Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his statement. I want to thank him also for his leadership and thank him for his participation today in our meeting. I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Northern California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Because the longer we wait, the worse it gets. And so I really appreciate the gentleman's participation in the meeting today with the President.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who will be coming up next, for being a part of that meeting today because it was indeed a very historic meeting. So while there is very little to be done, it must be done immediately.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, not only are the Haitian people going through what they are going to in Haiti, but one of the things I think a lot of people do not realize is that some 75 to 80 percent of people in Haiti live in pure poverty, and I know that when one combines the need for humanitarian assistance such as clean water with the violence, it has got to be painful just as it is painful to us. I would imagine for many of the gentleman's constituents, it is very painful, too, knowing that they have relatives that are going through all that, and then the violence makes it even more difficult for them to live any semblance of a normal life and definitely almost precludes any kind of assistance for going in; and I think that is one of the reasons why we talked today with the President about this humanitarian corridor.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement and his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), my friend and colleague, who has just spent a phenomenal amount of time in Haiti and has been just a tremendous adviser to all of us in the caucus and has given so much blood, sweat, and tears and passion to this cause. I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: we in the Congressional Black Caucus stand very strongly behind this effort to bring peace to this land of Haiti, and we will continue to stand, and we do appreciate the meeting that we did have with the President today. But in echoing the words of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), we want the President to act. Words are nice, but now he must act.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, Haiti today is facing an economic, political and humanitarian crisis so severe that the United States Government and the United States Congress have no choice but to immediately act. Daily, Haitians are dying as a result of the violence. These deaths are intolerable, and the United States simply cannot sit back and watch a country in our own hemisphere spiral into chaos. Our government has voiced concern that Haitians, desperate to escape the escalating violence and poverty, will flood American shores. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just this evening there are reports that boats are coming towards the United States from Haiti filled with people fleeing literally for their lives. We should be more concerned about the drastic conditions that led to the desperation and hopelessness of these Haitians refugees. The Congressional Black Caucus calls upon the President and the international community to work with the elected leadership in Haiti to bring about an end to the political turbulence and stop the attempted coup d'etat that is mounting in that country. Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. It is imperative that the United States involve itself with an international force to create stability in Haiti before more lives are lost. We cannot afford to lose another day or another life due to our inaction. Because of the urgency of the Haitian crisis, my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and I went to the White House and laid out our concerns today before President Bush. I must say, it was a good meeting with the President. We explained to the President that we were tired of turning on our televisions every day and hearing about the slaughter of Haitian people. We explained to him that we believed with all the sincerity in our hearts that this was an urgent situation, and that the President of the United States was facing a very critical moment in his Presidency, and that he could do so much to turn this situation around. We explained to him that there are so many people throughout the world who for various reasons had gotten or created within their minds a very negative view about the United States of America, but this was a time when he could act and turn some of those views around and show that not only was he a concerned President, but he was indeed a compassionate President. So we had an opportunity, a rare opportunity I must admit, to meet with the President of the United States today, the Congressional Black Caucus did. Twenty Members were there, and we were very pleased to also have an opportunity at the same time to meet with Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Let me just pause here to say that we expressed to Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, our gratitude for all of the hard work he had been doing over the past several weeks. It was Colin Powell that stayed in contact with many Caucus members. It was Colin Powell that tried to find ways to diplomatically resolve this matter, and at the same time we felt that things had not moved to the degree that we wanted them to; and so, therefore, we had asked to meet with the President. Now, when we met with the President today, when the Congressional Black Caucus met with the President, there were several things that we wanted him to do, and to his credit he gave the utmost consideration to these things. Number one, we asked that he immediately make a statement to the world about his concern for the Haitian people, for his concern towards President Aristide, and his concern about this wonderful democracy that we have in Haiti that is under attack. When I say wonderful democracy, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to say that Haiti does not have its problems, it does. But our point was that there is a democracy in the sense that President Aristide was duly elected, and just as we have gone around the world to protect democracies wherever we felt the need to do so, it was our belief that because he was elected, no matter what one's views might be towards the way he governs his country, that the United States should make sure that this democracy, which is only 650 miles from our shore, should be sustained. So basically we were asking him for three things and our goals were very simple. One, we wanted to make sure that there would be a laying down of weapons so that we might find some peace. