are on our way to Chicago, a place that really does need us. It has needed us for a long time. We are on our way there to find out what we can do to strengthen the system. But we will be going to many other places. Let me conclude by saying, as a Californian, a suit has been filed in California by the ACLU because, as sophisticated as we are supposed to be, guess what, we rank right up there with some of the other States like Illinois where votes are thrown out, not counted, because of overvoting and other problems in the system. So hopefully both Members will be able to join me in California as we take a look at this suit and see what we can do.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for all of the time and attention he has given to the efforts of this committee. It is because of his diligent work and his efforts that we are going to be successful in helping to reform the election systems of this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, not only for his participation here today, but for his participation on this very special committee. He has been at every meeting, and I want my colleagues to know that he rolled out the red carpet for us in San Antonio where we had an excellent hearing and we learned an awful lot about purging and had testimony from Mrs. Carmen Martinez, who told us about what happened to her there. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland as much time as he may consume. While the gentleman is coming to the microphone, I would like to say that we are so happy to have him on this committee. He has contributed tremendously to our work already; not only has he been involved with us as we have traveled, but he has been to all of the meetings that we hold every Tuesday, and he has been working very hard, trying to bridge the gap between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle, to come up with legislation that will move us forward in reform. I thank the gentleman so very much for all that he has done.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Maryland so very much for all of the work that he has put into this issue of election reform. I thank him for the attention he has paid to the committee, and I thank him for the work that he is doing to come up with legislation dealing with this technology. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Maryland to join me as we close out in a colloquy just reinforcing how important this issue is. I would just like to say to the gentleman from Texas, I was listening to him as he talked about the work of his father, a man that I loved dearly and paid a lot of attention to, and hope to follow in his footsteps, by the way. I thought about the work that I have done here, the issues I have been involved in: women's issues, women's health issues, criminal justice issues, AIDS issues, foreign affairs issues, et cetera. But I think that this work that we are doing on election reform may be the most important work that I will do in my entire career here in the Congress of the United States. Do Members feel that this work holds that kind of priority, I ask the gentleman?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to open a discussion on election reform. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, as chair of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, I stand before Congress today to urge this body to respond to the unrelenting public outcry for comprehensive election reform legislation. Election reform is an issue that transcends all partisan politics. The right to vote is the very cornerstone of our democracy. Earlier this year I was honored to be appointed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) House minority leader, to chair the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform. I am very pleased to be joined on that committee by a prestigious group of representatives, including the ranking members of the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary. As a matter of fact, many of those on that committee may serve as speakers here today. The goal of our committee is to ensure the integrity of the election process while increasing voter confidence and participation. While the Florida experience is still fresh in our mind, this committee has begun a thorough review of nationwide voting practices and election laws in an effort to restore the confidence of the American people. We anticipate that our committee will propose legislation designed to serve our goals, identify key areas where uniform national standards may be appropriate, and make recommendations to Congress on the implementation of changes at the State and local levels. On April 2, 2001, we held our first hearing in Philadelphia, the cradle of American democracy, and we learned firsthand from Philadelphia voters that when their names were not found on precinct rosters, they were forced to have to travel to police stations to see a judge to determine if they could vote. Many voters confronted with this form of provisional voting ended up not voting at all, because they were intimidated by the idea of having to go to a police station or because it was just a logistical nightmare. At our second hearing in San Antonio, Texas on April 20, we heard testimony from registered voter Mrs. Carmen Martinez who was denied her right to vote in the November elections because her name had been erroneously purged from state voter polls. The Texas Secretary of State who also testified explained that Texas' practice of purging voter rolls resulted in 750,000 voters removed from the polls last year. In Texas names are purged from voter rolls as a result of confirmation notices mailed by county registrars which are returned as undeliverable or indicating a return of address. However, Mrs. Martinez explained that she had never lived at any other address since the day she registered to vote. On Saturday our committee will travel to Chicago, Illinois, where more ballots were discarded in the last election than in any other major city in the country. A hand-examination of the 123,000 discarded ballots found that the number one reason for the uncounted ballots was faulty ballot punches. We recognize that in many States they are indeed in the process of approving reforms to their election systems. Most of these reforms relate to modernizing outdated voting equipment and machinery. The committee applauds these efforts to upgrade from punch card or lever voting systems to touch screen or optical scan systems, and we support these reforms. But technological advances in voting equipment alone will not solve all of the problems of our electoral process. The committee intends to thoroughly examine issues relating to poll worker recruitment and