Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to begin the Congressional Black Caucus's Special Order to address the President's proposal to spend an additional $87 billion for the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, since the President addressed the Nation on September 7 regarding the war in Iraq, the Congressional Black Caucus has carefully evaluated the current state of where we are in Iraq and established a set of principles that we believe should be our guide as we move forward. Before I get into the substance of our principles, I want to recognize the diligent work of the Congressman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for his leadership in drafting these principles and working very carefully with other members of the caucus to come to consensus. He willingly took on the task of synthesizing and framing the views of 39 Members of Congress. That is not an easy task. The Congressman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) handled it masterfully. I also want to thank all the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who helped us to get where we are today. It truly was a team effort. Mr. Speaker, in October of last year, the Congressional Black Caucus issued a statement of principles with respect to any decision to go to war with Iraq. Although most of us were prepared to support broad-based international action sanctioned by the United States National Security Council, we opposed the unilateral first strike by the United States without first receiving clearly demonstrated evidence of an imminent threat of attack upon the United States. At that time the Bush administration had not presented us with the evidence that we needed, both constitutionally and morally, to support its plan. It has not done so, I must note, to this day. We argued last year that absent clear evidence of an imminent threat to the people of the United States, a unilateral first strike against Iraq would undermine the international moral authority of the United States that is so critical in our struggle against terrorism. We were deeply apprehensive that the Middle East would be destabilized, that unilateral U.S. action would commit this Nation to a long-term and, perhaps, indefinite foreign engagement that would cost America dearly both in American lives and in national resources. Last year's concerns have now become this year's harsh realities, realities that we must face as a Nation and that we must overcome. On almost a daily basis we hear regretfully about American soldiers who are being killed or injured in Iraq. The Bush administration has been unable or unwilling to truly internationalize the process toward restoring control of Iraq to the Iraqi people. As a Nation, we are already scores of billions of dollars poorer than we were last October. Now the Bush administration has presented the Congress with another $87 billion check that it is asking us to sign. There is no question that we, along with our other colleagues in the Congress, will do everything within our power to support and protect our troops and provide for their families. That is a paramount concern for us, always has been and always will be. Our duty in this regard is clear. Nevertheless, before the Congress of the United States provides the President with the authority to spend more of the American people's money on Iraq, we have a constitutional responsibility to demand a clear, comprehensive, and publicly articulated analysis of the Bush administration's management of our involvement both past and present. The administration does not even pretend that this $87 billion proposal will be its final request for funds. Before I proceed, I would like to make two points that I recently read in The Washington Post. In this particular piece it was noted that the $87 billion request by the President is three times the amount of money the Federal Government will spend on elementary and secondary education this year, and two times as much as the budget for homeland security. The article also noted research from Yale economic researcher William Nordhaus, which noted that the $166 billion that has been spent, or requested, exceeds the inflation-adjusted cost of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, and the first Persian Gulf War combined, and approaches the $191 billion inflation- adjusted cost of World War I. Mr. Speaker, I note these facts and the professor's research to say if left unquestioned, approving this $87 billion would amount to another blank check. That cannot be allowed to happen. To state the matter gently, the administration has suffered serious damage to its credibility on the subject of Iraq. As a first step toward repairing this loss of trust, the American people and their elected representatives deserve to know in far greater detail the information that convinced the President to go to war. In addition, the President must provide us with a far more detailed game plan for the future. He should outline his reasoned predictions as to the personnel and funding that will be required to complete our involvement in Iraq and the manner in which these burdens and the authority to address them will be shared with the United Nations. The President should provide an accounting of the previously appropriated funds which this administration has expended in Iraq, including details of all Federal contracts. The President should explain to the Congress and the American people how the additional $87 billion in funding that he has now requested will be spent. The Bush administration should provide the Congress with the information that will allow us to evaluate and vote separately upon the funding requested for the protection and support of our troops as distinguished from the funding that the President wishes to apply to the rebuilding of Iraq. We also deserve a full accounting of the Iraqi resources, both recovered and anticipated, that properly can be utilized to reduce the U.S. burden. Above all, our troops and the American people as a whole deserve to know the President's exit strategy. We need to know the criteria for success that must be met before the President will agree to bring our men and women home. We ask these questions of the Bush administration with the respect that should exist between coequal branches of our government. Those in the world who oppose America should not underestimate either our national unity or our resolve. Nevertheless, both in Baghdad and in my hometown of Baltimore, these are hard times for the American people, times that demand hard answers to hard questions. Mr. Speaker, we who serve the people in the Congress of the United States would not be fulfilling our constitutional responsibility if we were to hand the President another blank check. We must have some accountability for the American people's money. