Mel Watt

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. I have two speakers left.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their kind words. If you listened to them, it would make it sound like we have the same budget, but I want to assure you and our colleagues that that is not the case. And I want to assure you that by the end of this debate, you are going to know what the differences are. We set out at the beginning of this Congress to set an agenda for the Congressional Black Caucus. Our agenda is about closing disparities that exist between African American citizens and other citizens in this country and have persisted over time. They involve closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education, closing the gaps in health care for every American, closing the gaps in employment and economic security in wealth and business opportunity in our country, closing the gaps that continue to exist in our justice system, closing the gaps that continue to exist in retirement security for our citizens, and closing the inequities that have persisted throughout our history in foreign policy. Is it true that we have a different set of priorities? You bet we do. To close these disparities, we have set a different course, and we decided that it was more important to devote resources to closing these gaps and closing these disparities than it was to give a tax cut to people who make above $200,000 a year. We decided that these priorities were more important than continuing to fund a ballistic missile defense program that has already failed every single test that it has undergone. We believe that the education of our children is more important than tax cuts for people over $200,000. I am not here to make any excuses about that. I want every Member of this Congress to understand that that is a choice that we have made and that is a choice that we are calling on this Congress to make. The people in my district who make over $200,000 a year have told me that they would rather educate our children and fully fund No Child Left Behind than they would have a tax cut. So this is a question of what your priorities are, no ifs, ands, buts about it. That is what you will be voting on today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am honored to stand here as the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for the 109th Congress and to offer as this substitute amendment the Congressional Black Caucus' budget for this year. We believe that a budget is a statement of priorities and in that respect Members should know where the money is coming from that is being budgeted and how the money is being spent. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has led the task force for the Congressional Black Caucus to put together the budget.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the Dean of the CBC.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), and I would like to wish her a happy birthday today. She thought I did not know that.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time. At some point tomorrow, the Congressional Black Caucus will be introducing an alternative budget which we will discuss in detail. Unfortunately, we have been allotted only 20 minutes on our side to discuss the details of that proposed, budget and I am delighted that the Committee on the Budget has seen fit to provide us a little bit more time this evening to discuss some of the benefits we believe will enure if the Congressional Black Caucus Budget is adopted. We will be asking the Members of our House of Representatives to make some basic choices because we believe that a budget is about making choices. There are two choices in particular we will be asking them to consider: Would you rather provide a tax cut to people who make more than $200,000 per year, or would you rather spend approximately $30 billion dollars that you would save if you did not provide that tax cut on a series of things that would benefit our community and have a substantial potential of closing some of the disparities and gaps that have existed for years and years between African American citizens and white citizens in this country? The second question we will be asking will be: Would you rather spend $7.9 billion on a ballistic missile defense program which has been tested time after time after time and has failed all of those tests, or would you rather spend that $7.8 billion on providing more security to our troops, body armor, personnel support equipment, and other protective gear for our troops, and providing more benefits to our veterans in this country? This is a basic choice that we at this point need to debate. Our budget that we will be submitting and detailing tomorrow morning when we offer the Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget will ask Congress, What are your priorities? That is what budget-making is about. And there is no trickery here. It is straightforward, and we will be asking our Members to make those choices.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for providing the Congressional Black Caucus a little extra time to talk about the CBC budget, and I want to summarize what our proposed budget which we will be introducing tomorrow will do. It will roll back the tax cuts on people with adjusted gross incomes that exceed $200,000 per year. Most of the revenue raised in the CBC budget will be used to address disparities in America's communities. A substantial portion is reserved to reduce the deficit. On the military side, we would roll back $7.8 billion in ballistic missile defense spending leaving using $1 billion for research to continue regarding the ballistic missile defense system. All of these funds are spent on other defense items to support our troops, homeland security needs, and veterans program and benefits. The total for defense, homeland security, and veterans is equal to the Republican budget. The bottom line is that the CBC budget addresses critical domestic challenges and supports our troops. The CBC budget reduces the deficit by $167 billion compared to the House majority's budget over the next 5 years. This fiscal responsibility is rewarded by a reduction of $27 billion in interest payments, compared to the House majority's budget over that 5-year period. We will have a responsible budget, and I look forward to having the support of our colleagues in this body and look forward to discussing the proposed CBC budget in more detail tomorrow when our substitute is presented to the House.