training, national holidays or time off for voting, uniform voting standards, absentee voting, and standardized recount and vote certification procedures. Particular attention needs to be focused on issues relating to voter disenfranchisement, like the purging of voter rolls, voter identification requirements, provisional balloting, voter education, ballot design, sensitivity to poorly educated voters, and voters with disabilities, voting rights and voter intimidation issues. These issues have a disproportionate effect on voters in minority communities. We are monitoring civil rights lawsuits that have been filed in California, Florida, Illinois and St. Louis among others involving many of these issues. Equally important is the disenfranchisement of overseas military personnel. Congress is uniquely situated to implement uniform standards to ensure that American men and women serving overseas have their voices heard in our elections. Similar reforms must be adopted for other U.S. citizens living abroad. Congress must indeed take the lead role in restoring voter confidence in our election system and increasing voter participation. Given the resources available to Congress and the studies being developed by other organizations and commissions, Congress is in the best position to identify key areas where uniform, national standards may very well be appropriate. We need to pass legislation and propose recommendations for changes at the State and local levels to ensure that every vote is indeed counted. As chair of this committee, I will do everything in my power to see that we accomplish these goals on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I know that just as I and the Members who serve on this committee are concerned about voter reform, we have members in the Senate who are very much concerned and they too are working, holding hearings and putting together legislation. Just this morning, the Congressional Black Caucus met with many members of the United States Senate. At that meeting, we heard from Senator Dodd about legislation that he is proposing. We also heard more about the legislation that is being proposed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). And we know that we have many other Members, even some of the Members who serve on our special committee, such as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and also the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), all who have introduced legislation. So we have many pieces of legislation that are being introduced. I think our committee will be able to examine this legislation and we will be able to give input and recommendation to those who will end up being the final persons who will present legislation, both in this body and in the other body, to come up with legislation that can indeed carry us into election reform. We are concerned, however. There is no money in the budget for election reform. And we are surprised about that. We had talked at length to representatives of this administration about election reform and we had been told that it was important to the President and that it was important to even the Republican Conference. But we have not been able to get any commitments for the resources that are necessary to help some of these jurisdictions who have little or no money to deal with just the simple problems of replacing punch card systems and getting rid of machines that do not work. We will continue to try to encourage the President and Members on the other side of the aisle to get involved in this issue, to help us get the resources that we need in order to make reform a reality. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to share with us the important work that she is doing on provisional balloting in the election process.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the gentlewoman from Chicago for all of the work that she has done on election reform. She has been at every meeting. She has traveled with us both to Texas and to Pennsylvania and, of course, she is hosting us in Chicago this weekend. She is giving priority time to this issue. And it is because of the kind of work that she is doing, we are going to be able to help set some standards on issues such as provisional balloting. Now it is my great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina to deal with the bill and some issues that he has been working with on election reform. I thank him for all of the time and attention that he has given to us as we have tried to put together this committee and gather the information that we need to make the recommendations to this House.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order today.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting all year to get details of a proposed budget, and we have been forced to vote on crucial issues such as a tax cut without seeing the budget. Now we are being forced to vote on a budget on which we have had no input and only have gotten access to because of human error. This type of process is unfair and extremely heavy-handed. President Bush promised the American people he would be the education President. He campaigned on a slogan of, ``Leave no child behind.'' When he gave his State of the Union address, he stated, ``Education is my top priority, and by supporting this budget you will make it yours as well.'' Yet this budget has no substantial new funding for education. The President's ostensible commitment to education, like his ostensible commitment to bipartisanship, is a hoax. He took $288 billion over the next 10 years out of the budget for education. This amount had bipartisan support in the Senate, yet the conference agreement eliminates 98 percent of that increased funding. This measly 2 percent increase amounts to a mere $13 per student per year. The balanced budget the Democrats offered and that Republicans unanimously rejected called for a $112 billion increase in education funding over 10 years. This funding would have provided for class size reductions, school renovation, teacher recruitment, increased funds for special education, expansion of Pell grants and additional funds for Head Start. Announcing support for education without providing funding to back it up is no more than another empty promise from a President whose legacy will more likely be his consistent flip-flop on crucial issues rather than any proposed commitment to education. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are going to hear a lot about education this evening. He promised, he promised. He has broken that promise in the way that he has put this budget together. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 974, the Small Business Checking Act of 2001, which represents an example of mixed-up budget priorities. It is particularly inappropriate to consider this extraordinarily unbalanced legislation under suspension of the rules, denying my colleagues who are not members of the Financial Services Committee an opportunity to have their concerns addressed. I agree that the Depression-era ban on interest-bearing business checking accounts serves no public policy purpose, and I would have supported repeal of the prohibition, provided it had been accomplished in a clean bill. However, I cannot in good conscience support this bill because it contains a provision that results in a transfer of taxpayer money to a very small segment of the country's largest and most powerful depository institutions, while other budget priorities are left unfunded or underfunded. The provision permitting the Federal Reserve banks to pay interest on the sterile reserves maintained by depository institutions in Federal Reserve Banks will result in the annual transfer of about $100 million in real taxpayer dollars to about 1700 of the approximately 21,000 depository institutions in this country. Thirty of the largest, most powerful financial institutions will receive one-third of the interest that the Federal Reserve Banks will pay out each year. The Administration has proposed a broad-based tax cut proposal that will consume $2 trillion of the budget surplus. We do not know how we will pay for the President's tax cut, while meeting the other budget priorities of the Administration, addressing critical needs of the American public, paying down the debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare. Yet, the Small Business Checking Act will make the job harder by using $1.1 billion of the surplus over ten years to provide a benefit to a very small subset of the American taxpayers. The $1.1 billion could be put to better use by providing adequate funding for combating AIDS in Africa or restoring part of the $2 billion in housing cuts the Administration has proposed or, even, tax relief for the average taxpayer.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the budget that President Bush and his Republican colleagues have put together. It is a disgrace. Not only will it return the country to the era of big deficits and high interest rates, President Bush does not keep the promises he made to our country's students. Throughout his campaign then-Governor Bush promised American students he would increase funding to the Pell Grant program, and he said he would provide a maximum grant of $5,100. This would enable more students to obtain a college education. However, in the Bush budget the Republicans have laid out for us, the maximum Pell Grant will only be $3,900, an increase of only $150. Nearly $1,100 separate this budget from President Bush's campaign promise. In addition, Bush breaks his promise to provide funding so that students can have the facilities and equipment they need. Instead of slashing by two-thirds programs to purchase computers and Internet access for poor and underserved areas, we need to increase the funding for our schools. The Bush budget provides funding for charter schools to purchase buildings and materials at a time when our public schools are crumbling. Many schools do not have heating, air conditioning or plumbing that works properly. The Republicans claim the Department of Education's budget is increasing 11 percent. However, after accounting for the redirecting of funds already appropriated, President Bush's budget only increases funding by 5.7 percent. In just one example, Republicans eliminate the school renovation program but redirect $1.2 billion from last year's budget. I ask for a no vote on this budget. It does not keep the promise. He is indeed leaving children behind.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for organizing this effort tonight to address this critical issue of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. I would like to also thank all of my colleagues who have extended their day to be here this evening to help draw additional attention to this issue. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is having a severe impact on many developing countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa. Approximately 17 million Africans have died of AIDS, including 2.4 million who lost their lives in the year 2000 and an estimated 25 million people in sub- Saharan Africa are living with HIV. In South Africa alone, over 4 million people are living with HIV. That is almost 10 percent of the country's population. In 1997, the South African government passed a law to make HIV/AIDS drugs more affordable and available for its people. This law allows the importation of commercial drugs from sources other than the manufacturers, a practice called parallel importing, and authorizes the South African government to license local companies to manufacture generic drugs, a practice called compulsory licensing. International pharmaceutical companies opposed this law, and no less than 39 pharmaceutical companies sued the South African government to block its implementation. Hearings on this lawsuit are scheduled to resume in April. Two of the largest companies participating in the lawsuit, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb, have recently cut the prices they charge African countries for their AIDS drugs, but their prices remain well beyond the reach of the people of South Africa. I urge all 39 pharmaceutical companies to drop this case before the trial resumes next month. It is absolutely unconscionable that some of the world's wealthiest corporations are trying to prevent an African country from manufacturing or purchasing lifesaving medicines. These are the very same corporations that have steadfastly refused to make HIV/AIDS medicines available to impoverished people in sub-Saharan Africa at reasonable prices. It is time to let African countries take care of their people. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as TRIPS, is one of the international agreements enforced by the World Trade Organization, commonly referred to as WTO. The TRIPS agreement allows pharmaceutical companies to use their patents to prevent poor countries from producing and distributing affordable HIV/ AIDS medicines. As a result of the TRIPS agreement and pressure from the pharmaceutical companies, many people in developing countries have been denied lifesaving HIV/AIDS medicines because they simply cannot afford to pay the prices these companies demand. On March 7, 2001, I introduced H.R. 933, the Affordable HIV/AIDS Medicines for Poor Countries Act. This bill would allow developing countries faced with an HIV/AIDS crisis to enact legislation to expand the availability and affordability of HIV/AIDS medicines without worrying about whether the U.S. Government, the WTO or the multinational pharmaceutical companies will challenge their laws. This bill has over 35 cosponsors; and, of course, I urge all of my colleagues to join me and support H.R. 933. It would be indefensible for the WTO, which is dominated by the world's richest multinational companies, to deny poor people in the world's poorest countries simple life-prolonging medicines. It would also be indefensible for the United States to support pharmaceutical companies' efforts to prevent poor countries from making AIDS medicines available to their people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying, many of us spent a considerable amount of our time working to dismantle apartheid in South Africa. Many of us were involved at the State level in tremendous divestment of our pension funds from companies that were doing business in South Africa. Some of my colleagues who were here in Congress, I think, led by Congressman Ron Dellums, produced the sanctions bill on South Africa and basically helped to draw attention to what was going on there around the world. We were leaders and we helped to galvanize the world community on the atrocities of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, we did not do that work to simply stand by and watch all of these people who suffered for so many years, who fought and died for the right just to live in their country, who fought and died for the right to vote, who fought and died to release political prisoners from prison, we did not do all of that work, joining with this world effort, to stand by and watch 39 pharmaceutical companies try and enforce their intellectual property right and then, after they are confronted by the world activist community, say, ``Okay, we're going to reduce the price of drugs, but the court case remains open.'' Mr. Speaker, we will once again join hands around the world, and just as we fought and we won on the issue of apartheid in South Africa, just as we fought for the release of Nelson Mandela and all of the political prisoners, just as we fought for the right for the ANC to determine the direction of the people of South Africa, we will fight to make sure that people in South Africa and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa and people in other developing nations are not denied the right to simply live because pharmaceutical companies, protecting their intellectual property rights, their patent rights, will not allow them to have access to the medicines they need to live. I would like to send a signal and a warning to the pharmaceuticals: You cannot get away with tokenism, knowing it is not enough to reduce the price of drugs when still the price that you have reduced it to is not low enough. They still cannot afford it. We want you to get out of the way. We have seen what can be done in India. We have seen what can be done in Brazil. We are watching them as they deal with HIV/AIDS, as they put together wonderful programs to provide their people with the medicine that they need, reducing the caseloads, helping to prevent HIV and AIDS. We see what can be done if people have access to the basic medicines that they need. So we will engage one more time in the same kind of battle that we engaged in to get rid of apartheid on this issue. We do not care how powerful the pharmaceuticals are. We do not care how many campaign contributions have been made. We do not care what claims they have with the WTO. We will fight, and we will win. We will win because this is an issue of life and death and morality. This is an issue where the people will not be denied. So, Mr. Speaker, I close this evening by saying once again, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and all my colleagues who have decided that they are going to take time in their legislative priorities and put this at the top of their priorities. They are doing this, we are doing this, because we believe in the right for human beings to live when we know we have the medicines and the assistance and the resources to help them live rather than die. It is a fight and a struggle we do not wish to be engaged in if we did not have to be. But I think, based on what we have seen, we have been left with no choice; and we will engage in that struggle.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a bad reputation for supporting the rich and the powerful and disregarding the needs and concerns of low-wage workers, poor people, and working people in general; and they have wasted no time in attempting to repeal worker safety standards. I am surprised that they would move so quickly and so blatantly to do this. This attempt by Republicans to disapprove the results of the congressionally mandated OSHA study is a blatant example again of the extent the Republicans will go to protect those corporate interests. During all of this delay and these delaying tactics, over 600,000 workers suffered injuries caused by repetitive motion, heavy lifting, and forceful exertion. These kinds of injuries affect every sector of the economy: nurses, who are lifting people, rolling over the sick, taking care of their bed sores; cashiers who stand there all day punching and counting and adding; computer operators. Everybody knows about this. Members should talk to the computer operators in their own offices, talk to their office workers. Many of them are requiring special equipment to work with to protect them. Truck drivers, construction workers and meat cutters, all of these people are affected; and we should want to do something to help the workers that basically make the least amount of money, that are the most vulnerable, the ones who have the least dollars to take care of their families with to get the kind of medical help that they need to address these kinds of issues. I think it is obvious. I certainly hope that the Members of this House will not support this disapproval resolution by the opposite side of the aisle. I hope that we can draw attention to what they are trying to do. American workers deserve better than this.