Diane Watson

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the American economy has been mired in recession since March of 2001. This past December saw the unemployment rate rise to 6 percent, meaning that one in every 17 American workers was out of work. One of the most troubling aspects of this rescission is the amount of time that workers have been idle. During the Clinton economic expansion of the 1990s, America dramatically reduced long-term unemployment, those workers who had been out of work 27 weeks or more. From February of 1993 until February of 2001, roughly the amount of time Bill Clinton was in office, long-term unemployment fell by two-thirds. That is 1.2 million long-term unemployed Americans who went back to work. But in less than 2 years of this administration, there is a recession and the administration has managed to completely erase those gains. By this past December, the administration's economic mismanagement has managed to push long-term unemployment back up to where it was when his father was in office. I remember feeling a certain amount of deja vu after having another President Bush in office. But I do not think that many people realized that this administration would mismanage the economy so badly that we would return to economic stagnation reminiscent of the early 1990s. But these broader economic statistics only tell half the story. During the Clinton expansion of the 1990s, minority communities made enormous strides in breaking out of poverty, as more African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos found good jobs in the prosperous economy. Since the beginning of this recession, however, these numbers have turned around sharply. More than one in 10 African American workers are now out of a job. American workers of minority heritage have historically worked at the edges of the economy. Because of the jobs they possess, too many of these workers are forced to bear the full brunt of swings in the labor market. We need to get America back to work. We have to help this President realize that his fiscal and economic policies have not helped America out of the recession, and it is possible that it has been prolonged. The budget that this President has submitted to Congress is a sweetheart deal for the President's wealthiest supporters. Meanwhile, budgets at all levels of government, Federal, State and local, are swimming in red ink. The President's budget, in effect, hides a $1 trillion tax increase. His budget borrows against the future, leaving us with a $1 trillion bill that Americans will have to pay over the next decade in higher taxes, higher interest rates, and lower growth. We will only get out of this recession when average Americans get money back into their pockets. I urge the President to rethink his failed economic policies and get America back to work.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, words are not sufficient to describe how I felt on Saturday morning when the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus announced that the space shuttle Columbia had gone down. My heart goes out to the families and friends of the seven courageous men and women astronauts. We mourn the tragic loss of Columbia's crew, whose lives were precious to all Americans. Today, as NASA and the Nation continues to struggle with shock and sadness, I want to take this opportunity to commend three Dorsey High School Students from my Congressional District--Atiabet Ijan Amabel, Christina Mojarro, and Juan Carlos Ortega--for participating in the STARS Academy Research Mission with an experiment that was placed aboard space shuttle Columbia. The STARS Academy is an online cultural and scientific global learning program. It incorporates a standards based curriculum in math, science, language arts, geography, and technology. On the STS-107 mission, schools from six countries developed life and physical sciences experiments, while working with astronauts, space scientists, engineers, and other experts. For this mission the participating schools came from: Australia, Spider Experiment; Israel, Crystalline Fiber Growth; Japan, Medaka Fish Growth; USA, Syracuse Ants Experiment; Liechtenstein, Carpenter Bee Experiment; and China, Silk Worm Experiment. These students were involved for over two years. Just over one year ago this wonderful project came to my attention, and I immediately approached Principal Mahmud of Dorsey High School with the idea. The Dorsey science students were required to write an essay explaining why they wanted to participate in the STARS Academy. The three students represent some of the best and finest that Los Angeles Unified School District has to offer. If you do nothing else but read their essays you will know why. Although the Dorsey students joined STARS late in the program, I was pleased that they could participate in this most worthy and highly sophisticated scientific experiment. It is this kind of event that can provide the inspiration to a young man or woman to pursue a career in science and space exploration. After the July 2002 launch postponement, and the Chinese students' visa problems, the Dorsey students were challenged to move from observers to collaborators on the Silk Worm Experiment. This bi- national experiment investigates the effects of microgravity on silkworm larvae development and silk production. Juan, Christina, and Amabel fully constructed the silk worm habitat and installed it aboard the payload module, prior to Columbia's launch. I applaud the dedication of LA Unified Instructional Technology Administrator Joe Oliver for his work with the students to instruct them in a short amount of time. Joe changed his focus from a little of everything to Silk Worm 101, and was pleasantly surprised at how quickly the students learned the new material. I am especially proud of Christina Mojarro, Juan Ortega, and Amabel Atiabet who have represented themselves, their families, Dorsey High School, LAUSD, California's 33rd District, and Los Angeles, so well. Mr. Speaker, despite the tragic events, this is an historic moment for Dorsey High School and its students who participated in the Silk Worm Experiment. Their projects and dedication to science are fitting honors to the astronauts who lost their lives and an inspiration to all future space explorers.