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), chairman emeritus of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement. And we reiterate that these questions that have been raised are basic questions that if anybody were dealing with a family issue, a serious family issue, these are the kinds of questions, Mr. Speaker, that anybody, any reasonable person would ask, and we reiterate that we hope the President will answer these questions as soon as possible. Speaking of common sense, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) who hails from South Carolina and also is a previous chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and now serves as a vice chairman of our Democratic Caucus.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am glad the gentleman raised the issue of the opportunity, that we must take the opportunities that we have to speak out with regard to what is happening in our country. And the fact is that he is right. Before the war the Congressional Black Caucus raised some very crucial questions, some folks were hollering the word ``unpatriotic,'' and we made it very clear, as we make it clear today that we support our troops 1 million percent. We want them to be at their very best. We want them to be well-equipped. At the same time, we want to make sure that the crucial questions are asked because after all, the people that we represent are the ones who will end up paying the bill. But not only them but their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will be paying this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that history will be the judge, and I think it will shine a very favorable light on the Congressional Black Caucus for raising the questions that have been raised. These are basic, fundamental questions. It is interesting that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) raised the issue of our troops. It just reminded me that one of the first soldiers to die in the war just so happened to live a few blocks from me, a young man who simply wanted to be the best that he could be; and he joined the Marines, and the reason why he joined the Marines was because he could not get scholarship money to go to college. But he joined the Marines and gave the best that he had, and he became one of the best helicopter specialists in the entire Marine Corps. So we must never forget the young people who are suffering in 120 degree-plus weather. We must never forget those who have given the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, for this country. We must never forget them, ever. We must never separate them from what is going on here today, for they are the people that we care so much about and we love so dearly. At the same time, I think we owe them a certain level of support, the highest level of support. We must do that. At the same time, we must be, this country, that is the President, must answer crucial basic questions about the taxes that are paid. I have often said, Mr. Speaker, that one can get Republicans and Democrats to agree on one thing, and that is for sure, and that is that the tax dollars of our citizens must be spent in an effective and efficient manner. I do believe that it is our duty. It is not only our duty; it is our responsibility to ask the questions of how those dollars are spent. It is the duty of every citizen to require of us in town hall meetings, and when they meet us at the supermarket, to be able to ask us the question of how are our dollars being spent. And as we stand here today and as we look at this total $166 billion, I promise my colleagues that I do not think that one of us can truly say how they are being spent, because our President has not told us. This Chamber should be packed with Members trying to get answers to those very crucial questions.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman and all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus for participating in this discussion this evening.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of pride that I rise today in support of H. Res. 352, which remembers and honors the March on Washington of August 28, 1963. Mr. Speaker, our nation recently celebrated the fortieth anniversary of this historic demonstration--an event that forever will stand for the proposition of full and equal rights for all Americans. This resolution will serve as a lasting tribute not only to one of the largest peaceful political demonstrations in U.S. history, but will also pay homage to the organizers and participants for their dedication and commitment to the realization of civil and equal rights for all Americans. Culminating in Dr. King's famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, the March on Washington demonstrated that a collective force dedicated to the principles of non-violent protest could successfully fight prejudice and discrimination against African-Americans and other minorities. Properly commemorating this historic event and those who participated in it will also send a message to our youth that the struggle for civil rights continues. That we must remain resolute in our efforts to realize Dr. King's dream of a nation where one is ``judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.'' Mr. Speaker, again it is my honor and privilege today to lend my wholehearted support to this important piece of legislation--which recognizes the monumental significance of the 1963 March on Washington in the ongoing struggle for equality and justice. I want to thank my colleague, Sanford Bishop for sponsoring this important resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Resolution and to never let the dream of Martin Luther King die. I leave my colleagues with a quote from Dr. King which should serve as a gauge in every action and for every vote we take here in this esteemed body, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and to oppose the ill-conceived Davis amendment to add vouchers to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, not only have the citizens and many leaders of Washington opposed vouchers, but the House has also made certain that our own districts would not have mandated vouchers imposed in its public schools. I find that very interesting, Mr. Chairman, considering what the last speaker just said. Basically the implication was that there should be local control. It is clear here that we are trying to impose our will on the District of Columbia when we cannot even do it. We do not accept vouchers in our own districts. Why should we do it here? I think we have to be very candid and honest with ourselves to begin to ask the question, why are we doing this? In fact, we rejected voucher proposals in the No Child Left Behind legislation in the IDEA bill. The Record of this House reflects that voucher amendments have been soundly defeated for years by this House. So I find it interesting that some in the House want to