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some strong problems and concerns I have with the proposed legislation. As a whole, the general consensus has been that we need to overhaul the Bankruptcy Code. However, H.R. 333 does so at the expense of consumers and small businesses. It is overly harsh on the honest but unfortunate debtor. I tried to introduce an amendment which would prevent landlords from being able to evict domestic violence victims, elderly persons on limited income, and single parents with minor children on limited income without going through the bankruptcy court. That protection already exists under current law, but is absolutely removed by H.R. 333. I was not successful with that amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute amendment which seeks to correct the most glaring problems with H.R. 333 deserves support, and I am here today to try to make a bad bill just a little bit better. The fifth provision of the Democratic substitute, for example, would allow debtors to exclude up to $1,500 for expenses for a child's schooling, whether those expenses are for a public or private school. The proposed legislation only allows for expenses from private schools. This discriminates against low-income debtors and has no logical rationale. I understand the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has taken this up. We have had two attempts to correct this in the bill. Provision 12 of the Democratic substitute deals with reaffirmations. It would discourage creditors from entering into abusive reaffirmation agreements with debtors. H.R. 333 purports to protect women and children. However, when debtors enter into reaffirmation agreements, they are increasing the number of debts they must pay. Each time another debt is added to the list, it becomes more and more unlikely that child support and alimony will be paid. It does not matter that domestic support obligations are given first priority under this bill. Women and children do not have the resources to defend their rights over the rights of credit card companies. We should not ignore the fact that numerous women and children's organizations have spoken out in strong opposition to this bill. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute would provide an opportunity for court review of proposed reaffirmations, an essential measure to protect from abusive reaffirmations. The Democratic substitute also addresses problems with medical expenses and health insurance premiums, exempts debtors who fall below the poverty line from burdensome reporting requirements, and ensures that governmental education loans are not placed in competition with higher interest rate loans from private institutions. Passage of this amendment is crucial if we are to avoid a crisis in the bankruptcy system. We must not pass a bill merely because the time is right; we must pass a bill when the bill is right. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some strong problems and concerns I have with the proposed legislation as a whole. The general consensus has been that we need to overhaul the Bankruptcy Code. However, H.R. 333 does so at the expense of consumers and small businesses. It is overly harsh on the honest but unfortunate debtor. I tried to introduce an amendment that would prevent landlords from being able to evict domestic violence victims, elderly persons on limited income, and single parents with minor children on limited income without going through bankruptcy court. That protection already exists under current law, but is removed by H.R. 333. I was not successful with that amendment. However, I am here to support the Democratic Substitute amendment, which seeks to correct the most glaring problems with H.R. 333. The fifth provision of the Democratic Substitute, for example, would allow debtors to exclude up to $1500 for expenses for a child's schooling, whether those expenses are for public or private school. The proposed legislation only allows for expenses from private school. This discriminates against low-income debtors and has no logical rationale. Provision 12 of the Democratic Substitute deals with reaffirmations. It would discourage creditors from entering into abusive reaffirmation agreements with debtors. H.R. 333 purports to protect women and children. However, when debtors enter into reaffirmation agreements, they are increasing the number of debts they must pay. Each time another debt is added to the list, it becomes more and more unlikely that child support and alimony will be paid. It does not matter that domestic support obligations are given first priority under H.R. 333. Women and children do not have the resources to defend their rights over the rights of credit card companies. We should not ignore the fact that numerous women and children's organizations have spoken out in strong opposition to H.R. 333. The Democratic Substitute would provide an opportunity for court review of proposed reaffirmations, an essential measure to protect from abusive reaffirmations. The Democratic Substitute also addresses problems with medical expenses and health insurance premiums; exempts debtors who fall below the poverty line from burdensome reporting requirements; and ensures that governmental education loans are not placed in competition with higher-interest rate loans from private institutions. Passage of this amendment is crucial if we are to avoid a crisis in the bankruptcy system. We must not pass a bill merely because the time is right. We must pass a bill when the bill is right.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much. I would like to share with her how appreciative I am for the time that she has taken to organize this Special Order for the Congressional Black Caucus and others who wanted to participate. We did focus on election reform. It is extremely important. We have a very rich history in this country of making sure we correct the wrongs and we open up this country to participation by all of those who would wish to participate in this democracy. When we see a problem, we move to correct it. This focus today on election reform is about that. We will be working to make sure we correct the problems in the system.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her generosity in sharing her very limited time with me so that I will have an opportunity to continue my remarks on this very important issue of elections and election reform. I am very proud to announce that the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), today appointed me to serve as the chairperson for a Democratic Caucus special election reform committee. I am honored to accept that appointment and to work with the vice chairs of that committee to travel across this country holding town halls, workshops, and meetings where we will listen to the people. We will hear from the people the problems that they are experiencing in their States and in their jurisdictions as it relates to the elections process. We were focused on the problems of the election system in Florida in this recent election, and we were amazed at the disenfranchisement that took place there in so many different ways. But we have come to understand that it is not simply Florida, but everywhere we look in this country we can point to problems. Those problems include dysfunctional voting machines, long lines where people are waiting to vote that cannot get in before the polls close. We saw the butterfly ballot, and we learned that that was kind of the decision of one person. We saw in Florida, for example, that one person in the elections office could determine that absentee ballots or requests or applications could be taken out from the office to be taken home to be worked on. We saw all kinds of things. So we are going to go around the country, and we are going to hear more. We are going to hear about consolidations that eliminate the ability for people to participate. Again, we have a lot of work to do. We will be doing that, and we hope that everyone who would like to be involved can be involved in this.