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has campaigned across the 50 States, has campaigned by issuing promises to strengthen our Nation. He has pledged to improve our schools, to create jobs, to protect our homeland, but soon after these promises were made, we see how empty they are. President Bush fought against providing funds for his own education bill. It is still unfunded and leaves our children behind. President Bush fought to prevent Congress from extending unemployment benefits for laid-off workers. We worked hard to at least to get a reference, and now President Bush is fighting to prevent the Federal Government from spending the funds necessary to protect our homeland. When we say ``homeland security,'' we are not talking about fancy technology or a building. We are talking about training and equipment for first responders, the men and women of our local police force and fire departments, the ones who will be putting their lives on the line in case of a terrorist attack. Warren Rudman, the former Republican Senator, who helped lead the United States Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, said about the Bush budget, ``The bottom line is that it appears to us we are going to be underfunded in several key areas.'' His comments were echoed by a current Republican Senator and decorated Vietnam veteran who said Bush's budget is ``not even sufficient to provide for the first responder program in the States. It is not sufficient to provide for broader security.'' We have known for some time that this President puts children second to tax cuts for the rich. We have known he puts jobs second to tax cuts, but to see our national security sacrificed in favor of a tax cut skewed to millionaires really takes the cake. Now the President has an opportunity tonight to prove that he values national security more than tax cuts. I urge him to embrace that opportunity.

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in sadness to share the passing of a good friend and a model parent, Mr. Willie James Chisholm. He was better known to me and his other friends and family as ``Buddy.'' His passing will be strongly felt by all of us because he was such a dedicated and caring person. One of the many things I admired about him was his joy in being a father. He made it a priority in his life to spend quality time with his two children, William and Cheryl. The time spent with children is priceless and something that is hard to do for most parents, given how busy our lives have become. But Buddy knew how important it was and made sure to be a strong role model for his children, grandchildren, and other young people he knew in his community. Indeed, Buddy exhibited traits that are fast becoming relics of the past: a dedicated and fulfilling faith, commitment to his 27-year career at McDonnell Douglas as a brick mason, and a love for the outdoors, sports, and traveling. The world is a better place with people like Buddy Chisholm in it. His presence will certainly be missed. His memory will live on spiritually in the lives of those he touched, as well as physically in the many brick-laying projects he was involved with that beautified the Los Angeles area. I send my heartfelt condolences to the Chisholm family. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding. This month marks the beginning of the third year of the Bush recession, and I would like to say that even if the Clinton administration is being blamed, it is on this administration's watch that these things are occurring. Across the Nation workers continue to lose their jobs on this watch. Nationwide 800,000 laid-off workers lost their benefits on December 28, and I appreciate the 13-week expansion that was signed today, but I think 26 weeks would have been more likely, more acceptable, and make a better difference. In my own State, the State of California, our budget deficit has mushroomed to 35 billion, with a ``b,'' dollars, while unemployment has risen by 6.5 percent, and that is only those that can be counted who are still in the system. Many have dropped out of the system, do not even report for unemployment, do not even report seeking jobs. They are just out there on the streets. So I am sure in my district this number would be higher. As millions of people are out of work and the economy continues in a weak and jobless recovery at its best, it is important to have a strong and immediate economic program that will put money in the hands of consumers now. I am sorry to say that this administration has been more consumed with initiating a war than it has been with initiating a domestic economic policy that will benefit this country and make it stronger in defending against those who would attack us. Earlier this week the President announced his plan to deal with this slow economy. Why were we not talking about it last year? Why did we have to go through the Christmas holidays with parents wondering if they could afford to buy gifts for their children? Are parents wondering if they can keep shelter, keep a roof over their heads? We knew the economy had slowed, but it was just this week that finally the administration awakened. This was the President's chance to ask Congress for real job-creating plans, to immediately address the economic problems faced by that working class ordinary Americans. Instead, the President chose to stick with more of the same tax schemes that he tried last year. I wonder if anyone noticed except me that in September a year ago when the tax cut plan was passed that we saw more bankruptcies, corporate misconduct was revealed, and we were in a mess. We saw the jobless rate grow. Now, if the tax cut was meant to stimulate investments in business, it had the opposite effect, and I would be truly concerned if I were the administration why there were so many bankruptcies when we gave a tax break to corporate America. What happened? I