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Let me just go through some of the things that the Congressional Black Caucus budget will do in various areas. We are planning to submit this budget tomorrow, and we will be adding an additional $1 billion in the international affairs category for foreign aid to Africa and the Caribbean, Global AIDS Initiative in the State Department, Public Health and Preventable Illness initiatives. We will be adding half a billion dollars in general science, space and technology in the following areas: NASA Research and Development, NASA Space Shuttle Safety, restore research and development funding for the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy. We will be adding an additional $50 million in the natural resources and environment, historically black colleges and university preservation program. We will be adding $300 million in the agriculture budget in support of the 1890 land-grant historically black colleges and universities, expanded food and nutrition education programs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Civil Rights. And we will be restoring and modifying some of the Draconian cuts in agriculture programs that affect minorities in particular. We will be adding $1 billion in commerce and housing credit for SBA loan programs, the 7(a) program, Microloan, and New Market Venture programs, adult training and dislocated worker programs, Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, home ownership initiatives. We will be adding $150 million in transportation, most of which will go to Amtrak. We will be adding $1.5 billion to community and regional development to restore the cuts that have been proposed by the President in the Community Development Block Grants, increased funding for Brownfields Economic Development, Empowerment Zones, community development, financial institutions, economic development assistance. We will be adding $23.9 billion in education and training with which we will fully fund the No Child Left Behind. That is $12 billion to fully fund No Child Left Behind. We will be adding $50 million to elementary and secondary school counseling, vocational training, job training, adult education, Pell grants, Head Start, Individuals With Disabilities, IDEA, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, TRIO, Gaining Early Awareness of Readiness. That is the GEAR-UP program, restoring that. Perkins loans, impact aid. In the area of health we will be adding $1 billion. In the area of Administration of Justice we will be adding $1 billion. And over on the defense side we are going to be adding money for body armor, personal support equipment, and other protective gear for our troops, ammunition for the Marine Corps, small arms for the Army. We will be adding $4.65 billion for veterans programs, veterans health care, survivor benefit plans, disabled veterans plans, prosthetic needs for veterans, VA medical and prosthetic research, mental health care for veterans. And we will be adding $2 billion in homeland security for rail security and port security. Now, you are wondering how can the Congressional Black Caucus do all of this? It is simple. Simply roll back the tax cut on people who make above $200,000 a year. And all we are saying to our Members in this body is that these things that I have just described are much higher priorities. Even to people that I know who make more than $200,000 a year, they think these things are higher priorities than getting a little extra tax cut. And I just entreat my Members to please support the Congressional Black Caucus budget. It is a sane budget. It is good.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act. Despite its name, this bill is anything but fair to the class action device that has provided redress to large numbers of American citizens who have been harmed by the same defendant or a group of defendants. Class action procedures have made it possible for injured Americans to aggregate small claims that might not otherwise warrant the expense of individual litigation. This bill before us will effectively undermine the utility, practicality, and choice the class action mechanism has offered to injured persons with legitimate claims against powerful entities. There appear to be improvements in this bill from the bill we considered last Congress; yet there could and should be more improvements. But the trend thus far this session is to dispense with regular order, deny committee consideration, and to leave Members with 1 to 2 minutes to hurriedly voice our concerns. I can guarantee my colleagues, having practiced law for over 20 years, that the core provisions of this bill will invite prolonged satellite litigation into ill-defined or undefined terms in this bill, clogging the Federal courts and denying prompt justice to worthy claimants. For example, where ``significant relief'' is sought against a home State defendant, the court has no jurisdiction. What is significant and what is not significant? Also, and worse in my judgment, no longer will a coherent description of the class be sufficient before the trial on the merit proceeds. Under the bill the judge must first know with certainty the absolute number of the plaintiff class, because whether he may or must decline to hear the case depends on whether a ``magic'' number of plaintiffs are citizens of the State where the lawsuit was filed. There are other examples too complicated to address here in the time that we have available. But let me just say that juxtaposed against the smattering of cases paraded by the supporters of this bill as justification for this upheaval in our justice system are countless class action lawsuits by principled attorneys and courageous plaintiffs that have exposed deliberate wrongdoing, obtained justice for American citizens, and vindicated the values of fair play and equal justice that define our society. America is distinguished from other countries because of its legal system both criminal and