impose a voucher program for D.C., but clearly it is not something that they want for their own districts. You have heard many Members on the other side of the aisle say that vouchers will help low-income children in Washington, D.C. They may believe the hype that accompanies the debate on vouchers for our Nation's disadvantaged children. But this is what we do know about vouchers: Vouchers drain money away from public schools and leave the remaining children with even less resources, schools like the ones in my district where in one school there were 13 computers for 1,300 children. Where children, just a year or so ago, were reading out of books where Jimmy Carter was still the President. These were honor students. And situations where children can go through high school without ever looking through the lens of a microscope. Another thing that we know about vouchers is that vouchers do not improve student achievement. I wish they did, but they do not. And let us not be fooled by that. Vouchers offer false promises of choice because private schools have the ultimate decision on which students they enroll. Of its 42 public charter schools and 15 public transformation schools, Washington, D.C. has the most wide-ranging set of alternatives to traditional public schools in this entire country. Public school choice is the real choice and the only choice program we should support in this House. Mr. Chairman, I know that every Member of the House wants to provide the best education possible for our children. I believe that investing adequate funds in public schools with access to technology, up-to-date textbooks, and highly-qualified teachers is the correct choice. The District of Columbia should not be used as an experiment for public school reform. I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment and vote against the Davis amendment. An experimental voucher program in Washington, D.C. will leave too many children behind and harm the city's public schools.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Hastings amendment that will provide much needed money for election reform grants to states, which are to be used to update state election systems and replace obsolete voting equipment. After the 2000 presidential election cycle, many Americans felt disenfranchised or even worse that their vote was not counted. These lingering problems mostly affected minority and poor neighborhoods. In response to the national outcry for reform, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) establishing minimum federal standards for federal elections that include upgrading voting machines and registration processes. Passage of the bill provided an opportunity to reform outdated systems and show the American people and the world that fair and just elections are important and possible. The HAVA authorized more than $3 billion over five years to improve our election systems, which includes improving voting technology. However, the bill before us today only appropriates $500 million, leaving states without resources to make critical systems updates for the upcoming elections this year and in 2004. States deserve the resources to make a real change. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings goes a long way to make true election reform a reality. The Hastings amendment increase funding for the implementation of HAVA by $232 million, which will be offset in accounts that do not need the money, this fiscal year. This money will help restore confidence in this country's election system. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq was to bring democracy to Iraq. We also must do all we can in this country to preserve the right to vote and provide the necessary funds to update voting procedures in the United States. Voting is not just a right but also a privilege. We must ensure that the voting mechanisms in America are fair and just. The Hastings amendment will help put us on the correct path. The world will closely watch the next election to make sure our actions speak louder than our words. Let this body act with integrity and support the Hastings amendment and renew our commitment to establishing federal standards for federal elections and voting an outlined in HAVA. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to support this worthwhile amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague Chairman Quinn. From its inception, Amtrak was expected to pursue conflicting goals. It was to provide a national rail passenger service while simultaneously operating as a commercial enterprise. Although, at this point I think that it is a foregone conclusion that no one expects Amtrak will be profitable. As mandated in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, which required Amtrak to achieve self-sufficiency by December 2002, the rail system has received reduced appropriations funding each year. However, due to inflation and a poor economy, operating costs continue to rise. Many important infrastructure and equipment improvements have been delayed or postponed due to the lack of funding. Rising operating costs--declining revenue--this is a formula for failure. We are now faced with the challenge of salvaging a vital link in our national transportation system. To quote the Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta: ``Intercity passenger rail service is an important part of the nation's transportation system.'' Some critics of Amtrak insist that reforming Amtrak will save it. I disagree. Until necessary improvements are made on the infrastructure and equipment, the system cannot function efficiently. We need to provide Amtrak with adequate funding. In some areas the rail infrastructure is over 100 years old. Repairing existing infrastructure to good condition and upgrading equipment will ultimately lead to reduced operational costs. But, as with most endeavors of this magnitude we cannot expect overnight results. The process will take time. Looking to the states that rely on rail service to stabilize Amtrak is not the answer. My state of Maryland has been a strong supporter of Amtrak as it is a critical part of the overall transportation solution--especially in the congested Northeast corridor. The MARC trains in Baltimore are operated under a contract with Amtrak. Many Maryland communters depend on MARC service. But, we are not asking for a free ride. Since 1990, Maryland has invested over $124 million in state and federal funds to improve Amtrak owned facilities. I'm sure that Maryland does not stand alone when we say that we cannot afford to pay for the substantial needs of Amtrak. Maintaining a sound, efficient rail system is a national concern. We are ever vigilant in our efforts to get people to leave their cars at home and use mass transit in order to each congestion and lower emissions. Since 1971, Amtrak has sought to balance competing public service and commercial objectives without the benefit of adequate resources to fully deliver either. The government must provide the necessary funding and oversight that is essential for a national passenger rail system. We've come a long way in transportation technology since Amtrak began its service in 1971. However, because of the condition of current rail infrastructure and stock this progress is far from evident. I think that it is time for Congress to ``step up to the plate.'' We need and deserve a national passenger rail system. We must provide adequate funding for Amtrak.