think I know. All we need to do is watch any program that deals with wealth and the wealthy in this country. We will see that they are building larger homes in exotic places, 3,800 square foot homes for these executives of these companies that have gone bankrupt, larger yachts, are buying more business but not employing more people. Some of the biggest corporations cut staff, pare down. Somebody ought to explain that. These policies were skewed to favor these same wealthy Americans, and to think that we have a homeland security proposal that allows a lot of these business owners to escape paying their fair taxes and run to other exotic places to hide their companies I think is un-American. His plan will blow an even bigger hole in the budget and threaten economic growth, and only 15 percent of the Bush package will take effect this year, meaning that most of the economic impact of the program would not be felt until 2004 and thereafter. The centerpiece of the plan, the complete elimination of taxes on stock dividends, and think for a second, many of the people I represent do not know what a stock dividend is. Investing dollars? Are we kidding? They are trying to pay their rent. They are trying to pay their house notes. They are trying to send their children to college if they can even get through elementary, middle school, and high school. They are trying to keep their families together. So they are not the ones that are going to feel any benefit from the elimination of these taxes. And they say it will benefit the seniors. Certainly I think today when you get 50 years old you can claim being a senior, and certainly the guys and gals who have made the big money are in their 60's and they can sit back with all this money flowing in because they do not have taxes to pay. It certainly will benefit them, but it certainly will not get to the people that really make up the core of America. So it primarily benefits this elite class, the wealthy, instead of putting money in the hands of the hard-working Americans who keep this country going. According to preliminary estimates of the Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 45 percent of the benefits of the entire Bush proposal would go, and now get this, do not take my word for it, check it out yourself, but the benefit will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers who have an average income of $350,000. In fact, those making over a million dollars will see an average tax break of $88,000-plus, more than a hundred times the tax cut for the vast majority of taxpayers making less than $75,000. Do not take my figures. Do the math. Be analytical in your thinking. Look at the President's proposal and see who fits the description of the provisions in it. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded last year, tax cuts that are targeted towards lower income households are likely to generate more stimulus dollar for dollar of revenue loss, that is, be more cost effective and have more bang for the buck, than those concentrated among higher income households. This is because higher income families are less likely to put that money back into the economy by spending it. So by targeting their tax cuts on the wealthy, the Bush administration has undermined its stimulus effect. Look what happened with the last tax cut. Furthermore, the Bush plan would worsen the current budget deficits. Anybody concerned about deficits today? I remember several years ago they were. But the Bush plan would worsen the current budget deficits that have ballooned since the Bush administration took over. Check it out. The Bush plan would increase the deficit by nearly $700 billion over 10 years, and I do not think there is any argument over that. We are dealing with concrete numbers. Not only does this threaten key investments like Social Security and Medicare, this growth in deficits would promote higher interest rates and threaten to worsen the economy instead of spurring economic growth. Where is the concern of current Republicans? And I remember under the Newt Gingrich era, they were very concerned about deficit. Maybe it is amnesia. Democrats have put forth an alternative stimulus plan, one that delivers a real immediate boost for our economy. The House Democratic alternative, economic stimulus package, is fast acting, fair, and fiscally responsible. Does anyone care about fiscal responsibility, or is it smoke and mirrors? It focuses on jump-starting the economy now and quickly moving the United States to a long-term growth agenda. It does not deceive people. It does not make people buy this fluff and try to feel good about it when it is not real. Our package is. The Democratic economic stimulus plan aimed at those who need it most avoids increasing the deficit and helps States that are deeply suffering through this recession. Not only California but across this country, States are suffering. We ought to have the governors in here to debate these proposals. The Democratic plan will immediately target $18 billion to extend unemployment benefits for laid-off workers who have already exhausted their claims and in addition provide more needed relief to cash strap States and localities. The Democratic plan also provides immediate tax relief for small businesses to generate investment and jobs. It allocates additional funds for transportation, homeland security, healthcare, and extends unemployment benefits for workers whose insurance has run out and who have been unable to find jobs. The plan also puts money in the hands of consumers who drive the economy by giving a $300 tax rebate to every working American and also $600 for couples. Unlike the Republican tax plan which favors the wealthy by providing tax cuts on stock dividends and does little to grow the economy, the Democrats' stimulus package focuses tax cuts on lower and middle class taxpayers and actually will cost less than Republican plan. In addition, the Democratic plan will spur the economy by providing funding for homeland security. Let us make America secure on the real side that targets rebuilding our Nation's long-neglected infrastructure. Most importantly, the Democratic plan is fiscally responsive and fair. It provides the proper amount of targeted economic stimulus and, at the same time, will not impact the budget deficit. So in closing, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the two plans and to give some real numbers and real figures. I represent one of those States that is sorely in need of help. But of the $35 billion deficit, that is with a ``B,'' we cannot cut enough and we cannot raise enough taxes to fill in that gap. We need to put America back to work. We need to put Californians back to work. We need to generate real jobs.