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the rebels have all kinds of ammunition and all kinds of weapons. We realize that in order for us to move to any kind of resolution, one of the first things that has to happen, there has to be a laying down of arms. Number two, we said that we wanted the rule of law to be restored. The rule of law, of course, is very important. It is almost impossible to have any kind of peace when people are in chaos and they are not obeying the rule of law. We can see that very clearly just here recently as we looked at our televisions and saw the looting that was taking place and we saw some of the human harm that had been taking place. Clearly, a major problem with the rule of law. And, number three, we asked the President to make sure that there was some diplomatic resolution with regard to Haiti. As we went into more detail, we asked the President to make a statement as soon as possible, and he said he would, making it clear that the United States stands for this democracy and that we have a major, major concern about the fact that so many people are being harmed and that it was our hope that a peaceful resolution would come to that land. Number two, we also asked the President to create a humanitarian corridor. He expressed great interest in this. What we mean by a humanitarian corridor, Mr. Speaker, is create a way by which humanitarian assistance such as food and medicine and water, because one of the major problems in Haiti right now is that there is insufficient water and food for so many, and these are the people that we do not hear so much about. These are the people who are suffering and dying, but the fact is that all we hear is about the rebels and the harm that they have done. So the number two thing that we asked for was this humanitarian corridor; and we asked that the President, if he deemed it appropriate, and we think that it is almost necessary, to send troops in and work with our allies to make sure that organizations like the Red Cross and others have a way to get that humanitarian aid to the people that need it and so that they would be protected. The President said that he would indeed consider this. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we asked him to consider sending in from 300 to 400 troops to maintain the peace. As we keep up with the news with regard to Haiti, it is clear that there is a steady march by the rebels towards Port-au-Prince. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is the capital of Haiti. That is where President Aristide lives, and we were concerned that if President Aristide, if the rebels come into Port-au-Prince, that the death of President Aristide would be imminent. I think the President understood that, that is, President Bush understood that. He understands clearly that we are dealing with an urgent situation, and he said that he would take that into consideration and would get back to us as soon as possible. So we have faith that the President will do the right thing. We have faith that, as he looked into our eyes and we looked into his, he understood that this was not about politics, but this was about life. He understood, we do believe, that this was not about simply trying to save a President, but it was about saving the President of Haiti and also making sure that we save many, many lives. I think that as he looked into our eyes, he could see the sincerity and could see that we realize clearly that if we did not take action and that he did not take action, that the blood of the people of Haiti would be on all of our hands. And so we had a very good meeting, but it is only a beginning. We have vowed to try to work with the President, with Secretary Powell, and Condoleezza Rice to make sure that a peaceful resolution comes to Haiti as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, so often as we look around the world and look at the difficult problems that face so many people and countries across the world, it must be difficult at times to try to figure out for a President and for his advisers as to where you intervene and where you do not. But one thing has been clear with regard to United States policy and that is that we have consistently done everything in our power to hold up democracies that are in trouble. Clearly, the democracy in Haiti is in trouble. And so the President has made it clear that he will issue a statement sometime this evening, and we look forward to that statement. He assured us that he would address the issues after consulting with Ms. Rice and Secretary Powell, would address the issues with regard to the humanitarian corridor and with regard to sending troops in to quell the violence and make sure that there was a diplomatic resolution taking place. And so it was a very proud moment for the Congressional Black Caucus. It was a moment that shall definitely live in the DNA of our brains forever. Because one of the things that I guess hit me as we were sitting there is that 100 years ago, none of us were here. One hundred years from now none of us will be here. The question is what do we do now for our fellow human beings? And although they may be 700 miles from our shore and although we may not feel a relationship with them, not all Americans may feel a relationship with them, the fact is that they are our brothers and they are our sisters. I am always reminded in these situations, Mr. Speaker, of the song that says: No man is an island No man stands alone. Each man's joy is joy to me And each man's grief is my own. We need one another, so I will defend Each man as my brother and each man as my friend. And so the Congressional Black Caucus has decided to stand, to stand for people who are going through great difficulties, to stand for children who as we speak find themselves in boats heading for a land of opportunity. Stand. We decided to stand for a President that finds himself in great difficulty. Stand. We decided to stand for democracy, democracy that this country hails as being one of the greatest forms of government that ever existed. We continue to stand. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for his statement. Question: I know the gentleman has been very concerned about this issue because one of the reasons I know he has an extraordinary sensitivity, as there are many Haitians that live in his district. Is that right?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her statement. And as she was speaking, I could not help but think about the book entitled ``Seize the Time.'' And that is what this is all about, seizing this moment and doing what needs to be done to save a lot of lives. So I really do appreciate what she has done. I thank her for being at the meeting today too.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and one who has been very strongly involved in this issue.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004. Although we have made progress on the full reauthorization bill, we still have miles to go before we finish. However, I believe passing the full reauthorization as close as possible to the $375 billion figure supported by many Members of this body will be one of our most significant accomplishments of this Congress. The challenges we are working to meet through passage of this bill are very significant to the people of our Nation, especially during these difficult economic times. These challenges are central to the lives of working families like those in my district as well as those around the country. Transportation is about more than concrete, asphalt and steel. It is about people and about providing them with the opportunity to lead safer, healthier and more fulfilling lives. The much-needed investment in our steadily deteriorating infrastructure would provide a proverbial shot in the arm for the economy, while helping to improve America's prosperity and quality of life. Our country's economic strength, our ability to improve productivity, and our capacity to create jobs are all dependent upon expanded investment in transportation infrastructure. The 6-year reauthorization will have a lasting impact on all three of these areas. This extension will provide funding for 4 months. In those 4 months, we have a lot of work to do. I hope the Bush administration will see the wisdom of passing a full 6-year reauthorization at a number far above the proposed $256 billion figure. So far, they have missed the mark.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to raise serious concerns about the Bush administration's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, along with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus. This budget contains misplaced priorities that leaves all Americans behind. In the first place, this budget adds $521 billion to our national debt for the next fiscal year. This is on top of $7 trillion national debt that our Nation has already incurred. That is roughly $2,000 for every woman, man, and child in America today. This is extremely disappointing, Mr. Speaker, given that at the beginning of the Bush administration we had a $280 billion surplus, and we were expecting record surpluses for years yet to come. Many economists say that increased deficits signal danger for our economy because increased deficits cause or result in higher interest rates, slow economic growth, lower national savings, and reduce economic productivity. Given this, I am appalled that the Bush administration's budget fails to account for spending in Iraq and Afghanistan in its proposal and also plans to implement further tax cuts. In fact, just today, it was reported that the military chiefs are saying that the $87 billion we have just appropriated for the war will run out by September 30. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office has said that if the $1.7 billion tax cut were allowed to expire in 2011, the budget would be balanced by 2014. However, it is my understanding that the administration still plans to introduce its permanent tax cut proposal and press for continued defense spending while cutting or eliminating Federal programs that will also strengthen our Nation. Again, this budget has misplaced priorities that leave all Americans behind. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may be aware, the White House released its annual economic report of the President this week, which stated that 2.6 million jobs would be created by the end of 2004. It seems as though the President is promising that he will spin straw into gold, which is an impossible task. It is impossible because every year since President Bush took office this report has been completely wrong. In 2002, the administration estimated that 800,000 new jobs would be added to the economy; but, instead, the United States economy lost a net total of 1.9 million jobs just in 2002. In 2003, the administration projected that the tax breaks would add 510,000 additional jobs by the end of 2003. Instead, 53,000 jobs were lost. All together, since President Bush took office, 3 million jobs have been lost; and the last President to have a net job loss during his administration was President Herbert Hoover. Mr. Speaker, we cannot grow as a Nation with 9 million Americans out of work, 43 million without health insurance, and a future generation that lacks the educational resources to compete in the 21st century global economy; yet this budget proposes to cut more than 60 programs that would uplift this Nation. But tonight I would like to specifically highlight one Federal program that has made a tremendous impact in my district. Although the program is fully funded in my district, the President's current budget will keep this program from starting in new communities. Mr. Speaker, I am specifically referring to the Empowerment Zone Program administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Created under the Clinton administration, this Empowerment Zone Program creates economic development in the Nation's most distressed urban communities through public-private partnerships. In my district, this program has created 12,000 jobs in neighborhoods that were previously deteriorating, abandoned, and had high crime rates. With the $100 million Federal grant, the Baltimore Empowerment Zone provided customized job training to thousands of residents and helped them obtain jobs in health care, biotechnology, manufacturing, retail, and hospitality. Many of these jobs provided higher pay, benefits, and career growth that were not previously available to these residents. In one particular instance, a former Army veteran who could not find a civilian job received training through the Empowerment Zone. Today, he works in an operating room at the world-renowned Johns Hopkins University hospital. The Empowerment Zone also helped thousands of families to buy their first home, as well as provide small business loans. This is a classic example of how the Bush administration should be stimulating the economy. However, instead of expanding this program to other cities, the administration has decided to completely cut all funds to this program by fiscal year 2005. This would essentially dissolve the program. Like the Empowerment Zone, 65 other programs are being abandoned through the President's fiscal year 2005 budget. While looking at the list of 65, I notice that all Americans in some way or another would be affected by these cuts. Programs for homeland security, the environment, women, people of color, children, the disabled, microloans for small business, the HOPE VI housing program, and health care are all being targeted for cuts in this budget. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this budget should be called the Leave All Americans Behind budget. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think about how these cuts will have an impact on their constituents. While I strongly support giving our troops the funding and the resources they need to do their jobs and while I support increasing homeland security, I strongly urge that we maintain a balance and continue giving America all it needs to remain a superpower. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and for conducting this hour for the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I stand before this chamber as we act on legislation that moves us one step closer to awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Dorothy Height. Two months have passed since the bill bestowing this great honor upon Ms. Height (H.R. 1821) was signed into public law. Now, during the celebration of Black History, I can think of no better time to put the proper procedures in place for Dr. Height to receive her award on March 24, 2004. I can also think of no better place to bestow this award on Dr. Height than in the Capitol rotunda's Statuary Hall--a place that memorializes the giants of our country. I think Dr. Height is a giant in her own right and apparently many people in our country agree. Who would have imagined some 90 years ago that the daughter of James Edward Height and Fannie (Borroughs) Height of Richmond, Virginia would one day be receiving the Nation's highest civilian honor. Born in 1912 in Richmond, Virginia, Dr. Dorothy Irene Height distinguished herself at an early age as a dedicated student with exceptional oratorical skills. As a young girl she fearlessly and vehemently stood up to the racist and sexist climate of the times. At the age of 25 she heeded the call of her mentor, Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women, and joined the struggle for women's full and equal employment and educational advancement. She has and continues to dedicate her life to the struggle for equality, social justice, and human rights for all peoples. Mr. Speaker, throughout her illustrious career as a civil rights advocate, Dr. Height tirelessly worked to prevent lynching, encourage voter registration, desegregate the armed forces, reform the criminal justice system, and create equal access to public accommodations. And a long career it has been. In fact, her public career spans 65 years. She was a valued advisor to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and encouraged Presidents Eisenhower and Johnson to desegregate the Nation's public schools and to appoint African American women to sub- Cabinet positions. Since 1957, she has served as President of the National Council of Negro Women, an umbrella organization for 250 local groups and 38 national organizations dedicated to economic development and women's issues. Mr. Speaker, the numerous awards and accolades Dr. Height has received over the years is a testimony to her invaluable contributions to the progress of this Nation. The NAACP has awarded her The Spingarn Award, its highest honor. She is also the proud recipient of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Award from the National Council of Jewish Women; the Ministerial Interfaith Association Award; the Lovejoy Award; and the Congressional Black Caucus's William L. Dawson Award for her decades of public service to people of color and particularly women. However, Dr. Height is not one to rest on her laurels. She continues to lead the fight against social injustice and inequality. Her profound love for our youth is unmatched. As a direct link to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Dr. Height continues to inspire future generations of civil rights activists. What is truly remarkable about this grand dame is that at age 90 she does not plan on slowing down. And although she spends much of her time in a wheelchair, she continues to stand up for equality and social justice. Mr. Speaker, once again, I am proud to stand before this body as we move ever closer to bestowing upon Dr. Dorothy Height our Nation's highest civilian honor. I want to thank my colleagues from the House Administration Committee, Mr. Larson and Mr. Ney for setting the procedural stage to allow this great ceremony to take place in the Capitol rotunda. I especially thank my friend, Diane Watson for sponsoring this legislation as well as for sponsoring the original legislation honoring Dr. Height that passed in the House.