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the School Readiness Act, H.R. 2210, and I implore my colleagues to vote against it as this bill is a blatant attempt to dismantle the Head Start program. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is a very successful Federal program run at the local level. As we are all well aware the program provides education, health care, nutrition and parent involvement programs to nearly 1 million low-income preschool children and their families. The language in the bill we are considering right now will weaken Head Start and jeopardize the comprehensive educational and social services Head Start now provides to hundreds of thousands of families. On July 15, I released a report, prepared at my request by the House Government Reform Committee, entitled ``Proposed Overhaul of Head Start Could Affect Thousands of Children in Maryland's 7th Congressional District.'' If the administration's changes are implemented in Maryland, the report indicates that almost 3,000 children in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Howard County would be adversely affected in the following way: 2,742 children would not be guaranteed dental care; 2,433 families may be left out of participating in their child's education; 472 children may not receive mental health care that they currently get in Head Start; 444 children would be at risk for not getting treatment for asthma, anemia and vision problems; and 341 children could possibly lose guaranteed access to disability services. What we may not be aware of is that by block granting, we are cutting the number of children currently served and leaving millions of eligible low-income children without the needed resources in advance is not wise. Many Head Start advocates are concerned that states that accept block grants will weaken educational standards. And let me tell you how, because I think it is a nuance that many of my compassionate conservative colleagues miss. This bill allows a demonstration project in eight states which essentially allows these States to take their Head Start monies and use them as they see fit for early childhood education programs. In a phrase blockgranting. We know block granting does not work because in tough economic times with a record $544 billion national deficit, states make tough budget choices and programs like Head Start get shortchanged. Block grants are a veiled way to kill the Head Start program as we know it. Blockgranting makes it easier to cut programs and as a result more programs begin to dwindle. Eventually, Head Start will not exist. The comprehensive nature of the program supports the notion that success inside the classroom requires that children be physically and mentally healthy, with a stable home life. Head Start works and is highly successful. The broad nature of the program has resulted in the following accomplishments: Head Start has proven to narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and other children in vocabulary skills, writing and social behavior; Children who participate in Head Start programs are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education or be convicted of a crime; The program's graduates show higher IQ gains compared to low-income children who have not attended Head Start; And finally, children who attend Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school, and college. But one does not have to read this report to realize the positive impact Head Start can make on a child. Any of my colleagues who questions the positive difference that Head Start can make should listen to my constituent, Ms. Portia DeShields. When her son Marcus was three, Ms. DeShields realized that he was struggling with a speech and language disability. Recalling how she had gained from her childhood participation in Head Start, Ms. DeShields and her husband enrolled Marcus in a Head Start program sponsored by Baltimore's Union Baptist Church. Beginning in September of last year, a Head Start speech pathologist worked with Marcus two or three times each week. A mental health specialist helped Marcus learn how to control his anger, and ``positive parenting'' classes taught his parents how to better meet his needs. Today, at age 4, Marcus's speech and language skills have improved to the point where he is functioning at near-kindergarten level. Head Start is working for Marcus and nearly 1 million other children. As such, I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and support the Democratic substitute that builds on the proven success of Head Start by strengthening school readiness, improving program quality and accountability, and expanding access so more eligible children. The Democratic substitute accomplishes this while maintaining local control and high performance standards in its programming. That is why the Democratic Substitute is supported by many organizations including the National Head Start Association, the National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the ACLU, and the National League of Cities. H.R. 2210 is opposed by these same groups because these groups understand that block grants put this important program in a perilous position. But not only that, this bill does not improve Head Start--if it's not broken, don't tinker with it to break it! Mr. Chairman, we cannot shortchange the early education of millions of children because to do so would be to shortchange the rest of their lives. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, compassionate conservatives too, to put children first and to make good on the promise that ``no child be left behind.'' This bad bill puts the future of these children in jeopardy. H.R. 2210 dismantles ore than 38 years of bipartisan support for this critical early education program. Reject the H.R. 2210 and support the Democratic substitute. Only by supporting the Democratic substitute will children indeed have a head start.