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, after 3 days of confirmation hearings and a Senate Committee on the Judiciary vote, I still insist that John Ashcroft has definitely not made his case for appointment as U.S. Attorney General. Instead, Congress and the public have witnessed a confirmation strategy that consists of misleading characterizations, factual errors and evasion. When convenient during his confirmation hearings, Mr. Ashcroft has feigned memory loss as he did in response to inquiries regarding his opposition to Judge Margaret McKeown. Yet in a 1997 speech before The Heritage Foundation, he referred to her efforts in a lawful ballot initiative campaign as sinister and labeled her and her ACLU friends as liberal elitists. When pressed for answers to persistent inquiries, Mr. Ashcroft deferred to a need for consultation with Department of Justice officials, as in his response regarding enforcement of Attorney General Reno's prohibition of inquiries into the sexual orientation of department employees. Another tactic used by Mr. Ashcroft when the questions made him uncomfortable was to reply, quote, ``I do not think I want to discuss that any longer,'' quote/unquote. We saw that tactic when he was questioned on his opposition to the appointment of Ambassador Hormel, the ambassador to Luxembourg, who was subsequently confirmed by an 80 to 11 vote in the Senate. Ambassador Hormel's appointment was made while the Senate was in recess due in great part to Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to the ambassador's, quote, ``life-style,'' quote/unquote. Mr. Ashcroft said in 1998 during the confirmation process that Ambassador Hormel, quote, ``has been a leader in promoting a life-style likely to be offensive in the setting to which he will be assigned,'' quote/unquote. Mr. Ashcroft made the observations, even though Ambassador Hormel had received bipartisan support, endorsement by then Secretary of State George Schultz, and the government of Luxembourg. Under questioning during the recent hearings, Mr. Ashcroft remarked easily that he was, quote, ``not prepared to redebate that nomination,'' quote/unquote. Then there is the, quote, just trust me John Ashcroft, who asks us to believe that he can be new, but only if he is confirmed. We saw this tactic in all of his responses to questions concerning a woman's right to choose. The fact is that in matters of a woman's right to choose, freedom of choice, Mr. Ashcroft has exhibited a zealous opposition to Roe v. Wade while a State and Federal official. In spite of his career- long attempt to overturn Roe, he has stated without credibility during the hearings that the Roe decision is the settled law of the land, which he will enforce. We cannot and should not expect John Ashcroft to retreat in his persistent campaign against a woman's right to reproductive options. Mr. Ashcroft has said he is a man of principle. Let us take a look at a few more of his principles in action. As Missouri's attorney general and governor, Mr. Ashcroft vigorously opposed voluntary desegregation plans submitted by St. Louis city and county school districts. When those plans were subsequently approved and ordered by the Federal district court, Mr. Ashcroft continued in his opposition, arguing that the Court could not implement an intradistrict remedy, although voluntary, for an intradistrict violation. In at least three appeals, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Ashcroft's argument as often as he made it, agreeing with the lower courts that the State was the primary constitutional violator. The appeals court also referred to Missouri's history of school segregation and reminded Mr. Ashcroft that in the past in order to ensure educational apartheid, the State bused suburban black students from St. Louis County into the city's black schools in order to maintain the dual system. Ironically, a statutorily mandated intradistrict scheme to maintain segregation was acceptable for years while a voluntary intradistrict attempt to eliminate segregation was declared too costly and disruptive by Mr. Ashcroft and school desegregation opponents. Remaining among the most vicious misrepresentations associated with the consideration of Mr. Ashcroft for confirmation is his wholly unethical campaign against Judge Ronnie White. The record cannot overemphasize the fact that after receiving bipartisan support for a Federal judgeship, support that included Missouri Senator Bond, John Ashcroft sabotaged Judge White's confirmation after the hearings, the committee hearings, at a time when Judge White could not respond to Mr. Ashcroft's distortions of his record. Judge White's record on capital punishment did not differ appreciably from that of any other jurists who were successfully confirmed with Mr. Ashcroft's consent and support. In the case of Judge White, deliberate misrepresentation, cowardly sabotage, and a double standard were all instruments in Mr. Ashcroft's drive to promote his own reelection. These are a few of the principles that have in practice guided Mr. Ashcroft's actions. These are the principles that speak more loudly than any confirmation hearing denials. Questions regarding Mr. Ashcroft's record and his fitness to serve as the Nation's top prosecutor have not been answered satisfactorily. Accordingly, the Nation should not suffer the appointment of Mr. Ashcroft as Attorney General. He has demonstrated over and over again that he is unwilling to travel a path forward to needed social progress. As guardians of the Nation's future, we cannot sit idly by and watch Mr. Ashcroft be confirmed without strong opposition, and while we have been encouraged and urged not to advocate what should be done about him by the Members, I just hope and I just pray that the Members do the right thing. I do not need to tell them what to do. He has defined himself very well. I think they know what to do. He should not be confirmed. General Leave