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to request from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) if we can do a side-by-side chart on the cost of waging war in Iraq. I understand we have several thousand troops already over in the Middle East, and possibly the dispute with North Korea might require us to commit dollars. I would like to see a chart with the cost of war and the cost of nationbuilding if we are trying to create a new regime. What is our commitment going to be to this new regime that we have called for? I can tell the Members from my own experience as the ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia, they were a trust territory until 1986. In 1986, we signed a compact of free association with them that was to last 15 years. It has cost us $5 billion, and we are getting ready to sign on another 20 years. Now, I saw taxpayers' dollars go into the ocean. I was there. I knew. We had to close down some programs because that money was going into people's pockets, and into building homes for the very wealthy and the families of the very wealthy. We were not monitoring it. I came back here many times saying, give me not only audits but oversight and follow-up; get the FBI out here, because our money is being taken. I could not get anyone to listen. I left; the problem got worse. Ask the current ambassador. What is going to happen in Afghanistan in the long run and in Iraq in the long run? We talked about the axis of evil, so let us talk about Iran, too, and let us talk about North Korea. We did not say that; the President stood on this floor and talked about the axis of evil. Getting rid of the evil means changing those who are running those countries now. What is our obligation as Congress, as the Federal Government, and taxpayers? All this has to be taken into consideration in terms of the proposed tax cuts. If we talk about homeland security, how do we secure our own home if we cannot even educate our children, if we cannot even improve our infrastructure, if we cannot set out a budget for first responders? In my own city of Los Angeles we only have 9,000 police officers, as compared to Giuliani's New York with 30,000. We have 2 million people. So are we sincere about protecting our homeland? That means not the home land, that means America's people. What is our plan for seriously doing that? I just wanted to put that out as we go about looking at the budget. I think it is very important to be heard. That is why I said it.

Ms. WATSON. We are cutting our revenue base, and we are fighting a war over 10,000 miles away that we really do not need to fight, we really do not need to fight.

Ms. WATSON. Let me say, we are a member of the United Nations. We went to the Security Council. They have their inspectors out there. If they do not find what they are looking for, it needs to go back to the Security Council. We are working on an assumption, and North Korea says, we have your bomb. The monies that we give them for food and so on, does it really get to the people? If it did, why do we have such massive starvation over in North Korea? And I do not see why we are treating them any differently than we are treating Iraq. Where is our commitment? How do we secure the United States? A country is only as strong as its people, and we cannot let the general public forget that. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I also want to add my voice to those of the other Members who have spoken regarding the death of Joe Remcho. We will miss him greatly. He served the people of California well. As long as I can remember during my stint in the Senate, Joe Remcho has been there, representing us at every level of the justice system. He was a determined, an experienced, and a knowledgeable attorney. His accidental and untimely death shall be regretted by all the people of California as well as those that he worked with. We mourn him, but we salute him as a lawyer who represented us at the highest level of performance. We extend our deepest sympathy to his family.

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge Mr. Nicholas Royce, a dedicated American and Southern Californian, who has spent more than fifty years as an advocate for the Eastern Orthodox religion and its inclusion as an integral part of American religious life. Mr. Royce's first experience with religious discrimination was when he entered the Armed Forces and found the service had limited religious choices--Protestant, Catholic and Jewish. Through Mr. Royce's encouragement and a prolific letter writing campaign, U.S. Senator Leverett Saltonstall introduced and had passed legislation in 1955 which recognized the more than 500,000 Orthodox Catholics who had fought and died in uniform. Today, service men and women are able to wear name tags designating Eastern Orthodoxy and they have access to Orthodox chaplains. In addition, thirty-three states now recognize Eastern Orthodoxy as a major religion. Having retired from a successful show business career that began at the age of 14 as a dancer, Mr. Royce has devoted his time to fighting for AIDS victims, the homeless and abused women and children. Breaking down gender barriers, Mr. Royce has been an active member of the Hollywood Women's Press Club. Women in Film and American Women in Radio and Television. I am pleased to be able to recognize the accomplishments of Mr. Nicholas Royce on the occasion of his birthday and wish him many more years of successful activism.