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her statement. I also want to thank her for her compassion. And so it is tonight, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus, which has earned the title of being the conscience of the Congress, but I often say the conscience of the Nation, has come together to try to address these issues. As the gentleman from New York and as the gentlewoman from California stated very clearly, what we are about this evening is trying to make sure that we let the American people know what is going on, because we believe that they need to know and they need to understand what goes on in this Congress and how it affects them on a daily basis. But the fact still remains that there are families tonight who are sitting watching this, and they are asking the question, as the gentlewoman from California said, of why is it that my son is no longer with me? Or why is it that my mother is no longer with me, a child may say. But the fact is that we must be clear. We have asked this President over and over again to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus which represents over 26 million people. And as I have often said, they are not just African American people. As a matter of fact, more than a third of them are white. The fact is that we believe very strongly that when we come to this floor, we are speaking for America. And so it is, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus urges our constituents and urges the Nation to pay close attention to all that is going on with regard to this war and all that is not.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, in the Congressional Black Caucus I have often said that many of us are truly honored to have two of our founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the next gentleman, to speak. That we are able to serve with them is a tremendous honor because they bring so much wisdom and history to us and so much excellent guidance. Certainly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is one of those gentlemen. I say to the gentleman that as he has consistently pressed on this war in trying to make this President and this Nation look at war as something of last resort, we appreciate it. We will join you as you salute all of our soldiers who have given so much. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman from New York. I really appreciate what he has said. We thank him for his service to this country in so many, many ways. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who night after night and day after day before this war started came to this floor and laid out a brilliant case, over and over again, as to why we should not be going to war. If there was anybody in this entire Congress, Mr. Speaker, who could say I told you so, it would be the gentlewoman from California. I have absolutely no doubt that this is an issue that tears at her heart every time she hears about another person being harmed in Iraq.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with my fellow colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss our Nation's progress in the war in Iraq. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor those soldiers who have paid the ultimate price of war through the sacrifice of their own lives. I continue to pray for their families and friends who are struggling to cope with their grief and loss. I also pay tribute to the soldiers who have returned from Iraq, forever changed as a result of injuries sustained during their tour of duty. Just a week or so ago, I visited Walter Reed Army Hospital and looked into the faces of young 19 and 20 year olds as they told stories as to how they lost their legs or lost their arms or lost their hands. I said to one young man, How do you handle this? I mean, looking at your life and where you go from here, how do you handle this? He said, Well, I simply look at it as a day's work. As I stood there, I could not help but think about the fact that this young man, if he were to live another 50 years, will be living without a leg and without an arm. So we pay special tribute to these young people, many of whom just came out of high school, fighting a war. So often, Mr. Speaker, the stories of the men and women performing their daily operations in Iraq get lost as we debate the merits of the war and our post-war intelligence, and I want to make it very clear that the Congressional Black Caucus has and will continue to support our troops. We see them as some very brave men and women who every day go out in sometimes 130 degree heat, in difficult circumstances, in many instances not having the proper equipment that they need although we paid for it; and yet and still they go out, and they give the best they have. So we honor them. We read newspaper accounts here and television reports of another soldier killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb, and we are momentarily touched; but, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, after the moment has passed, our lives continue on. Unfortunately, the lives of the five soldiers who are reported to have died in Iraq from my home State of Maryland will not continue on. The families of Command Sergeant Major Cornell W. Gilmore, 45 years old; Lieutenant Kylan A. Jones, 31 years old; Corporal Jason David Mileo, 20 years old; Specialist George A. Mitchell, 35 years old; and Staff Sergeant Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 29 years old. He was one who was either the second or third person to lose his life in Iraq, and we just want it made very clear that our prayers are with the families and friends of these strong and wonderful people. Mr. Speaker, please do not mistake my intentions. I am not invoking the names and memories of our troops to fulfill any political purpose. Whatever the political affiliation of these soldiers and their families, they deserve to be remembered and honored for swearing to protect our freedoms and for laying down their lives in the pursuit of their