civil. Is it perfect? No. But the majority wages countless legislative assaults on the entire system rather than confined, deliberative, surgical repairs. Under this bill, one bad judge, we condemn all of the judges in the system. One excessive jury award, let us overhaul the entire jury system. One irresponsible lawyer, let us punish all lawyers. And here let us take these actions without any committee hearings, markup, or debate. What could be more irresponsible to our constituents? Whatever happened to the notion that we were making our court systems convenient to people? In some of our States, the Federal courts are far removed from the places where individual litigants live. And what is it with the notion all of a sudden that my States rights friends believe that the Federal courts and the Federal Government can solve every problem in our society? That is just simply absurd, inconsistent with any kind of consistent philosophy about federalism. I think we should defeat this flawed bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. There are so many angles that I could approach this debate from, but I am just so delighted today to be able to rise in a bipartisan and biracial coalition to honor four great Americans who contributed so much to us. I could talk about the fact that North Carolina A&T State University and Bennett College, which was also referred to in the statement of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), both of them are located in my congressional district. I could talk about the fact that despite the fact that the lunch counter itself is now in the congressional district of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), it was also in my congressional district up until the last round of redistricting. I could talk about the fact that Franklin McCain, one of those four courageous individuals, is a resident of my congressional district, a successful business leader in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, today, one of two surviving members of that famous four. I could talk about other acts of heroism that came about as a result of these four students sitting down. One recollection that comes to me immediately is, as was happening quite often throughout the South, the power establishment would try to intimidate the black leaders, and the story has it that the powers, the political and business leadership in the City of Greensboro, approached the President of North Carolina A&T State University to try to intimidate him into having his students refrain from this kind of agitation, these sit-ins. And the President of North Carolina A&T, one of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, drew a line in the sand and said, ``there is no way I am intervening to stop my students from agitating against this kind of injustice.'' I could talk about how I got connected to the civil rights movement even in that time, not as a personal involvement, but hearing my mother say to my oldest brother, 4 years older than me at that time, ``Don't you get involved in those demonstrations. It is dangerous out there,'' and then turning on the TV at 6 o'clock that evening and seeing my brother right in the middle of the demonstration that took place in Charlotte, North Carolina, following the Greensboro Four's courageous action. There are just so many ways that I could approach this debate that bring back so much emotion for me, because not long after that I returned to Charlotte and to North Carolina to join a civil rights law firm that took on school desegregation, that took on employment discrimination, that took on other racial policies and practices that were taking place that were accepted as part of the day until those courageous students at North Carolina A&T said enough is enough. So this is a wonderful, wonderful day for me just to see the bipartisanship, the biracial support that we have in support of this resolution in this Congress, but knowing full well that some years ago when it was not fashionable, when it was dangerous, when those kids' parents were telling them, I sent you to school to get an education, not to be involved in a demonstration, they stood and said enough is enough; we are going to take action to change America. And, Mr. Speaker, they did, and today our country is better for it.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for reserving the 1 hour of time this evening for the Congressional Black Caucus to make preliminary comments on the President's proposed budget. When the Congressional Black Caucus met with President Bush on January 26, we presented a CBC agenda that would close disparities and create opportunity. We outlined six areas in which significant barriers exist that prevent African Americans from enjoying the same quality of life as white Americans. We requested the President's support and asked him to demonstrate it both verbally and substantively. Unfortunately, the budget that the President sent to Congress yesterday falls far short of the substantive goals that we hoped the President would have set forth to eliminate disparities. The first area we presented to the President was in the area of closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education. In his budget, the President proposes eliminating the Perkins loan program, which provides low-interest loans to low- and middle-income college students. This proposal would have disastrous effects on African American college students, many of whom rely heavily on Federal financial aid programs to offset the cost of obtaining higher education. As it is, African Americans attend college at a lower rate than white Americans. If the President succeeds in his plan to eliminate the Perkins loan program, a college education would simply be unaffordable and unattainable for many African American college students. African American college enrollment rates are 10 percent lower than white college enrollment rates. College graduation rates are even worse for African American students. Only 46 percent of African American freshmen ever graduate from college, compared to 67 percent of white freshmen. According to the Education Trust, the typical American college or university has a graduation rate gap between white and African American students