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I stand to oppose H.J. Res. 114, the authorization for military force against Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I have attended numerous administrative hearings on Iraq where not one bit of new evidence was offered to demonstrate that presently Saddam Hussein is more of a menace than that proven diabolical character, Osama bin Laden. Why are we not still focusing our attention on him? I remember so well the declaration made by the President: ``Wanted, dead or alive.'' We have painfully experienced his capacity to wreak havoc on thousands of our people from thousands of miles from his own perch. And now, he appears to be an afterthought. We have given Saddam Hussein the power to force the greatest country on Earth to abandon its domestic agenda, to potentially violate the U.N. charter, and possibly take unilateral and preemptive action before exhausting all diplomatic efforts. I am not convinced that Saddam Hussein warrants the daily headlines and the extraordinary amount of time and resources given to him. We are equating his power with ours and, in some ways, ascribing it to be beyond our ability to detect. While we are monitoring his every move, I have no doubt that if he were to plan an attack on the United States or on our allies, we would be able to stop him in his tracks. But what we cannot do is to provide the proof of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts or whether he is dead or alive, or who spread anthrax and, currently, right here in this country, who is killing innocent Americans in a close radius of the White House. But our focus remains thousands of miles away on a villain who cowardly goes after the weakest. It is beneath us to choose war over diplomacy, and not only carry a big stick, but beat our perceived enemy over the head with it. The United Nations is being diminished with our rhetoric of the last few weeks. As a charter member, we are not giving it credit for trying to uphold the principle of sovereign equality of all its members. The U.N. charter states that in recognition of the sovereignty of all nations, all shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means. The U.N. charter also states that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Chapter VI of the charter empowers the Security Council to investigate any disputes and to recommend appropriate procedures for the settlement of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved, it is then referred to the Security Council for action. Under Chapter VII, the U.N. Security Council shall determine the existence of threats to peace. Article 46 provides that plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council. The U.N. charter does not provide for preemptive or first-strike options of member states against a perceived threat. Too little in this House has been made of peace. When will we mature to a point when we will find noncombative ways to settle our differences? When are we ready to use our higher selves to find ways to be nonviolent? To effect a regime change, we are threatening an invasion of a territorial foe to enhance our own security; but such an invasion will, in fact, degrade and diminish us. This resolution offers only the incessant drumbeat of war. During the Vietnam War, it was often said that ever every time we kill a Viet Cong guerrilla, we create two more. Our invasion of Iraq will be watched by millions of Muslim men and women. Many governments around the world will become less cooperative in helping us track down terrorist operatives in their countries. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American men and women may perish in the streets of Baghdad. Our invasion will engender a bottomless well of bitterness and resentment towards the United States that will haunt us for decades to come. We now have a choice to maintain the moral high ground or sink to the depths of our tormentors. History will record this moment. Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 3295, Help America Vote Act of 2002

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I come to support two champions who will have post offices named after them. First I would like to support H.R. 5340 and sportscaster legend Chick Hearn. I represented the Lakers for many a year in Inglewood while Chick Hearn was at his finest, and I feel very close to that voice even in death, because his was the voice representing a real sportsman's spirit; and he was able to educate, train, and mentor almost everyone who heard him in sportsmanship. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) expressed, he coined many phrases that are used today. Our younger people will grow up parroting those phrases and appreciating good sportsmanship and good women in sports as well. Our women's basketball team played in that same sports arena while I represented that area; and I am so very, very proud of what he was able to put forth to them in the line of sportsmanship and in the line of broadcasting what good sports was all about.

