Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his kindness of yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, regretfully, I rise to oppose H.R. 4103, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2004. I am deeply concerned by the fact that this bill only deepens the discriminatory U.S. trade policies towards sub-Saharan African nations created by the original 2000 act, Public Law 106-200. It is indefensible, Mr. Speaker, that the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act has been and remains the only U.S. trade program under which countries must be annually certified as meeting an extensive list of unilateral, and, frankly, counterproductive conditions before being granted benefits. Other U.S. preferential trade programs with Andean countries, Caribbean and Central American nations contain a more limited set of conditions and nations are considered eligible throughout the term of the program unless action is taken to petition them out. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act sets a double standard for Africa. Some of the most outrageous conditional adversities of H.R. 4103 include, first, sub-Saharan African countries must pursue policies that are deemed to be in line with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, even if those interests run contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests in the interest of domestic security within their own nations. It does not mean that they are against U.S. national security interests, it simply means they have their own national security interests that must be concerned and paramount for their governments. Second, a further undermining of sovereignty by insisting on liberalization and privatization policies, such as water privatization. Now, imagine that; the privatization of water in sub-Saharan Africa, where increasingly there are a number of droughts. Who would come up with the idea that privatization policies, such as water privatization, should be a priority in H.R. 4103? But it is in this legislation. The removal of state controls on foreign investments, price controls and subsidies. Third, the unilateral requirement that U.S. investors doing business in African Growth and Opportunity countries must be granted national investor status. Fourth, countries must provide full legal protection and enforcement for intellectual property rights, including the private ownership of African seeds and animal genetic materials. H.R. 4103 ignores the most serious existing problems of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which I opposed in 2000. I might add, Mr. Speaker, I was one of a handful of members of the Congressional Black Caucus that opposed the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act for these reasons. I might add that an overwhelming number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and others, are supportive of AGOA. This bill, however, continues to impose upon African nations a set of policies that have been proven to undermine development, but benefit U.S. multinational corporations and foreign investors, in exchange for meager market access benefits. This bill in 2000 was sold to the American people as trade, not aid; a helping hand, but not a handout. But by eliminating these conditionalities and the annual review, I am convinced this is the only way to ensure equal treatment for our African trading partners, as we have sought to create equal treatment for Andean, Caribbean and Central American nations as well. Why the double standard for Africa? Why the annual recertification of African partners, if in fact we believe that these African nations are our genuine and honest partners? If we are to attach any conditions to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Program, our interests, from my perspective, would far better be served by an insistence on better treatment for factory workers and stronger legal protections for union activities in these countries. If we genuinely expect trade to help lift people out of poverty, we cannot continue to burden these countries with rules and requirements that undermine development and leave workers powerless to fight the exploitation and abuse that is an integral part of the corporate race to the bottom. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully cannot support H.R. 4103.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3113.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 2003, we were debating a similar resolution--then to express support for the President and the U.S. military (H. Con. Res. 104). I said on that occasion: ``I want to make it clear that our young men and women, who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, have my unequivocal support. I will do everything in my power as a member of Congress to see to it that they have everything they need to win this war and return home safe and sound to their families. We can only hope and pray that this war will end quickly, and a minimum number of American, British, and Iraqi civilian and military lives are lost, destroyed or maimed for the rest of their lives.'' Unfortunately, my worst fears have come true. Our troops, and the few other nations whose troops are involved, are not home. Families and many good Americans are volunteering to raise money to buy for our soldiers the kind of protective vests they need to be as safe as possible in the middle of a war. Many Americans and thousands of Iraqi fighters, but mostly innocent Iraqi civilians, have died and been wounded. The wounded will spend a life-time of disability and suffering. They will spend the rest of their lives knowing that they will never be able to accomplish the highest and best of what God had intended for their lives. I said a year ago, ``While the troops have 100 percent of my support, when appropriate, I will continue to articulate the grave concerns I have about the policies that sent them there.'' Today I am keeping the promise relative to the President's policies in Iraq. This Congress did not vote to go to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Everybody knew he was a bad guy. There are lots of bad guys in the world, and we are not even trying to remove