of over 10 percentage points. A quarter of institutions have a gap of 20 percentage points or more. In a recent study by the Luna Foundation For Education, the Foundation found that the single most important financial variable influencing whether or not a student will attend college is the amount of need-based financial aid being provided. In spite of these disparities, the President seeks to not only eliminate the Perkins loan program, but he is proposing to eliminate the Gear Up and the TRIO programs as well. The sole purpose of the Gear Up program, which our Congressional Black Caucus colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) introduced, and the TRIO program, both of those programs are designed to prepare low-income and disadvantaged students for college. In other words, the President, through his budget, wants to eliminate the very programs that would help close the achievement and opportunity gaps in education. In fact, one out of every three programs that the President proposes to cut or eliminate in his budget is in the Department of Education. So the President has not been responsive at all to the CBC agenda in that area. The second area we outlined to the President was in the area of health care, providing quality health care for every American. The President's proposed budget slashes at least $45 billion from the Medicaid program, which provides health coverage to 50 million low- income children, working families, seniors, and others who would otherwise be uninsured. The President's proposed cuts to Medicaid would have devastating effects on the working poor and would have particularly devastating effects on African Americans. According to Families USA, African Americans are generally less likely to receive employer-based health care because African Americans are more likely than whites to work in positions where health care benefits are not offered, work for companies, typically small companies, that cannot afford to pay for employee health insurance, and to be unable to afford health insurance premiums when coverage is offered. The third area we asked the President to respond to was in the area of economic security, building wealth, and business employment. The African American unemployment rate is consistently more than double the average national average. In inner cities, that number is even larger. Yet, the President proposes cutting the budget for the Department of Labor by 4.4 percent, including Workforce Investment Act State grants. Further, while the African American homeownership rate is over 20 percentage points behind that of white Americans, the President proposes cutting funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by almost $3.7 billion. We asked the President to address disparities in foreign policy, eradicating poverty, hunger, and armed conflicts around the world, especially in Africa and the Caribbean, which is a major component of the CBC's agenda. Unfortunately, the President's budget offered no solutions on how to strengthen the economic stability and self- sufficiency of countries in the African Diaspora. The Caucus supports reducing the heavy burden that debt has on many countries and reengaging with the United Nations, regional organizations, and countries throughout the world to help promote civil society, global health, fair trade, and peace. While we applaud the President for his proposal to fund the global initiative to fight HIV/ AIDS, we implore him to also provide financial assistance to end the fighting in African countries that are engaged in civil war and in genocide. We asked the President to help address retirement security for African Americans and the disparities that exist there. During the last several weeks, President Bush has traveled the country, selling his Social Security reform proposal to the American people. Because African Americans rely heavily on the survivor disability and retirement benefits provided by Social Security, the CBC is extremely interested in the details of this proposal. Contrary to the President's claims, African Americans receive a higher rate of return than whites, due to their heavier reliance on the full range of benefits offered by Social Security. The CBC has made it clear to the President that we are against any proposal that would result in future benefit cuts or divert payroll taxes from the Social Security Trust Fund. African Americans are 8 percent of all retired beneficiaries, 13 percent of survivor beneficiaries, and 18 percent of all disability recipients. Social Security is the only source of retirement income for 40 percent of older Americans, and if those benefits were reduced, the poverty rate for older African Americans would double almost overnight. Social Security is one of the most effective programs in the history of the United States and is essential to the livelihood of African Americans. We asked the President to ensure justice for every American. The CBC supports criminal and juvenile justice reform that focuses greater emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation, reduces recidivism by successfully reintegrating former inmates into society, and ends arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences. We also strongly support preserving affirmative action until all the effects of past and present discrimination have been eliminated. While the President's budget does include $75 million for a prisoner reentry initiative, much more rehabilitation needs to be done for prisoners while they are in prison. In addition, we are disappointed to report that the President's fiscal year budget proposes to cut funding for the Justice Department's civil rights division even while we all know that more enforcement is necessary. And despite that fact our election system does not work properly, the President's budget proposes to eliminate grants to States for election reform. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the budget that the President sent to Congress yesterday reflects priorities and values that are not in line with those held by the majority of American families or by the Congressional Black Caucus. Today the President told reporters that his budget sets priorities. He went on to say, ``Our priorities are winning the war on terror, protecting our homeland, and growing our economy.'' I would say to the President that while we fight the war on terror, America's families also want to fight the war on poverty. While we protect our homeland, we must also ensure that American families are able to buy affordable homes. While we must grow our economy, we must also provide retirement security for American families in times of economic downturn. These, Mr. President, are America's priorities. I hope the President will work with the Congressional Black Caucus to turn these priorities into realities. Mr. Speaker, the following is a summary of some of the draconian cuts that the President has proposed in his budget. Bush Administration FY 2006 Housing Budget--Continuing the Assault on the Most Vulnerable The Bush Administration's FY 2006 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budget makes deep cuts to a wide range of housing programs that serve low-income families, the elderly, and disabled persons. Overall, the HUD budget is cut by 11.5 percent. Critical housing and community development programs (CDBG, Brownfields cleanup, and Empowerment Zones) are eliminated and are consolidated into a new program in the Commerce Department, with an overall funding cut of 35 percent. The biggest funding cuts are targeted at those programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens, as follows: the poor CDBG: Transfers CDBG flexible block grants to the Commerce Department, with a 35 percent cut. This proposal would result in $1.16 billion less in funding for low-income housing than last year. Public Housing. Eliminates HOPE VI public housing revitalization program, and rescinds the $143 million funded in FY05. Also cuts ongoing funding for public housing by $270 million. The overall request is 30 percent lower in real terms than when the Bush Administration took office. HOME Block Grants. Cuts HOME block grants by $66 million (a 4 percent cut). Section 8 vouchers. Purports to fully fund voucher renewals. But, the budget promises that legislation will be introduced later to renew the Administration block grant proposal--to gut the targeting of funds to the poorest families and the maintenance of affordable voucher rent levels. AIDS Housing (HOPWA). Cuts HOPWA funding by $14 million (a 5 percent cut). Lead Paint Abatement. Cuts funding for lead paint abatement by $48 million (a 29 percent cut). the disabled Cuts 50 percent from the Section 811 disabled housing program (from $238 m. to $119 m). Also eliminates the Federal role in funding construction of new housing for the disabled. minorities Fair Housing: Cuts the Fair Housing budget by 16 percent. Minority Higher Education Institutions. Cuts Section 107 grants by 16 percent. Section 107 grants fund Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Community Development Work Study, and other related programs. La Raza. Eliminates funding for the National Council of La Raza for affordable housing activities and technical assistance (funded at $4.8 million in FY 2005). rural housing Rural Housing Service. Cuts funding by 73 percent for Section 515, the core RHS affordable housing program. Also eliminates the Section 515 program's authority to fund new construction. HUD Rural Housing an Economic Development Program. Eliminates this $24 million program, consolidating it with 17 other programs in the Commerce Dept. native American housing Cuts funding for Native American housing block grants by $110 million, a 16 percent cut. Eliminates funding for the National American Indian Housing Council ($2.4 m. in FY 05).

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more basic to democracy than assuring that everyone who wants to vote is provided that opportunity and that each person's vote is counted in the result. In the last two election cycles, our country, which has held itself out as the world's model of an example of true democracy has fallen woefully short of meriting that title. The United States cannot continue to claim that it stands for and is willing to fight for democracy and the rights of people to vote in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world while not being willing to do whatever is necessary to guarantee the vote of all of our citizens here at home. Equal access, convenience of voting, quality of voting machines, and other means to assure democracy must not be a function of economic status, race, where citizens live, or any other variable. We must do whatever is necessary to assure equality in voting rights, opportunity and access for all our citizens, and if our democracy is to be protected, the eyes of the world will be watching to see how we respond to this, not treat it as frivolous when people are not allowed to vote. That is why I applaud the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for her leadership and for allowing this body to have a discussion about the basic right to vote in America. For me this is not about whether George Bush won or lost the last election. I am planning to vote to certify. I will tell the Members that. But there is nothing more basic than the right to vote, and if we pretend that this is frivolous, then we are not going to move forward and do anything in response to what is going on. Two days ago we took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, that at least three amendments in the Constitution which guarantee equal access to the ballot, and yet we are saying that people who did not get an opportunity to vote, who did not have equal access to the vote, are raising frivolous issues? Come on, give me a break. We should not be about denying or abridging that right, and I stand here in full support of it. We have got to improve the Help America Vote Act. We took the first step 2 years ago. We have got to take additional steps to make sure that every single person who seeks the right to vote is given that right. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission recommended the creation of an independent bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil rights and civil liberties, in recognition of the fact that in this difficult area of securing America we were going into some very uncharted areas. We crafted a provision in the Committee on the Judiciary which has been substantially watered down in this version of the bill. I simply want to submit for the Record a statement that describes that process. I intend to vote for the bill, but have some concerns about whether this bipartisan board of compliance is independent enough or bipartisan enough or is really going to have any authority to do anything to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights after we pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include a more detailed description of my concerns for the Record. Mr. Speaker, because I take the protection of our constitutional rights and liberties very seriously, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill to establish an independent, bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil rights and liberties and the Judiciary Committee bill included a version of the oversight board. Since that time, there has been a false comparison between the board I recommended and that in the Senate bill to an advisory board created by the President by executive order. The President's board is not and should not be the guidepost for what satisfies the mandate of the 9/11 Commission. The President's board consists of Administration insiders with advisory functions. Now I know that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission have endorsed this conference report and characterize the Privacy and Civil Liberties board as independent. I respectfully disagree. The board created by this bill may turn out to be worse than no board at all. It's members are handpicked by the President and serve at his pleasure. That does not create independence. There is no rights of the board to obtain by subpoena information needed to perform its functions. There is no public reporting requirement. And, there is a gaping hole that permits the government to assert a national security or law enforcement exception to the Board's access to government information that may very well reveal whether the rights of our citizens are being violated. We all agree that our nation must adjust to confront the terrorist threat, but in doing so we cannot undermine the principles for which Americans stand. One need not look far to imagine the types of abuses that a strong, independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board could expose and prevent. Should innocent Americans be held merely on suspicion, without the opportunity to consult with counsel, without the ability to speak with their family? Should Americans be willing to miss graduations, baptisms, weddings, and funerals, because their names are erroneously on a no-fly list? If Senator Kennedy, Congressman John Lewis and Congressman Young find themselves detained as suspected terrorists, who will be next? In short, just as we need to make adjustments as we fight terrorism, we also need a board with teeth, one that can make sure that fighting terrorism is done in a manner that does not change the fundamental nature of our society. The 9/11 Commission Report stated: We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the other. The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrist attack at home. Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend. I believe that we have missed the opportunity to say to the world and to the terrorists who would harm us that we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to detect and prevent further attacks but at the same time with equal vigor, we will protect the time-honored values and freedoms that makes our nation great.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a nonprofit organization created by Congress in 1974 to ensure that Americans have access to our justice system regardless of their economic means. For three decades, LSC has lived up to the noble purpose for which it was created--providing legal assistance in civil matters to tens of millions of low-income Americans who would otherwise have gone without counsel. The Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974 was passed with broad bipartisan support in Congress and, thirty years later, broad bipartisan support for a strong federal role in equal justice efforts remains. LSC's past and current leaders, as well as the thousands of advocates who work for LSC-funded legal services programs throughout America, deserve credit for the vital work they do every day on behalf of clients in desperate need of qualified counsel. Today, there are currently more than 45.2 million Americans who qualify for assistance from one of LSC's 143 grantees nationwide. Legal services' clients are as diverse as our nation, encompassing all races; ethnic groups and ages. They include the working poor, veterans, family farmers, people with disabilities and victims of natural disasters. More than two-thirds of LSC clients are women--most of them mothers. The legal problems faced by those living in poverty can have serious, long-term consequences for children and, as a result, for society as a whole. The most common types of cases handled by LSC-funded advocates address family law, housing, employment, government benefits and consumer-related issues. For low-income individuals and families, legal services advocacy in these and other areas represents their only means of access to the justice system. In addition to helping people resolve some of their immediate economic and legal needs, LSC programs also educate people on their rights and responsibilities under the law. With this information, clients can use their knowledge to work within the justice system to re-establish economic independence. With LSC's help, families can maintain their incomes, homes, health benefits and their dignity. More than two centuries ago, our founding fathers enshrined the importance of equal justice in the preamble to the Constitution, identifying the obligation ``to establish justice'' as the first specific function of the new government. Justice, then, is not simply another government asperation; it is the historic mandate of a free society. On the occasion of the LSC's 30th anniversary, members of Congress should take note and pay homage to the Legal Services Corporation and the critical role it has played in helping America live up to this mandate and our highest ideals.