Ms. WATSON of California

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

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for introducing this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, throughout the grim decades of the Cold War, the U.S. Congress consistently fought to ensure that the international community never acknowledged the incorporation of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, into the Soviet Union. Since these countries earned their independence in 1991, Congress has consistently supported their historic transformation into democratic and free market societies. From the first day of independence, all three Baltic countries made NATO membership a cornerstone of their foreign policy regardless of which political party controlled the government. Mr. Speaker, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have made Herculean efforts to prepare themselves for NATO membership. They have built armed forces modeled on Western armies. They have consistently maintained their defense budget at or around 2 percent of their GDP during these difficult economic times. Their people have consistently supported NATO membership with all its opportunities and commitments. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have all sent troops to assist the European peace-making efforts under NATO. The Baltic states have also joined the United States in the war on terrorism by offering to deploy forces to Afghanistan as part of the Danish contingent. These countries had some difficult legacies to overcome including Holocaust-era issues and dealing with Russian ethnic minorities. Latvia and Estonia have made considerable progress on minority rights issues and Lithuania has worked with the Jewish community to address property restitution and other Holocaust issues. These countries are now on the right track. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), for introducing this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago we considered H. Res. 468, which endorses membership in NATO for the Slovak Republic, along with six other applicants. This resolution before us highlights the political, economic and foreign policy accomplishments of the Slovak Republic since its ``velvet'' divorce from the Czech Republic in 1993 and specifically endorses its NATO membership. Slovakia did not have an easy beginning as an independent country. Its first post-independence government stalled on political and economic reforms, in stark contrast to its neighbors to the north, west and south. But the people of Slovakia elected a reform-minded government in 1998, which quickly moved to anchor Slovakia in the West, made NATO membership a cornerstone of its form foreign policy and joined the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in a regional, political and economic grouping. The Slovak Republic has not only shown progress in the area of free market economy, but it also began to address different issues of the past, such as Jewish property restitution and compensation to the victims of the Holocaust. Relations with the ethnic Hungarian minority have also improved, and the previous government included three ethnic Hungarians as ministers. Although much more remains to be done in this area, I believe that membership in NATO will reinforce the message that the just treatment of national minorities is a key aspect of membership. The Slovak government has already demonstrated that it is interested in the ability to join NATO, first by participating in the SFOR and the KFOR operations, and by sending its troops to Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the sponsor of this resolution.

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

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Chairman and the ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on International Relations for this important piece of legislation. This bill will increase pressure on the government of Sudan to end its egregious 19-year war against civilians in the south and west of that country. The road to peace in Sudan is a very troubled one. Just a month ago, the Sudanese government walked away from the Machakos peace negotiations in Kenya. It also resumed bombings of civilian targets and imposed a ban on all flights carrying humanitarian assistance to southern Sudan and its estimated 5 million people. We are relieved to learn that, as a result of vigorous international pressure, over the past few weeks the Sudanese government has lifted bans on humanitarian flights and is now rejoining the Sudanese people's liberation movement at the Machakos peace negotiations. Mr. Speaker, this bill supports the Machakos peace process and authorizes $3 million per year for 3 years to help create institutions of peace and democratic governance in the areas not controlled by the government. This includes support for civil administration, communications infrastructure, education, health and agriculture. The bill also requires that the President certify within 6 months of the passage of this bill and every 6 months afterwards that the parties are negotiating in good faith towards a durable and lasting peace. If the President certifies that the government is the obstacle to peace, he is instructed to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution to impose an arms embargo on the Sudanese government. He must also instruct the U.S. executive directors to each internal financial institution to continue to vote against any loans, credits or guarantees to the government. If the Sudanese people's liberation movement is found acting in good faith, the President will pursue no actions against the government. Mr. Speaker, this bill sends a clear message to the world and Sudan that the United States stands on the side of peace in Sudan. It also underscores our commitment to ending the human suffering that is there by securing a just and peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2578, the naming of a post office after Gus Hawkins. I just want to tell my colleagues this personally. My father, who has long been deceased, did the first fund-raiser for Gus Hawkins. They raised all of $75, and that was a lot of money in those days. During a time of renewed interest in public service, Gus's career and life epitomized the importance and the impact of serving one's fellow man for the betterment of our country and way of life. A champion of children, poor people, working people, senior citizens, and minorities, he expressed his views about public service by stating: ``The leadership belongs not to the loudest, not to those who beat the drums or blow the trumpets, but to those who day in and day out work for the practical realization of a better world.'' Still living, and we are so proud that he is with us, he was born in Louisiana in 1907. He moved with his family to Los Angeles when he was 11 to escape racial discrimination. He received degrees from UCLA, my alma mater, and USC and began his legislative career in 1935 in the California Assembly where he served for 28 years, often as its only black member. And to get him there in 1935, that $75 went a long way. Gus faithfully served this House from 1963 to 1991; and during his tenure, he served as chairman of the Committee on Education and the Committee on House Administration. He is the author of more than 17 Federal laws, including the title VII of the Civil Rights Act establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Job Training Partnership Act, and the School Improvement Act, which revamped virtually all major elementary and secondary education programs. Gus once recounted that he wanted to be remembered as one who simply loved children. I recall a telephone call I got from him just a few months ago. He was very concerned about the Leave No Child Behind Act. As he continues to open his heart to others, today we open our hearts to Gus Hawkins and the officially named post office in Los Angeles. He is a friend, he is a mentor, and he is someone who simply loves children and their parents. He is very deserving of this honor.