them. Unfortunately, the fundamental lesson that President Bush has taught our children with his pre-emptive war strategy is that ``the end justifies the means.'' We were told we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Americans would not have supported going to war just because Saddam was a bad guy. One year later, we have found no weapons of mass destruction, and have little evidence that we will ever find them. Why? Because, mostly likely, U.N. inspections had contained his ability to make or use weapons of mass destruction. President Bush has destroyed the unity, support and moral authority that the world gave to the United States after September 11. The latest evidence of that erosion of support was the Spanish election on March 14. I said on March 20, 2003, ``There is no convincing evidence that Iraq was involved or connected to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the events of September 11, 2001--despite President Bush's many failed attempts to morph the two, in order to convince the American people that there is such a connection.'' The attempt to weld 9/11, Iraq and the war on terror continues as we speak. The truth is we have virtually abandoned the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The truth is, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq a year ago, but they are today. As a result, the world has not been made safer, as the resolution suggests, but has become more unsafe and unstable. I said on March 20, 2003, ``Most Americans think that when our young men and women are risking their lives on the battlefield that Democrats, Republicans and Independents in this House would come together in a non-partisan manner to support our troops--because everyone does support them. . . . But the Republican extremists in the House have no shame and no limits. They will politicize the blood of our soldiers if they think they can gain a political advantage. They have never met an issue they were unwilling to `wedge'.'' This resolution is a continuation of that same strategy in an election year. I said one year ago, ``Many Democrats, myself included, separate support for the troops from support for the President's policy. But the Republicans deliberately joined the two so they could make it a political wedge issue. Therefore, if you vote `for' the resolution it appears that you support the President's policy. But if you vote `against' the resolution, the Republicans intend to paint you as against our troops and unpatriotic in future elections. In other words, the Republicans have deliberately tried to set a `Catch 22' trap.'' Well, I support our troops, but I continue to oppose the President's policy in Iraq. I will vote ``no'' on this resolution because the world has not been made safer because of the removal of Saddam Hussein. If you doubt me, ask the families of the over 200 people in Spain who lost loved ones in the recent explosions on the train there, and the hundreds who were wounded. I filed a Federal lawsuit to try to stop the President from going to war in Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress. I believe the President's actions in Iraq were unconstitutional and in violation of international law. The Bush policy of ignoring the United Nations and the lack of decent respect for the opinion of mankind; the U.S.-led preemptive policy has weakened the United Nations, weakened the structures of ``collective security,'' weakened the rule of international law and has not made the world safer, but more dangerous and unstable. Again I repeat what I said on March 20, 2003: As the wealthiest and only superpower in the world, the U.S. has the most economic and military interests in the world. The United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law have well-served those U.S. interests. Weakening any of them increases the threat to U.S. interests at home and abroad. So today, even as I give our young men and women in Iraq my unconditional support, I also renew my dedication to strengthening the United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law. They help guarantee peace and security in the world and, when fully utilized, make it less likely that American service men and women may have to be sent to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country in the future.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. With 42 public charter schools and 15 public transformation schools, the 70,000 children of the District of Columbia have school choice, with the most extensive set of alternatives to traditional public schools in the country. For this reason the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) simply believes that any additional public funds should be used to enhance and expand these publicly accountable schools. The central question before us is whether or not we believe, as a Congress, that every child should have access to an equal high-quality education. Who among us does not believe in this? I have introduced House Joint Resolution 29, a constitutional amendment that crystallizes this premise and that ensures that every child in the United States has access to an equal high-quality education, an idea I think and hope all of us will support. If we believe that every child in America deserves a high-quality public education, then why are we here today considering that only 2,000 of 70,000 children in the District of Columbia public school system should have an equal high-quality education? If we believe that every child should have access to high-quality education, we should support the gentlewoman's amendment. The District of Columbia has serious problems that need real solutions. Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress responsibility over the District of Columbia. They do not have a State legislature or a governor to which to redress their grievances. That responsibility includes all of the children of the District of Columbia public school system, not just the 2,000 children that the voucher program in this bill addresses. Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the common defense. Yesterday, we found out that the common defense includes $60 billion for another appropriations supplemental bill which includes building schools in Iraq. If we can find the resources to rebuild schools in Iraq, I know we can find the resources to rebuild the schools for all of the children of the District of Columbia and their public school system. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that if the proponents of this $10 million set aside for vouchers truly think they will improve the education system in D.C., they would probably also try to fix a broken arm with a Band-Aid. In January 2002, President Bush signed a bill that was supposed to ensure that no child was left behind. If this $10 million is included in this bill, we are ensuring that 68,000 D.C. kids are left behind. At a time when the No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by close to $9 billion nationwide and is underfunded by $50 million in the District, does it make sense to try to make up this shortfall with only $10 million that will subsidize private schools and not fix some of the core problems plaguing D.C. public schools? In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge and support the gentlewoman's amendment. If the gentlewoman's amendment fails, I urge my colleagues to vote against the passage of the D.C. Appropriations bill. If this Congress genuinely believes that every child deserves the right to a public education of equal high quality, then we should fight for it as a fundamental right for every American. A separate and unequal education system in the District of Columbia and between the States is indeed unacceptable for every American.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear that these are the countries that are likely to qualify for the Millennium Challenge Account: Ghana, Lesotho, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, and Swaziland. But the 14 hardest hit countries that are not likely to qualify are Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia and are not likely to qualify at a time when the hardest-hit countries need these resources.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it was not long ago here in this Chamber that the President of the United States stood right at the desk before you and he mentioned the word ``Africa'' twice in a State of the Union address. One of those times, well, we will leave that time alone, but the time that is important to us, the President came to this Congress and he said, I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next 5 years including nearly $10 billion in new money to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting right there where the gentlewoman is sitting, and I stood up and gave the President, along with this Chamber, the most incredible standing ovation that was sustained by Members of Congress that I think we have seen in this Chamber in a long time. We considered the President's initiative to be bold on the question of AIDS for Africa. Now the rubber meets the road. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations is offering a number that falls significantly below that which the President offered in his State of the Union address. Again, he mentioned the term Africa twice in that State of the Union speech. I stand in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. Make no mistake about it. The Millennium Challenge Account, the Millennium Challenge Corporation will benefit only three African countries out of 48. The chairman said that this is the most creative plan since the Marshall Plan. But make no mistake about it, the Millennium Challenge Account is not a Marshall Plan. There is a pandemic in Africa. Are we to assume that only three countries in Africa are confronting an AIDS pandemic? Or is the problem in all 48 sub-Saharan African countries? The gentlewoman seeks to take $300 million from a nontested, experimental program and move it into time-tested cures, remedy, and education for AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. And so, Mr. Chairman, let us be clear. Since its discovery 2 decades ago, more than 18 million Africans have died of AIDS out of 25 million cases worldwide. Most of the African Americans in this Congress, who happen to be in the minority party, are supporting the Kilpatrick amendment. A few moments ago we heard members of the Committee on Ways and Means come to this floor and talk about respecting each other, respecting people's perspective and respecting their homeland. Certainly when some of my other colleagues come to the floor and offer great testimonies about where their ancestors are from and what the Congress should be doing to offer help for their areas, we tend to listen and give deference to those Members of Congress. The Congressional Black Caucus is supporting the gentlewoman from Michigan's amendment, those of us who are descendants of Africa; so are we asking too much to ask our colleagues to shift resources from one untested account to a tested account that we are confident can make a difference in the lives of people that we care so dearly and so much about, or are we to be told what the fiscal responsibility of Congress is as it relates to foreign operations? Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is offering an amendment that is in order, that has been ruled in order by the Committee on Rules, and I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment because it makes sense for Africa.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to be heard in rebuttal. My amendment does not offer any changes in existing law. My amendment simply allows emergency funding under the stated provisions. My amendment simply moves money around in an existing account, and under the House budget resolution there is a provision for emergency funding. And while part of my amendment is offset by a reduction in the Millennium Challenge Account, the other part of my amendment is perfectly within order in the context of emergency spending as approved by the House budget resolutions in the relevant sections of the legislation.