Diane Watson

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, we held two public forums in the 33rd Congressional District in Los Angeles, California; and I would like to just quote from three of the speakers that participated. This one is from Miss Nina Diamantle Vera, and she is worried that the proposal for private accounts would put her hard-earned retirement savings at the mercy of the stock market. She was compelled to write me a letter to warn me of the perils of private investment. And she said: ``I lost $90,000 in the stock market. The privatization program will only make stockbrokers richer. It is the stupidest thing that President Bush has done.'' That is the quote. The stock market is a fluctuating vehicle for savings. It goes up, but it also goes down. The administration should be working with Congress to promote personal wealth and savings through investment but not at the cost of Social Security. Then Ms. Verdine F. Alston. Ms. Alston is an 89-year-old widow. She is concerned about the Republican proposals for Social Security. This is an American that has contributed to society for most of the 20th century. And she states: ``Please stop President Bush from privatizing Social Security. I have paid into Social Security since it started and before I was to vote. I am now 89 years old and a widow. My husband has been deceased for 10 years, and his pension just expired. I am dependent solely on Social Security.'' Now, it is unacceptable to pull the rug out from under our senior citizens. A proud American, Ms. Alston stressed the wisdom of a past President and said, ``The very first time I voted was for President Roosevelt when I was 21 years old. Social Security is not welfare.'' And according to the National Partnership For Women and Families, Social Security provides 90 percent or more of the total income for 44 percent of nonmarried women 65 and older, 66 percent of nonmarried Hispanic women 65 and older, 74 percent of nonmarried African American women 65 and over, and 35 percent of all nonmarried men 65 and older. Now, Marvin Tavlin, who is a 90-year-old legislative chairperson for the Westside Chapter Alliance of Retired Americans, said it is important to remember that our country is made up of compassionate Americans, many of whom study the history of our great country. And during the town hall meeting that I just held in February, Mr. Tavlin asked if he could share his modern Gettysburg Address with us, and it goes like this: ``Three score and 10 years ago our fathers brought forth to this Nation a new idea, a compact between the government and the people to promote the general welfare and for the first time in our history to guarantee the Social Security of our senior citizens. We are now engaged in a great political battle testing whether the new concept can truly endure. The dedicated men and women, living and dead, who fought so long to achieve this worthy goal inspired us to carry on their tradition. It is now up to us, the living, to rededicate ourselves to the great task remaining before us, to guarantee that this renowned social program for the American people who have worked and struggled so long and so hard for their families, their communities and their country; yes, that this great social program shall never perish from the land.'' We gave him great applause because I think he spoke for most Americans.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 310. Yesterday, I too offered several amendments with my colleagues that would require broadcasters to perform minimum public- interest obligations and ask GAO to study the link between indecency and media ownership. I am very disappointed that they were not made in order, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this rule and requesting an open rule. Mr. Speaker, while we all believe in the need to reduce indecency in media, I do not believe increasing fines addresses the root causes of the problem, namely, the current trend of unfettered media conglomeration and its impact on creative voices. This bill is a response to the anger felt by millions of parents and consumers regarding our dumbed-down media culture today. The bottom line is, a consolidated media market controlled by profit- driven conglomerates is bound to produce indecent, shock-value programming for the sake of viewership. That is why I joined my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), in offering an amendment that would request a GAO study on the connection between media ownership and indecency. I am very disappointed that the amendment was rejected. Furthermore, when big media gets bigger and the race for audiences turns to the lowest denominator in trash programming to appeal to the broadest possible audience, those conglomerates move further away from quality programming and the principles of diversity, localism and competition, crucial for the service of the public interest. This was why I supported an amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has been a champion in restoring the fairness doctrine. The Slaughter-Watson amendment would have made basic public-interest obligations an element of the broadcast licensees' renewal requirement. That includes the coverage of diverse interests and viewpoints in the local community, the requirement of holding two public hearings each year to ascertain the needs and interests of the communities licensees are serving, and documentation requirements of such public interest coverage. Mr. Speaker, the indecent media culture we are witnessing today cannot be simply modified by increased fines. It needs to be transformed through less media consolidation and greater requirements on broadcasters to serve the public interest. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. Vote against the bill.