mission. Mr. Speaker, it is because of these courageous Americans that so many of my colleagues and I in the Congressional Black Caucus vehemently opposed launching war on Iraq. As elected representatives, we realize that the decisions we make here in the Congress of the United States of America reach far beyond these hallowed halls. We understand that the price of war cannot be captured in any budget. Speaking of moneys appropriated by the Congress, just today we read in the news reports that Halliburton will be returning some $27 million to the Government of the United States because it overcharged our government; and I tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, it bothers me because I shall never forget that when the Congressional Black Caucus and others got up before this war started and began to talk about this war and began to address the issues of why we were going to do this preemptive strike when it seemed that inspections were working, when we talked about it was so important and we emphasized that we not lose lives if we could avoid it, when we asked the question how all of this would be paid for and we could not get the President to meet with us or even talk to us, but here and then we were called by some unpatriotic, unpatriotic. I ask the question, if that was unpatriotic, what is it when we have a corporation during a time of war that turns around and has to return some $27 million to the Treasury of the United States of America? That is a key question, and is that patriotic? I would submit to my colleagues that it is not. The key is that as we debate over and over again the 9 million people who are unemployed in this country, when we debate over and over again the fact that there are 44 million people who have no health insurance, when we debate over and over again the fact that so many of our people are going through so many difficult circumstances, and then we think that as April 15 approaches people will be making sure that they write those checks out to the Government of this United States and then we turn around and find out that we have been overcharged $27 million, something is absolutely wrong with that picture. Mr. Speaker, something is wrong with our auditing and oversight if a company like Halliburton can be paid that much for something they did not provide. The price of war is far greater than the original $79 billion funding request and even greater than the $87 billion supplemental request that Congress doled out to support the war effort last year. The price of war is the human blood spilled in Iraq's deserts. The price of war are the tears of children shed over flag-draped caskets. The price of war are the widowed wives and husbands working a second job or collecting government assistance to support their families. The price of war is the young man who I ran into at BWI Airport the other day who said that he was a Reservist and because of the war he was not getting the type of money that he would normally get and he and his wife not only were getting divorced but the fact is that he was trying to find a way to file for bankruptcy. War and death are inextricably linked, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, in our considerations to authorize war, we must decide whether the cause is great enough to die for. Mr. Speaker, I believe that fighting for freedom is always a worthy cause. As Martin Luther King once said, ``An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' However, Mr. Speaker, that is not how the urgency of this war was communicated to the American public. President Bush did not initially come to the American people and say that we must engage our military forces to remove Saddam Hussein because he is a bad dictator and is oppressing his people. Rather, the President very clearly, time and time again, told the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and must be disarmed. On October 16, 2002, the President said, ``The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons.'' On January 16, 2003, President Bush, as the Commander in Chief, said, ``In the name of peace, if he does not disarm,'' talking about Saddam Hussein, ``I will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein.'' The message was clear and the stage was set. The United States had to deploy our troops and disarm Saddam Hussein. But early last year, Mr. Speaker, we noticed a rather curious phenomenon. As the polling numbers for American approval of the war adjusted, so did the rationale the administration used to convince the American public that this war was not necessary. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is quoted as saying that he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting ever asked why Iraq should be invaded. He was shocked, when he probably could have predicted that there would be so much death, that there would be so much harm not only to our American soldiers but to innocent Iraqi people by the thousands. He sat there shocked that no one asked the question why are we going to invade Iraq. In a recently published book describing the operations of the Bush White House, Secretary O'Neill says, ``It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying go find me a way to do this.'' Mr. Speaker, the conscience of the Nation should be shocked and awed by this sort of back-door and backup policy-making. The lives of our American soldiers should not have been bartered away in closed-door meetings between people whose own children are not asked to stand in harm's way. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think of Staff Sergeant Kendall Waters-Bey. The family of United States Marine Staff Sergeant Kendall Damon Waters-Bey is from my district. In fact, his family used to live about five blocks away from my home. Mr. Speaker, the words of his father will forever be ingrained in the DNA of my memory. As he held a picture of his son, Michael Waters-Bey, he said, ``I want the President to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is the only son I had, only son.'' I ask, Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Waters-Bey's son at the forefront of the National Security Council's consciousness as they made their decision to take this country into war? I would think not, because otherwise I am sure they would have come to a different conclusion. Mr. Speaker, if you remember, in November of 2002, the United States called for U.N. weapons inspectors to comb Iraq in search of hidden weapons of mass destruction. After 4 months, the weapons inspectors found nothing. Then, the United States concluded that it was our responsibility, our right to invade Iraq forcibly and disarm Saddam Hussein. During that time, Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and I came to this House floor urging, begging, pleading, and petitioning this President to give the inspections process a chance. We asked the President to work with our international allies to exhaust every diplomatic option possible before deploying American troops to disarm Hussein. Yet our letters and pleas went unanswered. Now here we are today, almost a year later, Mr. Speaker. It has been almost a year since we declared the U.N. inspections process to be ineffective, almost a year after the first soldier died in Iraq. Almost a year later and we still have not found any weapons of mass destruction. Yes, we have found Saddam Hussein but, no, we have not found any weapons of mass destruction. It is interesting that Saddam Hussein is still alive and over 500 of our bravest men and women in uniform are not. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the Secretary of State, Secretary Powell, in a recent Washington Post interview, saying that if he had been told that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of banned weapons, he is not sure that he would have supported the Iraq invasion. Almost a year to this day, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Powell told the U.N., and I quote, ``Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapon agents. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.'' Yet just last week, former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told a Senate committee that, and I quote, ``Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapons munitions was reduced, if not entirely destroyed, during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox. Thirteen years of U.N. sanctions and inspections.'' Considering these facts, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves if the ultimate goal of this preemptive war was to disarm Saddam Hussein, was our mission really accomplished? Could we have reached the same end by utilizing a different means? If we had enough intelligence to determine that Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons from the U.N. inspectors, then why has the Intelligence Community not been able to lead us to those weapons? Mr. Speaker, something is wrong with this picture. I am glad the President has finally agreed that there should be a commission to look into the apparent intelligence failures, but the Congress should have a role in that selection process. In the name of the over 500,000 troops that were deployed in Iraq, I call on the President to ensure that this process remains immune from election year politics, and I call on the President to hold himself and his administration accountable for the findings of any commission report. Mr. Speaker, last year, around this time, the President addressed a group of Governors and said, and I quote, ``The country expects leaders to lead.'' I would agree with President Bush on that point. The country expects leaders to lead and not to mislead the American people blindly down a path of war. Mr. Speaker, I wish now to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as the son of two preachers and one who has represented many churches as an attorney before I came to the Congress, I rise today to speak on the Community Service Block Grant reauthorization, a bill that could represent 10 steps forward for our country's most downtrodden, but in the end represents 100 steps back for civil rights. Forty years after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 41 years, Mr. Chairman, after the 1963 March on Washington, 49 years after Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat in 1955, just a few weeks after the celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday, and still today, regrettably, we fight to end discriminatory practices. Mr. Chairman, over 40 years after Americans have fought to put into place laws to end discrimination, I stand here on the House floor fighting against outlandish provisions in this reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant, a bill designed to ameliorate the ravages of poverty. Unfortunately, this bill also allows taxpayer dollars to be used by religious organizations while letting them engage in discriminatory hiring practices. Furthermore, it does not require that these Federal dollars be used in a nonreligious manner. These are very unfortunate provisions I simply cannot support. Mr. Chairman, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically bans recipients of Federal funds from engaging in discriminatory practices. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963, ``Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races, colors and national origins contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial, color, or national origin discrimination.'' As such, in 1964, following Kennedy's legacy, the new Civil Rights Act was put in place to prevent this from ever happening. Yet today we debate a bill that allows discrimination on the basis of religious preference. As history clearly demonstrates, legalization of any form of discrimination, religious, racial, sexual or other, makes way for the legalization of other forms. Thankfully, we also have on the House floor today a substitute being offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and many other Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The Woolsey substitute would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used for inequitable hiring practices and requires that the funds be used in a lawful and secular manner. There is no doubt that religious organizations play an invaluable role in the provision of services at the local level in antipoverty efforts. However, there is also no doubt that this can be done successfully without exempting them from compliance with our civil rights laws. All recipients of Federal dollars should be held to the full letter of the law. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes for the Woolsey substitute and no on final passage of H.R. 3030. We cannot allow Congress to turn back the clock on all of the civil rights protections that we have fought so hard to build. We have come too far to start over now. I also urge all of my colleagues to support the Miller amendment extending unemployment benefits. Over 2.9 million jobs lost, versus 1,000 gained last month. That is a zero-sum gain, Mr. Chairman. American workers want to work and they need help.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement. We really appreciate it. The Congressional Black Caucus has looked at this budget situation, and I tell you there are some things that, the legal term is shocking to the conscience. When the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) presented those charts, I just hope America was listening and watching.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette) for being a part of this hour. If I could summarize for a moment, Mr. Speaker, over the past several days some of my colleagues, and even the President himself, have come to the House floor and to this Chamber discussing the need to address the national debt. They have said that the accumulation of this monstrous debt is to be blamed on congressional spending, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said. As a result, these same colleagues have promised to slash the spending dragons in Congress. The President in his State of the Union address promised the Nation fiscal restraint in his effort to slash the deficit in half over the next 5 years. I am not quite sure if we were all reading from the same CBO report. But surely if we were, the spending slashers must have missed a part of the report that pointed to the decrease in Federal revenue as a result of the Bush tax cuts as the major culprit in this steadily increasing Federal deficit. Mr. Speaker, the CBO noted that if we were to allow the tax cuts to expire, then the deficit would gradually decline until the books balance in 2004. But if we act to extend the tax cuts, as the President has urged the Congress to do in his State of the Union address, then we will run large deficits well into the next decade. Again, Mr. Speaker, without any actions to further help Federal programs and agencies that are already fiscally deprived, the deficit would be nonexistent in the next 10 years. But if Congress follows the lead of the President, then the deficit will continue to spiral out of control, and we will be sticking our children and grandchildren with this enormous bill. But let there be no mistake, this is not a spending-driven deficit. In less than a week, President Bush will send to Congress his budget for fiscal year 2005. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, that forecast will go out only 5 years, in effect, omitting the cost of extending the tax cuts. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the President will keep his promise to increase domestic spending to only 1 percent. In order to ensure that our children and generations yet unborn are not forced to bear the brunt of this administration's fiscal mismanagement, sacrifices must be made; and that is what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said, hard decisions for hard times. But these sacrifices should not be endured by my children or yours, and they should not be shouldered by those who are already struggling to carry the load that is theirs to bear. In short, Mr. Speaker, I hope the President will exercise the compassionate side of his conservative agenda to hold the domestic programs sacred that educate our children, that would ensure that the 43 million plus people who are uninsured get some health insurance, that we would provide our first responders the resources they need to protect our borders and ports, and that we would protect the basic freedoms of our society. Finally, Mr. Speaker, domestic discretionary spending represented only 17 percent of all Federal spending in 2004. When we consider that the President's own No Child Left Behind legislation to ensure a quality education to all of our Nation's schoolchildren was underfunded by over $7 billion in 2004, it begs the question, what is left to be cut? When we further consider that in the land of wealth and opportunity, 43 million Americans have no health coverage, we must begin beg the question, what is left to be cut? Mr. Speaker, these are critical issues that should be addressed in the President's budget. The Federal budget resolution is the blueprint for spending this Congress and our government will follow. What we do here will have a tremendous effect on the future of our country. We must get our fiscal house in order and bring our budget back into balance, and we must focus on investing in those things that will strengthen the basic needs of our fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, we will evaluate the President's budget closely and seek to determine whether he will make the right choices for America. Mr. Speaker, it is simply irresponsible to mortgage our children's and our grandchildren's futures. When the President sends his budget to Congress next week, I hope it will reflect our national priorities and reflect an investment in our most important national interests, our children. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I think, certainly, when we come to this House, we come here for the purpose of lifting up the people that we represent in making their lives better. And when you look at the jobless rate, which is 5.7 at the latest count, I think, it is 10.2 for African Americans, and then not counted in those figures are so many people that I am sure call your office quite often who have been out of work for so long, they basically are looking but they have pretty much given up hope, so their figures are not even in there.