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I would like to acknowledge the fine work of the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the author of the legislation, who unfortunately cannot be on the House floor today for this debate. Appreciation also goes to our colleagues in the other body for moving this legislation through the committee and onto the floor. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the Committee on International Relations for his consistent support of this legislation. Ten years ago the U.S. Congress passed a historic act, the Freedom Support Act, which paved the way for the task of promoting democracy and market economy in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Today, in the post-September 11 world, we are still concerned about the Russian nuclear arsenal, but we do not fear that the government of Russia will use it against us because Russia has become more democratic and our foreign policy interests are more congruent. However, it has become clear to me and many of my colleagues that the process of democratization in Russia is not complete. For example, President Putin last week revoked a decree that has permitted the RFE/ RL to maintain a bureau in Moscow. This decision was shortsighted and counterproductive. For these reasons, we must craft a creative and responsible policy towards Russia that strengthens a democratic society and a market economy. I strongly believe that the existence of a vibrant, self-sustaining, non-State-owned media in Russia is the key to Russia's continuous integration with the West. This bill will support such media activities, including access to the Internet and the use of modern technologies to improve media outreach throughout Russia. The Russian NGO sector also needs our support. Russia does not yet have a culture of corporate philanthropy and private donations to make these NGOs self-sustaining. On the other hand, the abundance of NGOs that have sprung up in Russia since 1991 provides an important democratic component to that society. So the bill before the House today, H.R. 2121, can promote this process and enhance the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship by focusing U.S. assistance on the development of a civil society in Russia and a free and independent media. I am also pleased that the bill includes an important provision to provide for an endowment to preserve the Andrew Sakharov archives. Without Mr. Sakharov's contributions to peace, human rights and democracy, the unprecedented change that took place in Russia in the last decade of the previous century would never have happened. Given the importance of these documents to the study of the transition from tyranny to democracy in Russia and, by extension, to other countries around the world, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I believe it would be inappropriate for funds from the Foreign Assistance Act to be used for this noble undertaking. The bill also contains an important provision on Burma human rights to make sure that the UNDP assistance to Burma is properly utilized. By funding the development of civil society in Russia and a free and independent media, H.R. 2121 can play an effective role in developing the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship. Let us not squander this unprecedented opportunity to bring Russia closer to the West. I urge Members to support H.R. 2121. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this resolution. I would first like to commend my colleague from California (Mr. Gallegly) for introducing this important resolution and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for allowing it to move quickly to the House floor. The resolution before the House today endorses the expansion of NATO and specifically supports the NATO candidacy of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia. The resolution also reaffirms that NATO is the primary institution through which Europe and North American allies address security issues and calls on NATO to strengthen national and collective capacities to respond to new threats. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress has consistently led the way in supporting NATO enlargement and a strong and robust role for NATO in Europe. NATO is the longest surviving alliance of our time, and it has endured because it is an alliance of free democratic nations. There can be no better endorsement of NATO's success and continuing importance than the desire of the newly emerging Central and East European democracies to join this alliance. Whether all seven of these aspiring NATO members are invited to join the alliance at the Prague summit next month or not, there must be opportunities in the future for all European states who accept the conditions of membership to join NATO. Mr. Speaker, the post-September 11 era has brought us new realities, and one of them is the crucial role that NATO can play in the fight against terrorism. The countries which have applied to NATO have already joined the United States by participating directly in the war on terrorism and by other means such as sharing intelligence and cutting off terrorist financing. While the record of accomplishments and contributions by the aspirant countries, working with their membership action plans, is impressive, none can afford to become complacent now. The process of reforming the NATO aspirant nations will not and cannot end with Prague. The process of reform must continue after membership, including dealing with the problem of corruption, the treatment of minorities, relations between the governments and opposition, and Holocaust-era issues. I would also like to emphasize the need for continued strong cooperation with the Russian Federation under the new NATO-Russia Council. I welcome President Putin's new attitude towards NATO enlargement. This represents an important change in the Russian perceptions of the NATO alliance and is a sentiment that we should continue to strongly encourage. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the visit of The Honorable Leo Falcam, President of the Federated States of Micronesia. This year marks the 57th year of the United States presence in the territory of what are now called the Freely Associated States or FAS. The U.S. took possession of many of the islands comprising the modern FAS during WWII and has exercised various forms of political oversight since that time. On July 18, 1947, the U.S. Government began to administer to the FAS as a United Nations Mandated Strategic Trust known as the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The charge to the United States from the United Nations went well beyond administering the Trust Territory Article Two. Article Six of the Trusteeship Agreement added four specific tasks to the U.S. mission: “The administering authority shall promote (1) . . . the development toward self-government or independence . . . (2) the economic advancement and self sufficiency . . . (3) . . . the social advancement . . . and (4) . . . the educational advancement of the inhabitants.” Mr. Speaker, as the former Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia, I was charged by President Clinton to uphold our Compact of Free Association and represent the United States. The FSM became freely associated with the U.S. in 1986. The Compact Agreement is currently being renegotiated, and a new Compact Agreement is imminent. The goal of the new Compact is to provide the FSM with the funding and tools to become an economically independent and viable democratic nation. Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap are the four states that comprise the FSM. They are located in an area called the Western Pacific, just north of the Equator. Spread across more than a million miles of ocean, the island states are made of 607 islands, but only 65 are inhabited. The total land area of the islands is 271 square miles, with Pohnpei having about half that land area and the rest equally divided among the three states. The FSM's estimated population is just over 100,000 people. The seat of the FSM government resides in Palikir on the island of Pohnpei. Mr. Speaker, today I have had the distinct honor, along with several of my distinguished colleagues, to meet with the President of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Honorable Leo Falcam. Mr. Speaker, President Falcam has served the FSM with distinction his whole life. President Falcam served at the highest levels during the Trusty Territory days up until now. He has played a key role in the island nation's struggle for self-determination. He was formerly the Governor of Pohnpei, Member of Congress, and now the President. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to note that the Federated States of Micronesia has always been a loyal friend and staunch supporter of the United States. This bond of friendship is demonstrated by the fact that the FSM has been one of the United States' most reliable friends in the United Nations as well as other international fora. I also want to note that a number of citizens of the FSM currently serve in the U.S. military and that President Falcam's son is a Marine Lt. Commander, currently stationed in Okinawa—a fact of which I know President Falcam is particularly proud. Mr. Speaker, a new compact is currently being negotiated by the United States and the FSM. It is my understanding that many of the issues have been resolved and that a new Compact is close to being approved by both sides. While a number of important issues remain to be resolved—such as the level of funding and decrements and future commitments of FEMA—I am confident that a new Compact will be approved by the Congress and signed by the President in the next year that allows the Federated States of Micronesia to realize their long- term goals of economic and political self-sufficiency.

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to an outstanding United States Congresswoman. I am saddened, like the rest of my colleagues, by the loss of a tireless advocate for civil rights for women and minorities, especially native Hawaiians. First elected in 1965, Patsy Mink was a pioneer for women across this country. As the first minority woman elected to Congress, Patsy has always been an inspiration to me as an elected official. On the path of good policy, Patsy Mink never backed down and she never gave up. Patsy was a true champion for American values and ideals. Early in her first term, she lent her unyielding support to the creation of Medicare. I first became directly involved with Patsy and her work when title IX was passed 30 years ago. Back then, as a member of the Los Angeles Unified School Board, I was charged with implementing a title IX plan for the Los Angeles Community College system. I have followed and I have had admiration for Patsy's work and for her public service career ever since then. Now as a Member of the 107th Congress, replacing another strong public servant prematurely taken from us, Julian Dixon, and one of the highlights of my short time here so far has been the opportunity to work with Patsy on welfare reform. In the fast-moving world of Congress, I was able to spend some quality time with Patsy after going on a trip to Sacramento to collect the data on our welfare reform program. We worked together to compile information for legislation. We might have been unsuccessful; but in working with her, I knew I had someone who really understood what we were trying to achieve. Mr. Speaker, although our most recent attempt for meaningful change was rebuffed in committee, I want my colleagues to know that Patsy, that working with her, she leaves a legacy that we can all model after. Her dedication, her strength, her principled and hard-working self will remain with us forever. Patsy, thank you for what you have done for all of us, especially women.