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I think at the beginning of Negro History Month it is important to report on the Joint Baptist Board Meeting that was held January 24 to 27, 2005, where they jointly, through their presidents, affirmed the following points of agreed action that stem from the forum sessions presented during that meeting. They said: we call for an end to the war in Iraq and withdrawal of U.S. military personnel. The war in Iraq, described by the Department of Defense as Operation Iraqi Freedom, is a costly and unnecessary military action begun on grossly inaccurate, misconstrued, or distorted intelligence against a nation that did not pose an immediate or realistic threat to the national security of our Nation. No weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq, despite intense efforts to locate them. The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and its terror on Iraqi society has been replaced by the brutality and chaos of an ongoing war, which has ravaged the land, ransacked cherished aspects of Iraqi history and culture, and threatened the prospect of what even U.S. intelligence analysts fear could be a civil war. More than 1,400 U.S. military personnel have lost their lives, and more than 10,000 have been wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Over 5,000 of the wounded casualties have been severe enough to prevent return to action. Quoting from a front page story in the January 26, 2005 issue of U.S. Today, it says: ``The Baptists look upon the sorrow, suffering, and financial cost of the war in Iraq and remember the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., a black Baptist preacher who challenged the military engagement in Vietnam more than two generations ago. King's call that we admit the wicked and tragic folly about our self- righteous choice for war rather than peace and nonviolent change reminds us that preference for war always reflects the wrong values. Unnecessary and unjust war does not produce genuine peace, only death, suffering, more violence and more hate. What King said in 1967 when he began his public outcry against the war in Vietnam is still true today. ``A true,'' to quote him, ``revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This business of settling differences is not just.' This business of filling our Nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, love or an election. ``A Nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.'' As religious leaders whose constituents have family members in the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, we pray for the security of our Nation and the safety of our military personnel. We weep with families who mourn the deaths of their loved ones, and we share the anxiety of families concerning the well-being of those who press on in service. Our call that our Nation end its military involvement in Iraq does not rise from a lack of support for our Armed Forces, disregard for national security, or lack of resolve concerning freedom and democracy. Rather, we are concerned about our troops and our military families whose loved ones have been ordered to fight and stay in a war that our leaders refuse to even send their own children and the children of the wealthy into. Mr. Speaker, I implore the President to bring our troops home now. As religious leaders whose constituents have family members in the U.S. armed forces serving in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, we pray for the security of our nation and the safety of our military personnel. We weep with families who mourn the deaths of their loved ones and we share the anxiety of families concerning the well-being of those who press on in service. Our call that our nation end its military involvement in Iraq does not rise from lace of support for our armed forces, disregard for national security, or lack of resolve concerning freedom and democracy. Rather, we are concerned about our troops and our military families whose loved ones have been ordered to fight and stay in a war that our leaders refuse to even send their own children and the children of wealthy families to fight. Again, we quote Dr. King's words: I am as deeply concerned about our troops there [Vietnam] as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create a hell for the poor. The war in Iraq is not only creating a hell for the poor in Iraq. The grief and suffering it has wrought have been disproportionately forced onto the lives of poor and struggling families in our nation. These families, far more than those who are wealthy, send their loved ones to serve as members of the active force or as reservists and members of the National Guard. It is not just or patriotic for our leaders to thrust the sons and daughters of low income families into unnecessary military engagements.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I cannot condone irresponsible actions, and to support the President's plan on the destruction of Social Security would be just that, irresponsible. Social Security is a program that should be strengthened and preserved for future generations. Republicans are manufacturing a Social Security crisis that does not exist in order to dismantle Social Security. The administration should be working with Congress to promote personal wealth and savings through investment, but not at the cost of Social Security. Despite the President's claims, Social Security will remain solvent for nearly 50 more years under the current system. Modest changes to the system would enable Social Security to pay full benefits well into the future. The President's plan for Social Security reform only achieves solvency through massive cuts in guaranteed benefits, not through privatization. Under the President's plan, according to the CBO, benefits for the typical retiree in 2065 will be 45 percent lower than under the current system. The so-called private accounts will be taxed around 50 percent before the money is available to the beneficiary. I am especially disappointed at the recent comments made by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. The elimination of racial and gender disparities is an issue whose time is long overdue. As a Federal elected official, a Congressional Black Caucus member and a senior woman, I want to call attention to the following facts. Social Security makes up a much larger share of total retirement income for unmarried women and minorities than it does for married couples, unmarried men and whites. Among seniors, Social Security is the sole source of income for 26 percent of nonmarried women. Social Security is a family insurance program, not an investment scheme. Every American that is drawing Social Security put in the blood, sweat and tears required to earn the benefit. Social Security has been very effective in reducing poverty; and without Social Security, 47 percent of whites age 65 or older would have incomes below the poverty line. Sixty percent of blacks age 65 or older would be below the poverty line, and the poverty rate would be over 55 percent for Hispanics age 65 or older as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to honor the Americans that have accepted stewardship of this great country for over 65 years of their lives. We are a stronger Nation when we protect and respect our seniors. We gain wisdom, institutional memory, guidance, and family values by ensuring the well-being of all our elder citizens. Forty-eight million people receive Social Security benefits each month. Thirty million are retired workers who have paid into the system, and more than 90 percent of people age 65 or older obtain Social Security income. Mr. Speaker, we should not endorse a plan that will destroy Social Security. The President's plan is simply irresponsible.