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes to speak about what took place here in joint session today and to talk about what has led us to this point. Today, here in this Chamber, we had a joint session to count the electoral votes; and, of course, there were some of us, mostly represented by Members from the Congressional Black Caucus, who chose to come to the floor in an attempt to object to the acceptance of the electoral votes from Florida. We did that, despite the fact we understood the rules. We knew that in order to object, we had to have in writing the objection, signed by both a House Member and a Member of the Senate. We did not have one Member of the Senate who had signed any objection, but we came to the floor of this House and we said to the Vice President, who presided over the joint session, each time that we objected we said that, no, we did not have a signature from a United States Senator, that we only had our signature, we had the signatures of some of our colleagues, and we had the support of our constituents. It was important for us to do this. It was important because we have just experienced one of the most traumatizing and devastating elections, particularly as it played out in Florida, that this country has ever been involved with. I would like to cite to you some of what happened in Florida that has caused us so much concern. I am going to quote from an article that was done by Laura Flanders. I will not be quoting all of the article, but I will be submitting the rest of this for inclusion in the Record. On day one after the election, there was a story in the Florida papers about an unauthorized police roadblock, stopping cars not a mile from a black church-turned-polling- booth. NAACP volunteers reported being swamped with complaints from registered voters who found it impossible to vote. They heard stories of intimidation at and around polling places; demands for superfluous ID; people complained about a pattern of singling out black men and youth for criminal background checks, and in call after call, would-be voters complained they had been denied language interpretation and other help at the polls. By now it is clear that overwhelmed election workers made a mass of mistakes, but those mistakes were laced through with some clear intent to suppress some votes. A full 3 weeks after the election, The New York Times finally took a serious look and reported that, anticipating a large turnout in a tight race, Florida election officials had given laptop computers to precinct workers so they would have direct access to the State's voter rolls, but the computers only went to some precincts and only one went to a precinct whose people were predominantly black. The technology gap in the no-laptop precincts forced the workers there to rely on a few phone lines to the head office. Voters whose names did not appear on the rolls were held up, while workers tried to get through on the phone, for hours, or until they gave up. For those who voted, there was another technology glitch. Mr. Speaker, 185,000 Floridians cast votes that did not count. Theirs were the ballots that had been punched too few or too many times, or were otherwise flawed. Flaws too, seem to have followed race lines. In an election that turned on a few hundred votes, Floridians whose ballots failed to register a mark for President were much more likely to have voted with computer punch cards than optical scanning machines. In Miami Dade, the county with the most votes cast, predominantly black precincts saw their votes thrown out at 4 times the rate of white precincts. According to the Times, one out of 11 ballots in predominantly black precincts were rejected, a total of 9,904. Urban, multi-racial Palm Beach, home of the infamous butterfly ballot and Duval, where candidates' names were spread across 2 pages despite what the published ballot had shown, produced 31 percent of Florida's discarded ballots, but only 12 percent of the total votes cast in Duval, which has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the Nation, more than 26,000 votes were rejected, 9,000 from precincts that were predominantly black. Many Floridians who found themselves ``scrubbed'' off the voting rolls were not purged accidentally, reports Gregory Palast for Salon.com. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris paid a private firm, ChoicePoint, $4 million to cleanse the voting rolls, and the firm used the State's felon-ban to exclude 8,000 voters who had never committed a felony. ChoicePoint is a Republican outfit. Board members include former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir, and billionaire Ken Langone, chair of the fund-raising committee for Mayor Giuliani's aborted New York Senate bid. I cannot complete all of what I would like to share, but I will be submitting this for the Record. Let the record show that we were here today, that we participated and we voiced our objection, and the fight will continue for justice and equality. People were disenfranchised, and that must be stopped and corrected. The erroneous data wasn't their doing, ChoicePoint complains, the names came, raw, from the state of Texas. They were supposed to be reviewed locally, but they were distributed un-reviewed. African Americans dominate. (The 8,000 wrong names were ``a minor glitch'' ChoicePoint told Palast; a glitch fifteen times the size of the Texas Governor's lead.) As for that election morning police checkpoint, near Tallahassee, Robert Chamber, a Black resident, told the Guardian UK he knew what it was about: ``putting fear in people's hearts. . . . '' The Florida panhandle is home to the largest concentration of neo-confederate white supremacist groups in the US. But this problem is no neo-nazi plot--it's racism of the institutional, not the exceptional kind, and even more devastating than the statistics has been Democratic leadership's silence. While African Americans in huge numbers know there was massive voter fraud, harassment and intimidation a la Jim Crow, the Democratic Party's white top-dogs have resolutely refused to talk about voting rights, race or racism--Why? For fear it will hurt them in the court of public opinion? Among white swing voters and southern Democrats? Already hurting in all of those places, they're trifling with one of the few solid voting blocks they've got left, (Blacks, Latinos, Jews.) The NAACP came out strong, the weekend after the election, holding public hearings and gathering 300 pages of legally sworn testimony from 486 people who say they were denied their right to vote. With the Congressional Black Caucus the NAACP wrote to Janet Reno seeking a Justice Department investigation into possible violations of the Voting Rights Act. That was back on November 