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support the Kilpatrick amendment to add $300 million to the Global AIDS Fund under the Child Survival and Health Programs Account of the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. I applaud my friends Carolyn Kilpatrick and Barbara Lee for their valiant work on this issue. There is no denying the need for increasing AIDS and HIV funding in Africa. AIDS and HIV have reached pandemic proportions--these diseases are literally killing a continent and leaving a generation of orphans in their wake. As a global community, we are at a crisis stage with these diseases, and adequate funding for the prevention and treatment of infectious disease, especially HIV and AIDS, must come before it is too late. As the richest and most scientifically advanced nation in the world, we have both the power and the responsibility to take the necessary actions to help eradicate HIV/AIDS and other dangerous infectious diseases worldwide. Mr. Chairman, today more than 30 million Africans are living with HIV. Last year, an estimated 2.4 million new infectious occurred, while 3.5 million people lost their lives to the disease. This is a problem of epidemic proportion. I can only imagine the pain and suffering of the millions of families, orphaned children and those afflicted with this disease waiting for relief in any form. The time for action is now, lives are wasting. But Mr. Chairman, this is no secret to my colleagues. Just a few months ago, this House voted overwhelmingly to support the President's commitment of $15 billion over the next 5 years to help the 30 million suffering from the horrible pandemic of AIDS in Africa. This meant that when the appropriations cycle rolled around we should ante up $3 billion. We all coalesced behind this issue on a bipartisan basis, the CBC lent its support, the President signed it into law and we walked away saying we were going to help save those suffering and facing more suffering. Instead today we're forced to choose between two good programs--the Millenium Challenge Account and the Global AIDS fund. It seems that this is always the choice on the great programs--programs that help the most people--people who need so much and have so little. That fact notwithstanding, I say to my colleagues that the Global AIDS fund is up and running and it works. The same cannot be said of the Millenium Challenge Account, only because it is new and not yet up and running. But even with movement of the $300 million to the Global AIDS account, we're still leaving $500 million in the Millenium Challenge Account. Until this program takes off, I believe this is more than sufficient funding. Mr. Chairman, we can give more money next year to the Millenium Challenge Account when it is ready to do its much needed intended work in Africa--but the 30 million suffering today on that continent cannot wait. Each day another 11,000 people are newly infected. Each day thousands more die. In Africa, it is estimated that more than 4 million people have a sufficiently advanced stage of HIV/AIDS to warrant anti-retroviral treatment. However, currently only 50,000 are receiving it. This is a statistic that the Global AIDS fund is intended to make better, now. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, unlike other unfunded mandates, like the No Child Left Behind Act, the President has said that he supports fully funding this program at $3 billion. At the urging of the CBC, AIDS activist groups and the faith-based community, the President devised a plan to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa. He eventually realized that these diseases know no borders and the U.S. should play a pivotal role in helping to try to stem the tide of destruction they bring. The House Republican Leadership should not break its promise to the Global AIDS fund and the African continent. I urge my compassionate conservative colleagues to put their money where their rhetoric is and show compassion by adopting the Kilpatrick amendment. preferential motion offered by mr. jackson of illinois

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by Congressman Artur Davis that will restore $3.5 million in funding to the 1890 land-grant accounts. The 1890 Land-Grant Institutions were created as a result of the Second Morrill Act of 1890, expanding the 1862 system of land-grant universities to include historically black institutions in those states where segregation denied minorities access to the land-grant institution established by the First Morrill Act, in 1862. Under the bill before us, these universities will get a 17 percent cut for research and education activities. They will also be faced with a 10 percent cut in Extension Grants, which provide funding for extension offices that work directly with minority farmers in economically distressed areas. Today, there are 18 black land-grant colleges and universities in the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Mr. Chairman, cuts of this magnitude would cripple the ability of 1890 institutions to continue with their original mission to train sons and daughters of farmers. Today, many of the schools still focus on agriculture by offering curricula that focuses on research, agribusiness, agricultural engineering, and consumer education. Additionally, millions of students are able to study every academic discipline far beyond the scope imagined in the original mission of 1890 land-grant institutions. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that many states are faced with massive budget cuts. To combat these deficits, students at our colleges and universities must bear the brunt of the costs. College tuition has seen a double-digit percentage increases in my home state of Maryland. HBCUs, which often face budget short falls, cannot withstand these cuts and many may close if funding of sort is not approved. I urge all of my colleagues to support this worthwhile amendment. 1890 land-grant institutions and the other HBCUs remain a vital part of our nation's history and educational system. Congress should not turn their backs on these 1890 land grant institutions. Cutting funding will hurt millions of students.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the gentleman from Maryland's thoughtful motion to instruct conferees. I thank him for his vigilance in standing up for hardworking, lower-income families. This instruction tells the conferees to ignore the bogus Republican child tax credit fix passed in this House and urges them to follow the Senate provisions that would extend the child tax credit to lower- income families to make sure they receive a rebate check when they start going out on July 25, 2003. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has already passed a bill that would make sure that our working families, those earning between $10,500 and $26,000, would receive their share of one of the largest tax cuts in this Nation's history. That bill costs $9.7 billion; and, unlike the huge $80 billion Republican tax credit rammed through the House, the Senate bill is paid for. Mr. Speaker, what I find truly astounding by this entire process is what it says about our values in this House. We should be trying to help all Americans, those with means and those without. The Office of Management and Budget recently announced that this year's Federal deficit will hit $455 billion. I do not think it is any secret that this record deficit is a direct result of tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. And yet I ask my colleagues can we not spend $3.5 billion of money, money that is offset in the Senate bill to let the men and women of our Armed Forces who fight bravely for our country and the men and women who serve our food, who provide day care for our kids, who drive our buses, collect our garbage, to tell them that they matter? Because, Mr. Speaker, $3.5 billion is all it would take of the trillion dollar-plus tax cut to help 6.5 million working families, including families of the brave men and women who served our country so heroically in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. Is it too much to give these families their minuscule piece of a tax cut to let them know they matter as much as a millionaire and that their children matter as much as the children of big political donors? Are these questions we should really have to answer? Instead of helping, the Republican leadership designed a child tax credit that was overpriced and not paid for. They loaded it up with extra goodies so that it cost a whopping $82 billion. Without Senate support they knew it would be nearly impossible to pass out of conference and may fail altogether. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans did not vote to expand the tax credit. They voted to kill it. But I urge my compassionate conservative friends to put the money where their rhetoric is. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland's thoughtful Motion to Instruct Conferees. This instruction tells the conferees to ignore the bogus Republican Child Tax Credit ``fix'' passed in this House and urges them to follow the Senate provisions that will extend the child tax credit to lower-income families to make sure they receive a rebate check when they start going out on July 25, 2003. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has already passed a bill that would make sure that our working families, those earning between $10,500 and $26,000 will receive their share of one of the largest tax cuts in history. That bill costs $9.7 billion and unlike the gargantuan $80 billion Republican tax credit rammed through the House--the Senate bill is paid for. Mr. Speaker, what I find truly astounding about this entire process is what it says about our values in this House. We should be trying to help all Americans--those with means and those without. The Office of Management and Budget recently announced that this year's federal deficit will hit $455 billion. I don't think it's any secret that this record deficit is a direct result of tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest one percent of Americans. And yet, I ask my colleagues, can we not spend $3.5 billion--money that is offset in the Senate bill--to let the men and women of our Armed Forces, who fight bravely for our country--and the men and women who serve our food, who provide day care help for our kids, who drive our buses, collect our garbage--to tell them that they matter. Because, Mr. Speaker, $3.5 billion is all it would take of the trillion-plus dollar tax cut to help 6.5 million working families-- including families of the brave men and women who served our country so heroically in Iraq. in Afghanistan and around the globe. Is it too much to give these families their miniscule piece of the tax cut--to let them know they matter as much as a millionaire and that their children matter as much as the children of big political donors. Are these questions we should really have to answer? Instead of Helping the Republican leadership designed a child tax credit that was overpriced and not paid for--they loaded it up with extra goodies to that it costs a whopping $82 billion. Without Senate support they knew it would be nearly impossible to pass out of conference and may fail altogether. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans did not vote to expand the child tax credit, they voted to kill it. But, I urge my compassionate conservative friends to put the money where your rhetoric is. Correct your intentional mistake. Pass the Senate provisions. These families need the help now. Mr. Speaker, that is money well spent.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Res. 303, a resolution to honor the former mayor of the City of Atlanta, the Honorable Maynard Jackson, Jr. And I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), for this resolution. It is often said, Mr. Speaker, that when a person dies in our lives, and if it is somebody who is close to us, a part of us dies. The untimely death of one of our foremost leaders was a tragedy, and he will be sorely missed. But as I listened to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), I cannot help but think about the fact that when Maynard Jackson became mayor back in 1973 of the great City of Atlanta, I was graduating from Howard University, and I can remember many of us being inspired by his leadership and the fact that he was a strong man who stood up. We had a saying back then, that he did not scratch where he did not itch and he did not laugh at jokes that were not funny. But he was a strong man, a strong African American man, and he inspired many of us student government leaders. The Honorable Maynard Jackson was a pioneer for civil rights. He graduate cum laude from North Carolina Central University School of Law and went on to become the first African American mayor of Atlanta where he left a legacy of contributions that would pave the way for both African American leadership in the 21st century and a new standard of public service and commitment. After being elected to office in 1973, at the age of 35, which I find amazing, Maynard Jackson, Jr., began to foster and encourage interracial understanding as well as serving as a guide in leveling the vastly uneven social and economic playing fields for minorities. He was a great advocate for diversity and fairness in all areas of life. The Honorable Maynard Jackson, Jr., was also the catalyst for the design of Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. He played an essential part in securing Atlanta's selection as the site of the 1996 Summer Olympics. He also played an integral role in increasing voter turnout by establishing the nonpartisan American Voters League. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Maynard Jackson was an outstanding leader who was greatly influential. He was and will continue to be held in the highest esteem by his community, his colleagues, the State of Georgia, and the entire Nation. We should all aspire to such greatness. Please join me in honoring his life and accomplishments.