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 40, a resolution honoring the career and philanthropic contribution of Johnny Carson. I want to thank Congressman Fortenberry for joining me in introducing this timely resolution, and I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues in honoring an American legend. Mr. Carson, known to millions around the world simply as ``Johnny,'' was not only the king of late-night comedy, but a true American icon whose wit and social commentary help defined generations of American entertainment and popular culture. During his 30-year reign of late night, he commanded the loyalty of millions of television viewers. He did this not just by being a gifted comedian, but by being everyone's favorite next-door neighbor, who always knew how to put his audiences at ease. His jokes on politics were always sharp and perceptive, but never below the belt. His monologues reflected the pulse of our Nation. He is and always will be the fabric of American society. Johnny brought heartland values with him to show business, and he departed a class act. After he finished his final show in 1992, he never returned for guest appearances or prime-time specials. Instead, Johnny demonstrated his well known sincerity by letting his remarkable achievements speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to pay tribute to this great American icon, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the success of the 9/11 bill (S. 2845) is a great victory for America. It will make America safer by establishing a single individual who will be responsible for coordinating our intelligence and who will be accountable to Congress and the American people. The bill's success also demonstrates that our democratic process works and that Americans can come together in a bipartisan way to overcome the narrow interests of a few and meet the greatest challenge of our age head-on. It is fitting that the 9/11 bill is being considered by the House today on the 63rd anniversary of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor,a day on which 2,400 Americans died. The parallels between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are striking. In each instance there were warning signs before the attack, and in each instance our government failed to connect the dots. Whether at Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center, surprise is everything involved in a government's failure to anticipate effectively. The events of 9/11 defined a generation and laid bare our nation's lack of preparation and a national strategy to deal with the new threat of terrorism. Passage of the 9/11 bill cannot by itself defeat the terrorist threat. A vote in Congress will not capture Osama bin Laden or stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But today we have given the U.S. Government new tools to deal with a new enemy who, as enemies of old, threatens our liberty and way of life. Finally, the 9/11 bill was resuscitated on more than one occasion and kept alive by the sacrifice and perseverance of the 9/11 families. It will ensure that their loved ones did not die in vain. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, today, the House Republican leadership is clearing up a mess they made three weeks ago. On November 20, 2004, House Republicans sent to the floor another unwieldy omnibus spending bill, 2 months late and billions of dollars short for America's education, health care and homeland security needs. It was not until the last moment that we discovered that Republicans had slipped in a hidden provision that would have let Congress read the tax returns of any individual American taxpayer and reveal the contents to the public, with no penalties for committing such a flagrant violation of privacy. Republicans quickly and vocally distanced themselves from this provision, and I have no doubt that my Republican colleagues were as ashamed as I was that this provision almost became law. But where the Republican leadership continues to fail is by claiming this is an isolated mistake. The ugly truth is that it is a symptom of a legislative process that is broken. In a democracy, the legislative process relies on free and open exchange of ideas. After the final rollcall, there are winners and there are losers, but the system works because all sides know that the issues were debated openly, and the results were reached fairly. The process Congress has used to fund our government for the past 3 years falls short of this ideal. In fact, it does not even come close. A few Republican leaders work day and night, behind closed doors, to prepare a document thousands of pages long. Then, the report is filed in the middle of the night, and Members are asked to vote on it the following morning. The people's elected representatives are forced to cast votes on a bill that funds half of the Federal Government, yet few people have actually read it. The result is inevitable: bad law. Sometimes it is dramatically bad, like the sneak-and-peek tax provision in this year's bill. But more often it is boringly bad: billions wasted on the wrong priorities, monies that could go to education, health care, or Homeland Security instead going to someone's pet boondoggle. But just because it is boring does not make it any better. Mr. Speaker, we owe the American taxpayer better accountability of the money they send to us. As the President is fond of saying, it is not our money. It belongs to the taxpayers. And the taxpayers are right to demand better government policy. I urge the Speaker to uphold the House's own rules on conference reports. Give us a chance to read bills before we have to vote on them, and give the American people a chance to have a free and open debate on how their taxpayer dollars are spent.