14th. Since then, the Gore campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits--not one deals with violations of voting rights. The Justice Department has initiated what officials go out of their way to characterize as a preliminary inquiry, not an investigation. (Alligator-wrestler Reno is scared to stir the waters in her home-state, where she's hoping to retire any day now, some say.) The Gore team has chosen to try to eke some votes out of three counties with manual counts, and to make much of butterflies and chards, but nothing of race. (Recently, Gore told a reporter he was ``very troubled'' by the ``serious allegations.'' That's it.) His racist denial of the seriousness of racism makes nonsense out of US politics. The Electoral College is a tool of racism. As Yale's Akhil Reed Amar wrote in the New York Times, ``the College was designed at the founding of the country to help one group--white Southern males--and this year, it has apparently done just that.'' In the years after the forced-end of slavery, former slave states like Florida imposed those felon-disenfranchisement laws, precisely to disempower freed-but-impoverished Blacks. The political parties crafted the statewide primary system into what amounted to a white-man's private club to keep the newly enfranchised under the old establishment's control. Then came literacy tests and poll taxes--voters had to keep their tax-receipts on file--anything to keep electoral power in white hands. For an idea of what those tackling literacy tests faced, consider: under Jim Crow, Florida required that textbooks used by the public school children of one race be kept separate from those used by the other--even in storage. After the 1965 Act was passed, states did everything they could to dilute Black influence. Winner-take-all systems, or absolute majority vote requirements were embraced to keep black candidates from winning over split fields of white candidates in local races--in just the same way as winner- take-all works in the presidential contest. More offices were filled by appointment. Legislative and congressional district lines were redrawn to keep black voting strength submerged. None of this requires looking back very far: the same House Speaker, Tim Feeney, who wants the Florida legislature to select a Bush slate of Electors no matter what the vote- counters count, suggested reintroducing literacy tests just two weeks ago: ``Voter confusion is not a reason for whining or crying or having a revote,'' said Feeney. ``It may be a reason to require literacy tests.'' (Palm Beach Post, 11/16.) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who may well be the final arbiter of which votes get counted and which (white) man gets the White House, is William Rehnquist, a segregationist from way back. In 1962, Republican activist William (then ``Bill'') Rehnquist was the leader of Operation Eagle Eye, a flying squad of GOP lawyers that swept through polling places in south Phoenix to question the right of minority voters to cast their ballots. As Dave Wagner reported in the Arizona Republic last year, Rehnquist defended keeping African Americans out of stores and restaurants in Phoenix. In 1964, at the Bethune Precinct, (which was 40 percent Hispanic and 90 percent Democratic) Rehnquist and Operation Eagle Eye activists challenged every Black and Mexican voter's ability to read the Constitution of the United States in the English language (then a requirement.) The result, according to one witness, was ``a line a half- block long, four abreast . . . They wanted people to become frustrated and leave.'' In his testimony to a US Senate hearing on his appointment to the Supreme Court, Rehnquist denied that he officially challenged anyone's right to vote. Just as today's defenders of Bush, argue that voter error, not bias, disproportionately shrank the counted vote, Rehnquist argued that he broke no rules, he was just following the law. Trying to wage politics in the US while tiptoing around racism is like sidestepping an elephant. It's dangerous, it's not smart, and it won't work, What suppresses the Black and minority vote suppresses the Democratic and liberal- progressive vote. The majority of white male voters haven't pooled Democratic since 1964 and only women of color create the gender gap for Gore. Yet the unequal distribution of resources and bias that created a practically apartheid voting system in Florida was sustained by the Democratic Party--who approved of the process, try as they might to blame the Governor's cronies. And Democratic pro-drug war, pro-death penalty, pro-felon disenfranchisement policies stoked the racist atmosphere in which this election was held. The conditions are ripe for a pro-democracy movement. A moment, at least: this is it. Some things have changed in the nation since 1964, and when the pubic has heard (or seen on CSPAN) the witnesses who gave the NAACP testimony, they have been shocked. Voter protests in Florida have built a multi- racial coalition, that is advocating the kind of electoral reform the whole nation could get behind. Among their demands: a non-partisan election commission, standardized voting procedures and federal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Add to that, the longer-term structural changes some advocate: instant run off voting, or some form of proportional representation, so that small parties (and minority constituencies) could build support for their issues without throwing elections to their foes. The public has seen the Electoral College in its worst light: for the first time, the tyranny of a minority may contradict the popular will. Perhaps something will come of the shared experience of disenfranchisement. But not if we don't talk about what's at the root of it: racism. Not ``the system,'' but this particular, racist one. And those who've been marginalized must occupy the center. People of color are central to why our electoral system is set up this way; likewise, they must be at the heart of any movement for real democracy. We can get rid of the racism, but only if we all shove that elephant out at once. [Important Note: The views and opinions expressed on this list are solely those of the authors and/or publications, and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official political positions of the Black Radical Congress (BRC). Official BRC statements, position papers, press releases, action alerts, and announcements are distributed exclusively via the BRC-PRESS list. As a subscriber to this list, you have been added to the BRC-PRESS list automatically.]

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent that the debate on this issue go forward.

Ms. WATERS. Further objection, Mr. President.