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for moving this legislation through the Committee on Government Reform. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his tireless efforts to promote men's health. Finally, a special thanks is owed to the national media outlets such as CNN, CBS Early Morning Show, Wall Street Journal, The USA Weekend, Parade, Roll Call, and Fox Cable News for promoting the National Men's Health Week and recognizing the importance of the health of men and their families. I am pleased that H. Con. Res. 208, a bill supporting National Men's Health Week, is on today's suspension calendar. The National Men's Health Week Act was passed by Congress in 1994 and signed into law by former President Clinton on May 31, 1994. Former Senator Bob Dole sponsored the legislation in the Senate, and former Congressman Bill Richardson sponsored it in the United States House of Representatives. The purpose of Men's Health Week is to heighten the awareness of preventable health problems and encourage early detection and treatment of disease among men and boys. National Men's Health Week is just one way in which the public and health care providers can become educated about the importance of early detection of male-related diseases. Mr. Speaker, men are at such high risk because a higher percentage of men have no health care coverage, make fewer physician visits each year; and research on male-specific diseases is vastly underfunded. Experts believe that early detection of certain diseases could be possible if awareness were raised concerning male-related health problems. These problems include prostate cancer, infertility, and colon cancer. Additionally, early detection may have an impact on the following statistics: men have a higher death rate for every one of the top 10 leading causes of death as defined by the Centers for Disease Control; men die of heart disease at almost twice the rate of women; 50 percent more men die of cancer than women; despite medical technology and research advances, men continue to live an average of 6 years less than women; and black male life expectancy is 68 years, whereas the overall life expectancy for all groups is 77 years of age. These statistics are daunting, signifying that awareness, education, and research are indeed crucial. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that men visit a doctor for annual examinations. If I might note, much research has been done with regard to men preventing diseases, and one thing that has been very interesting is that research shows that most men who are able to get early prevention treatment were usually pushed there by a significant other in their lives, a woman. Preventive health care strategies such as annual examinations can play a role in prolonging male lives, thereby reducing the mortality rates for male-related health diseases. Many of the deaths are preventable, and many of the diseases which adversely affect men could be treated with early detection. During this year's National Men's Health Week, June 9-15, approximately 750 men participated in health screenings here on Capitol Hill over a 3-day period. Although the week has ended, the message is universal and resonates throughout the year. Since its inception, public health departments, community organizations, and health care entities have celebrated National Men's Health Week. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to support the adoption of H. Con. Res. 208.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. Mr. Speaker, tonight the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus have come together to address the Head Start program; and, as I said a little bit earlier, our concerns go very deep. Every time I come into this Chamber, I cannot help but think about the day that I was sworn in. My father, who only had a first grade education, sat up in the balcony. After the swearing-in ceremony, he came down with tears in his eyes, and I asked him the question, I said, Dad, why are you crying? And I understood, first of all, about his history. He was a man who was born in Manning, South Carolina, and his people who owned the land where he was a sharecropper denied him the opportunity to get a decent education. He had gone some 70 years deprived of the kind of education that he deserved. So here he was in April of 1996, looking down on his son who had gotten the education. And I said, Dad, are you upset? I mean, are you happy, so happy that you have tears in your eyes about your son being elevated to a Congressman and being a lawyer and a phi beta kappa? He said, no, that is not what it is about. He said, I am crying out of pain. I am crying over the fact that I have gone a lifetime and finally I see what I could have been. And what this is all about, this entire discussion here tonight, is about little children who have been born into a world and born into an environment where the income level of their parents may not be all that it is for others, and all they are doing is trying to be all that God has meant for them to be. One great sculptor said that not long ago at one time he was sculpturing and his sculptures were selling for about $20. He went back to his grandfather and he said, grandfather, your sculptures sold for more. I mean, what is it? How did that happen? And the grandfather said, you have to look into the wood; it is already there. And so he began to look into the wood and see the sculpture, and he began to cut away and finally came up with what he knew was already there. The fact is that these children who, again, are trying to simply be all that God meant for them to be, it is already there. The question is whether we, as adults, will do all that we can to bring it out of them. We are convinced in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and in the Congressional Black Caucus that we should be doing more, not less. We should not be merely raising the Head Start budget from $6.8 billion to $6.9 billion. That is not enough, because there is still, even with that slight increase, there are still 40 percent of all of the children who deserve a head start and who deserve to be in the program unable to do it because we have not put the money forward. We are concerned about the fact that we are now saying let us experiment with these eight States and give them the block grant funds to pass on to the Head Start programs. We are worried that that money may get diverted somewhere else, and the kids that really need that money they will not get it. Because budgets throughout our Nation, almost every single governor is struggling with a deficit, and we are very clear that when they are struggling with deficits it is probably quite likely that the money, all of the money that is destined for those Head Start programs will not get there. So we do not want to be in a situation where 30 years from now, 20 years from now, 40 years from now, children who