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 531, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr Speaker, a very important initiative is being launched in my district by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Many of us think of a museum as merely a place to visit to see educational exhibits. That is not always the case. Many of our Nation's museums are leading the way in critical scientific research. The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County is one such museum. It is the steward of one of the world's largest collections of marine life, representing hundreds of years of ocean biodiversity. The Museum aims to organize its valuable, world class marine collection and merge that with new research opportunities to gather and distribute information critical to biodiversity studies and conservation efforts. With this, the Museum is establishing the West Coast Center for Marine Biodiversity as a hub for oceanic preservation and research. The West Coast Center for Marine Biodiversity will be an extraordinary public-private partnership that will benefit the world's oceans and the future sustainability of its valuable resources. Most importantly, the Center will take a significant step to fulfilling the goals of the Federal Government to save the world's oceans and the ecosystems they support. There has been significant news lately regarding the status of the world's oceans with the release of the Ocean's Commission Report earlier this year. I know the researchers and data at the West Coast Center for Biodiversity can be a tremendous asset to the efforts at the National Oceanic and Atmospherics Administration (NOAA) and other Federal departments and agencies doing similar work. I strongly encourage the development of a partnership with these Federal entities and the West Coast Center for Marine Biodiversity at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, we as Americans have been victims of lies, deceptions, and distractions. Today's LA Times reported that Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Last year it was said, and it has been said repeatedly, that there were weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi regime had no formal written strategy to revise the banned programs after sanctions and no staff or infrastructure in place to do so. Mr. Speaker, more than a thousand U.S. troops have been killed and thousands more have been wounded for a bogus reason. We have broken a country, and we need billions of dollars to rebuild while we are neglecting our own needs here at home. The House leadership has been rebuked and the administration has led us in the wrong direction. A change is definitely needed.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 30,000 youth in the Los Angeles County foster care system. The goal for our foster care system is to find a permanent, loving family for each child and to ensure their well-being. The focus of this bill is interstate placement, an excellent way to place children with relatives. This bill will help to achieve this goal. But my concern is this: after 2 years, H.R. 4504 would eliminate an opt-out provision for FBI background checks for all States. The California County Welfare Directors Association concurs that this provision presents a problem for my home State of California, which already performs more rigorous background checks than required by the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. The 9/11 Commission has told us the FBI is already having difficulty performing background checks for homeland security needs. States cannot rely on the overburdened FBI to accelerate interstate placements of children. Our foster care children would have to compete with criminals and terrorists for time. Foster care youth need to be placed in safe, loving homes. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, to give the Congress the opportunity to revisit this mandatory background check provision before the 2-year reprieve is over so that States like California can continue with their more rigorous background checks. I will work with the author to maybe have a provision that would do that.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, last week, a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, myself included, addressed the issue of upcoming elections, with particular attention going to voter intimidation, oppression, and suppression. I congratulate the Congressional Black Caucus, and particularly the leadership of our chair, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), for making Americans aware of this very serious issue. The sad truth is that in every election since reconstruction, in every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, voters, and particularly African Americans and other minorities, have faced calculated and determined efforts at intimidation and suppression, both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, indeed throughout the Nation. It appears that the upcoming national elections will not break that pattern. In an article on the op-ed page of Monday's Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter states the following: ``The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest, and fair.'' President Carter cites two significant requirements for free and fair elections. First, standards that the State of Florida still fails to meet. The first is a nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process. And the second requirement is uniformity in voting procedures so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in this same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, President Carter is not speaking off the cuff when it comes to election monitoring. The world renowned Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections around the world, many under difficult and dangerous circumstances. When it comes to certifying that elections are free and fair, the Carter Center is the gold standard. People listen and they take note. They listen and take note, it appears, everywhere in the world but here in the United States. President Carter is dead-on target in stating that ``It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among our Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy.'' That is why I introduced House Resolution 793, a sense of Congress resolution, condemning all efforts to suppress and intimidate voters in the United States and reaffirming that the right to vote is a fundamental right of all eligible United States citizens. The resolution also urges States to replace decade-old election machinery with less error-prone equipment before the November 2004 national elections; calls upon all States to institute a moratorium on the erection of roadblocks or identity checkpoints designed to racially profile voters on Election Day, and calls upon the Attorney General to vigorously monitor all credible allegations of voter intimidation and suppression and to expeditiously prosecute all offenders to the full extent of the law. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 793 is a simple resolution that reaffirms the most basic right of every American, the right to vote and have their vote counted. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a Democrat or Republican issue, and I would note, however, that not one single Member on the other side of the aisle has cosponsored this resolution. Can anyone take comfort in conducting elections under flawed circumstances that depart from the principles of fair and equal treatment? Can anyone condone an election that perpetuates fraudulent or biased electoral practices? I certainly hope that our Nation's noble experiment in democracy has not. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to briefly address another issue of voter inequity. This past weekend I held a voter awareness workshop in my congressional district for ex-offenders. It is a model for the rest of the Nation, and I would hope that we would look to letting ex- offenders exercise their right to vote after they have served their time and paid their debt to society. Last week, a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, myself included, addressed the issue of the upcoming elections, with particular attention given to voter intimidation, oppression, and suppression. I congratulate the Congressional Black Caucus, and particularly the leadership of our Chair, Congressman Elijah Cummings, for making Americans aware of this very serious issue. The sad truth is that in every election since Reconstruction, in every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, voters--and particularly African-Americans and other minorities--have faced calculated and determined efforts at intimidation and suppression, both above and below the Mason-Dixon Line, indeed throughout the Nation. It appears that the upcoming national elections will not break that pattern. In an article on the op-ed page of Monday's Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter states the following, and I quote: ``The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.'' President Carter cites two significant requirements for free and fair elections--standards that the State of Florida still fails to meet: The first is ``a nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process''; and, the second requirement is ``uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy.'' Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, President Carter is not speaking off-the-cuff when it comes to election monitoring. The world-renowned Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections around the world, many under difficult and dangerous circumstances. When it comes to certifying that elections are free and fair, the Carter Center is the gold standard; people listen and take note. They listen and take note, it appears, everywhere in the world but the United States. President Carter is dead-on target in stating that ``It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy.'' That is why I recently introduced House Resolution 793--a sense of Congress resolution condemning all efforts to suppress and intimidate voters in the United States and reaffirming that the right to vote is a fundamental right of all eligible United States citizens. The resolution also urges States to replace decade-old election machinery with less error-prone equipment before the November 2004 national elections; calls upon all States to institute a moratorium on the erection of roadblocks or identity checkpoints designed to racially profile voters on election day; and calls upon the Attorney General to vigorously monitor all credible allegations of voter intimidation and suppression and to expeditiously prosecute all offenders to the full extent of the law. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 793 is a simple resolution that reaffirms the most basic right of every American--the right to vote and have their vote counted. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a Democrat or Republican issue. I would note, however, that not one single member on the other side of the aisle has cosponsored the resolution. Can anyone take comfort in conducting elections under flawed circumstances that depart from the principles of fair and equal treatment? Can anyone condone an election that perpetuates fraudulent or biased electoral practices? I certainly hope that our Nation's noble experiment in democracy has not. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to briefly address another issue of voter inequity. This past weekend I held a voter awareness workshop in my congressional district for ex-offenders. In many States around the nation, ex-offenders' right to vote is either restricted or banned. This week the Sentencing Project released a study showing that African American men in Atlanta were 11 times more likely than non-African American to be disenfranchised. Nationwide, an estimated 5 million Americans are affected by felony voting restrictions. African-American males account for about 8 percent of the U.S. population and 40 percent of the prison population. The high numbers of disenfranchised African American males casts a pall on voting. Why should any State have the authority to restrict the right of persons to vote who have paid their debt to society? This is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Mr. Speaker, the credibility of our Nation is under attack from around the world. We cannot afford to witness another election debacle like the one we experienced in 2000. It is time for the American public and this body to sit up and take note of a potentially serious crisis facing the United States.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and I appreciate the gentlewoman's passionate expression of the right to vote. That undergirds the reason why I introduced a resolution. I read in the paper last week that there was a gentleman in one of the States up north who said we must suppress the black vote because, as you know, blacks vote Democrat, and so we must find ways to suppress their getting to the polls. I was appalled and shocked that we are dealing with something that was outlawed, we thought, by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But we always have to be awakened to the facts and realities in which we live, that racism is not dead in this country; it just takes a different position, a different posture. So despite the gains that we have made in securing our right to vote, new roadblocks have been successfully erected, including diluting the African-American vote by switching to an at-large election, preventing African-Americans from becoming candidates or obtaining office, voter fraud, the discriminatory selection of election officials, denying African-Americans access to precinct meetings and the harassment and outright exclusion of African-Americans from polling places. And we know that, prior to the last election, there were notices sent out that said if the weather is bad, you do not have to vote on November, let us just use the 2nd, but you can vote on December 10. These are things that are occurring in today's atmosphere. Mr. Speaker, I have put together a series of whereases in this resolution. What they do is document progress that has been made. I would like to read just one of them: Whereas voters in the United States, particularly African-Americans and other minorities, have faced calculated and determined efforts at voter intimidation and suppression in every national election since the reconstruction era. An example of that was a few weeks ago in Florida where names were purged, but only names of African-Americans, and the person who was in charge, the secretary of state, said that the information gotten from the database on the census did not indicate whether Hispanics should be purged because they were considered to be white. If you have a Gonzalez and a Solis and a Menendez, that might make one question whether you have some Hispanics on this list. It is these kinds of calculated efforts that we want to do away with, and when I get back to my district, I am going to contact my county bar association and ask if they will join in our efforts to be sure we have attorneys throughout this country who will be ready in a flash to go to court when we see these violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for yielding to me and for the Caucus for organizing this important discussion on voter intimidation and suppression in the United States. In a Nation where children are taught at the earliest age that every citizen has the right to vote, it would be comforting to know that the last vestiges of voter intimidation, oppression and suppression have been swept away by the passage and the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The facts, however, are discomforting. In every national election since reconstruction, in every election since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, voters, and particularly African Americans and other minorities, have faced calculated and determined efforts at intimidation and suppression, both above and below the Mason Dixon line, from California to Maine to Texas to Montana. Overt, and often violent, voter participation in the era of Jim Crow now has been replaced by more subtle, but often just as intimidating, tactics. Gone are the days of poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, intimidation, threats, innuendo and deception are often more used to discourage voter turnout. The list of strategies used by those who wish to suppress or intimidate voters is indeed varied and includes the following: challenges and threats against individual voters at the polls by armed private guards, off duty law enforcement officers, local creditors, fake poll monitors and poll workers and managers; signs posted at polling places warning of penalties for voter fraud and non-citizen voting or illegally urging support for a candidate; poll workers assisting voters in filling out their ballots and instructing them on how to vote; criminal tampering with voter registration rolls and records; flyer and radio advertisements containing false information; roadblocks placed near polling places; and internal memos from party officials in which the goals of suppressing voter turnout are outlined. Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming evidence of widespread voter intimidation and suppression in our Nation and the fact that the presidential election of 2004 promises to be as close as the 2000 election, when every vote did count but was not counted, prompted me to draft a resolution condemning all efforts to suppress and intimidate voters in the United States and affirming that the right to vote is a fundamental right of all eligible United States citizens. The resolution also urges States to replace decades-old election machinery with less error-prone equipment before the November 2004 national elections. It calls upon all States to institute a moratorium on the erection of roadblocks or identity checkpoints designed to racially profile or intimidate voters on election day. Mr. Speaker, I saw this happening when I was the ambassador to Micronesia, thousands of miles away and watching on CNN. I was horrified that my country would see on election day these kinds of racially-profiled activities that were intended to stop the person of color from voting. I was horrified and ashamed. My resolution calls upon the Attorney General to vigorously monitor and investigate all credible allegations of voter intimidation and suppression and to expeditiously prosecute all offenders to the full extent of the law. Mr. Speaker, all of us here today are very aware of the voter irregularities that took place in Florida during the 2000 election. We are very aware that every vote does count and that in 2000 perhaps as little as 600 votes separated the two presidential candidates. We are also aware that many of the votes in Florida were disqualified due to antiquated voting machines used predominantly in minority neighborhoods. While just 11 percent of Florida's voters are African American, more than half of the spoiled ballots, that is, more than 90,000 of the votes tossed out, were cast by African Americans. We are also aware of other unsettling events, one of which was conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in Orlando this summer. In that investigation, elderly African American voters were visited at their homes by law enforcement officers, curious about their voting behavior. Florida officials deny any attempt to intimidate voters. However, the Justice Department recently disclosed that it had initiated a civil rights investigation into what had occurred in Orlando. The recent event in Florida follows on the heels of two other well- publicized events in Florida when in 2001 State officials attempted to purge its list of alleged felons, predominantly African Americans, and in 2004, when the State again attempted to purge its voter list. Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, come to the floor of this House this evening to declare that never again will such acts of voter intimidation and suppression be used. It is high time for both parties to sign a mutual pledge to renounce any and all efforts to suppress the vote in this upcoming election. The world will be watching our Nation on the eve of November 2. As we go into other Nations and the United Nations talking about liberty and democracy, we cannot be hypocritical. Not only will the Western world be watching, but the non-Western, and particularly the Arab, world will be following the election. If we intend to bring liberty to Iraq and any other country, we must model that behavior here at home. So I want to show the world how democracy should be practiced, not how it should not, and as a person whose roots are on the continent of Africa, no longer will we be suppressed or intimidated because our skins are black. I am an American. I have been an American ambassador. I have a right to vote, and no one should stop me or mine from exercising that right.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I stand to pay tribute to an outstanding and distinguished human being, Joe Kary Westmoreland, from my district who died just recently. Joe began his musical career by singing and playing the piano at a very early age in New Morning Star Baptist Church. After graduating from Booker T. Washington High School, he moved to Los Angeles to continue his education. He attended Los Angeles City College and the University of California at Los Angeles where he earned a bachelor's degree in 1981. In 2000, Joe received a doctoral degree from the Pentecostal Bible College, West Coast Campus. Joe taught choral music at Duarte High School, Occidental College, and UCLA. For over a quarter of a century, he served the First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles, many of these years as Minister of Music. Since 1976, his gospel music compositions have been presented in over 100 concerts by major orchestras and two films, Music in Time and Zubin Rocks Gospel, and are in public libraries around the country. One aired on three segments of CBS' 60 Minutes. The North Carolina Symphony and Interdenominational Choir performed seven of Joe's compositions at the Shaw University Heritage Festival, from 1977 through 1980. He conceived and helped produce the noted, Hallelujah Concert: A Tribute to Gospel Music, held at the Great Western Forum in Inglewood, California. Joe was the first composer of gospel music to have his works performed by Zubin Mehta and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra as well as the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. In 1982, Joe was commissioned by the Albany Symphony to write a gospel mass. This music was also performed by the Utah Symphony Orchestra in 1983. And in 1987, together with Charles May, he wrote the gospel opera, Job, which starred Reverend Daryl Coley and the First AME Freedom Choir. It was performed again in 1988 for the Los Angeles Festival and for the AME General Conference in Fort Worth, Texas. His credits go on and on in the area of music and gospel and bringing the two together. He wrote the gospel opera, Jezebel, which was performed in the Vision Theater in Los Angeles for a full month. His musical talents have not been unrewarded, and he has received every single award across the board. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of citizen that we need more of. He leaves a tremendous legacy in music and song but, most of all, in spirituality. And I want to extend my sympathy to his wife who stood by him all of those years, through an automobile accident, through several strokes and heart attacks, but he was still able to write and perform. He had been married to his wife for 39 years. We pay tribute to his spirit, to his life, and we wish him a rest that is well-deserved in the hands of our Lord.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, America's roads are coming to a standstill because of ever-increasing congestion. The latest research shows that the average American wastes almost 2 full days a year in traffic. Measured in dollars, the cost of congestion is now $63 billion per year. My own hometown of Los Angeles is again ranked as the most congested city in America, with congestion delays and costs twice the national average. With this congestion causing such a drag on our economy, the American public might expect their Congress to be rushing to resolve such a problem. But we are now almost 2 years past the deadline for passing a new transportation bill, and the administration is still blocking Congress from passing new transportation funding. The issue is, as always, money. The President, after having racked up the largest deficits in American history, is fighting to block this needed investment in roads and transit. Mr. Speaker, my constituents are as fed up with government gridlock as they are with freeway gridlock. America needs transportation relief now.