are then grown up are looking at their children and saying what my father said to me: Now I know what I could have been, what I could have been. The fact is that we have an opportunity here today, this week, to make sure that all of our children, all of our children, every one of them, has an opportunity to get off to a good head start. Finally let me say this: So often I hear my colleagues talk about what they want for our children. But I ask the question, if their children, if they were talking about their own children, the children that have their blood running through their veins and who came from their womb, would they want an improved Head Start program if their child had to be a subject of the Head Start program? I would submit that they would want a better program, that they would not want funds diverted. So this evening, Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, all of the Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who have come forward to lift up our children so that they can be all the best that they can be.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her statement. Mr. Speaker, tonight it is a very sad time when we consider a program, as the gentlewoman from California said, that has been so successful; and it is a sad time when a program that has touched so many lives and built so many lives so successfully is being attacked. We do consider it to be just that. One of the things that the gentlewoman from California talked about was she went to the Committee on Rules and she asked a question, why is it that the Republican leadership is so afraid of amendments to this bill to make it a better bill and to make the Head Start program better? She went on to say that there is a question as to whether or not they really understand what Head Start is all about. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``You cannot lead where you do not go and you cannot teach what you don't know.'' The fact is that there are so many children like the 4- year-old that I saw just a month ago graduating from our Head Start program at the Union Baptist Church in my district reading on the level of a third or fourth grader. That is what Head Start is all about. And so it gives me great pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has consistently been at the forefront of lifting people up and trying to make a difference in their lives. I know that the gentleman from Illinois believes very strongly in the statement that I make quite often and that is that our children are the living messages we send to a future we will never see.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Head Start program, if we did not have one, we would have to invent it, because it has been so effective in preventing so many problems that children quite often develop after they get a little older. The question has often been asked, why is the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus so concerned about a Head Start program? And I think it is coming out very clearly as Members have spent a lot of time all day working and now they come here tonight, and the reason the Members are here is because they want to make sure that every child is allowed to grow up to be all that God meant for them to be. The other day I was visiting Sheltonham Juvenile Detention Center in Maryland; and in speaking to the young boys there, most of them between 12-17, I told them when I was 7 years old I could remember young children going off to that detention center. I told them that the march continues even today, and I am 52 years old. I told them that we wanted to make sure that no more of our young men and young women would march off to that institution with shackles around their feet. We want them to be the Dr. Ben Carsons of the world, the teachers, the doctors, the educators, the people who make a difference in our society. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus takes this time tonight, and we have done it over and over again, to make sure that we do everything in our power during our watch not to allow a very significant and very effective program that helps our children to be dismantled. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her statement. In considering some of the things that she said, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but just look at and quote a portion of the National Head Start Association's Report entitled, ``Dismantling Head Start, The Case for Saving America's Most Successful Early Childhood Development Program,'' which is dated April 16, 2003. What they say in that report, the National Head Start Association, is, and I quote: ``A hodgepodge of inconsistent and untested State government programs that either will serve fewer children than Head Start does now or will provide less comprehensive services to those children served will be the outcome if this legislation is passed.'' The interesting thing is, as I listened to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, I could not help but think about a school where for the last 12 years I have spoken as the graduation speaker, which is basically a high school for children who are in special education. Two or three years ago I noticed, and I was mentioning to the principal of the school that many of the children who came to participate in the program and who were graduating, many of them had speech defects, some of them seemed to be a bit slow in their reading abilities, and many of them suffered from all kinds of what appeared to be crippling ailments. The thing that the principal pointed out to me is that if, when these children were little, these things had been corrected, they would not have to go a lifetime having to suffer with certain ailments. Head Start has always been about a comprehensive program providing nutrition, making sure that our children got dental examinations, making sure that they have mental health referrals, and making sure that those things that could be corrected at an early age and be corrected quite easily and at a reasonable price, Head Start has been about the business of doing that. And with this effort to shift Head Start to a block grant-type program and take away standards, it certainly goes against our children. With that, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a former Head Start teacher and someone who has spoken out consistently on this issue with a tremendous amount of passion.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his statement, and certainly I think we could summarize it by saying that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus do not want the government to use our tax dollars to discriminate. It is as simple as that. So I thank the gentleman for being so vigilant on that issue consistently. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my colleague, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).