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the participants of the 2004 Summer Olympics from California. Last month, 537 American athletes traveled to Athens to compete for what is arguably the most esteemed prize in the sporting world, an Olympic medal. Among them, were 143 athletes from my own home State of California, and I was able to witness their success. Our California Olympians made their country proud, winning 78 medals: 31 were gold, 17 silver, and 30 bronze. As representative of the 33rd Congressional District, I would like to honor these California Olympians and their contributions to the Golden State's tradition of individual and collective human achievement. In particular, I wish to enter into the Record the names of those Californians who brought home Olympic gold from Athens: Lindsay Benko, Women's Swimming, 4x200 Meter Freestyle Relay; Laura Berg, Women's Softball; Shannon Boxx, Women's Soccer; Crystl Bustos, Women's Softball; Brandi Chastain, Women's Soccer; Natalie Coughlin, Women's Swimming, 100 Meter; Backstroke, 4x200 Meter Freestyle Relay; Matthew Deakin, Men's Rowing. Joy Fawcett, Women's Soccer; Lisa Fernandez, Women's Softball; Jennie Finch, Women's Softball; Tairia Flowers, Women's Softball; Julie Foudy, Women's Soccer; Amanda Freed, Women's Softball; Yolanda Griffith, Women's Basketball; Joanna Hayes, Women's 100 Meter Hurdles. Monique Henderson, Women's 4x400 Meter Relay; Lovieanne Jung, Women's Softball; Lenny Krayzelburg, Men's Swimming, 4x100 Meter Medley Relay; Lisa Leslie, Women's Basketball; Jason Lezak, Men's Swimming, 4x100 Meter Medley Relay; Misty May, Women's Beach Volleyball; Jessica Mendoza, Women's Softball. Stacey Nuveman, Women's Softball; Leah O'Brien-Amico, Women's Softball; Kimberly Rhode, Women's Double Trap Shooting; Diana Taurasi, Women's Basketball; Jenny Topping, Women's Softball; Alyson Wagner, Women's Soccer; Kerri Walsh, Women's Volleyball; Andre Ward, Men's Light Heavyweight Boxing; Natasha Renee Watley, Women's Softball. The talent, dedication and sportsmanship of our California Olympians serves to inspire all of us to strive for success, no matter what our goals. I am proud to stand here to pay tribute to these California Olympic heros, and to all of America's Olympic athletes. I thank them all for using their gifts to inspire us all to greatness.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 4556, legislation naming a postal facility in Dunn, North Carolina, after General William Carey Lee. This measure, which was introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) on June 14, 2004, and unanimously reported out by our committee on July 21, 2004, enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the North Carolina delegation. William Carey Lee was a native of Dunn, North Carolina. He left college to join the United States Army and fought in World War I. He returned home from the war and graduated from North Carolina State University. After a distinguished Army career, William Carey Lee became Commander of the Provisional Parachute Group and the 502nd and 503rd Parachute Battalions at Fort Benning. His enormous enthusiasm for parachute and glider troops led him to develop and command the 101st Airborne Division, an elite paratrooper company hailed for its heroic participation in the D-Day invasion. Although his health would not allow him to be there for the invasion, his men respected and admired him so much that as they jumped from their planes into battle, they yelled his name. General Lee died in 1948, but he remains a legend. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for seeking to honor the legacy of General Lee by sponsoring this bill, and I urge its quick passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the sponsor of H.R. 4556.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 4381, legislation naming a postal facility in Springdale, Arkansas, after Harvey and Bernice Jones. This measure, which was introduced by the gentleman from Arkansas (Representative Boozman) on May 18, 2004, and unanimously reported by our committee on July 8, 2004, enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the Arkansas delegation. As my colleagues have heard, the late Harvey and Bernice Jones were founders of a nonprofit organization, the Jones Center for Families. The mission of the center is to ``serve families, strengthen community, and glorify God.'' The organization, which provided a host of needed community services including health, education, and recreational facilities, was founded to improve the lives of those in need of assistance and guidance. In 1996 President William Clinton awarded Mrs. Bernice Young Jones the Presidential Citizen Medal. Throughout her life, Mrs. Jones donated millions of dollars to assist individuals and families. Mr. Harvey Jones, who built one of the largest trucking companies in the country, was also a generous contributor to charitable organizations. Sadly, he passed in 1989, and Mrs. Jones passed away last year. I commend my colleagues for sponsoring this bill, and I urge its quick passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 4442, legislation naming a postal facility in Reno, Nevada, after ``Guardians of Freedom.'' This measure, which was introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) on May 20, 2004, and unanimously reported by our committee on July 8, 2004, enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the Nevada delegation. The name, ``Guardians of Freedom,'' was chosen by the Nevada North Valley High School Air Force Junior ROTC cadets. The cadets chose the name to honor Nevada men and women who have fought and continue to fight the war on terrorism, particularly those Nevadans who have lost their lives to protect our freedoms. I commend my colleague for sponsoring this bill, and I urge its quick passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 4618, legislation naming a postal facility in Nanuet, New York, after Anthony Lombardi. This measure was introduced by the gentleman from New York (Representative Engel) on June 18, 2004, and unanimously reported by our committee on July 21, 2004; and it enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the New York delegation. A native of Nanuet, New York, Anthony Lombardi served in the U.S. Army. A dedicated serviceman, Anthony participated in the ground force that stormed Normandy in 1944. He was later wounded in another battle. For his valiant efforts, Anthony was awarded two Bronze Stars. After the many battles, Anthony returned home, taught Sunday school at St. Joseph's of Spring Valley, and began a 30-year career with the U.S. Postal Service. As a letter carrier, Anthony Lombardi walked over 100,000 miles delivering mail. His neighbors and friends remembered him as a carrier who did his job with a smile and a hug. I commend my colleague for honoring the memory of the late Anthony Lombardi, and I urge the swift adaptation of H.R. 4618. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.