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if I can be recognized further on the point of order before you rule, I did offer this amendment in the Committee on Rules but it was not granted a waiver. And so, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, just before I present my amendment, I want to make an observation. The chairman said a few moments ago that this bill represents a $1 billion increase over last year's numbers. The development assistance account under this bill is down from the fiscal year 2003 numbers, and it is down from the request in fiscal year 2004. The economic support fund in this bill is down from the fiscal year 2003 enacted and the fiscal year 2004 request. The African Development Foundation is down from fiscal year 2003; and under the 2004 request, migration and refugee assistance is down, debt restructuring is down, peacekeeping operations also down, and the African Development Bank is also down. Mr. Chairman, I stand today because Africa is in a state of emergency. Africa is the poorest region in the world containing a majority of the world's poorest countries. One in three people in sub- Saharan Africa do not get enough to eat every day, and only one in two people have access to clean drinking water. One in three children completes elementary school, and the average life expectancy in Africa is just 49 years, and the countries hardest hit by AIDS just 30 years. President Bush made a promise on March 14, 2002 at the Inter-American Development Bank. And on March 22, 2002, at the U.N. Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey, Mexico, the President said, ``The United States will lead by example. I have proposed a 50 percent increase in our core development assistance over the next three budget years. Eventually this will mean a $5 billion increase over current levels.'' And the President said further, and I quote, ``This is new money. This money is above and beyond existing aid requests in the current budget I submitted to Congress. I carry this commitment in my soul.'' In other words, the President promised to add to, not take away from core development assistance accounts. Congress must not now make President Bush's promises look hollow. But the bill before us today risks doing that. The President proposed an $18.8 billion budget for foreign operations, while this bill funds at $17.1 billion. Development assistance in our bill is $25 million below the President's request and $60 million below the fiscal year 2003 level. The President's request for $300 million for bilateral debt relief for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a nation in civil war, was not included in this bill. So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, seeks to restore and increase the critical development assistance funding for more than 600 million people in 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It seeks to make good on the President's commitment. My amendment adds a total of $680 million to the foreign operations bill. Two hundred million dollars of the $680 million is offset by reducing the Millennium Challenge Account, which applies to only three countries out of 48 in Africa, from $800 million to $600 million to pay for development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. Four hundred eight million dollars is declared emergency spending, of which $150 million is added to survival and health programs; $20 million is added to the Economic Support Fund, and earmarks $97 million in ESF funds for sub-Saharan Africa. Three hundred million dollars is added for debt relief in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, restoring the President's request. Eleven million dollars is added for the Africa Development Fund, again restoring the President's full request of $118 million. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is clear and simple. It provides emergency spending for an emergency. I urge Members to support my amendment, and I also urge my colleagues to think long and hard about other emergencies on the African continent other than just AIDS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a bipartisan agreement not to call any votes between now and 6:45. I have missed only one vote in the last 8 years, 3,999 out of 4,000, and that means, Mr. Chairman, that I have been here through every temper tantrum, every motion to adjourn, every motion for the Committee to rise, every motion to recommit, every final passage, and every approval of the Journal for the last 8 years. And so right around 6:30 or 6:45, for the first time in the history of the United States Congress, we will have a motion that the Committee rise to help Africa.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs and the subcommittee staff for their hard work. I think they did a reasonable job, considering the amount of money they had allocated to them. Mr. Chairman, the President requested $18.8 billion for the accounts that make up the foreign operations bill. Unfortunately, the leadership of the House only gave the bill $17.1 billion. That is where our problems began. From the outset, we were forced into a position of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The President's top priorities are to fund the Millennium Challenge Account, MCA, and his bilateral HIV/AIDS initiative. To fully fund the MCA and the HIV/AIDS initiative would take up almost 25 percent of this bill's allocation. Leadership and legislating require making tough choices, but that is not the whole story here. We have the ability and the resources to adequately fund these accounts. We have chosen not to. Over the last 3 years, Congress has chosen to provide tax cuts decreasing revenue by $310 billion for the 2004 fiscal year. We have chosen to provide $8.9 billion for a ballistic missile defense system that will not work. We have chosen to ignore the type of rampant poverty, illness and hopelessness in sub-Saharan Africa that create a breeding ground for terrorism. Africa today, Mr. Chairman, is in a state of emergency. This bill makes a valiant attempt but falls short of addressing this emergency in sub-Saharan Africa. The Congress' approach has been disjointed. In 1999, this Congress said ``trade, not aid'' in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, that trade was Africa's future. Today Congress says aid, yes, but aid for AIDS. Africa deserves more than a hodgepodge, disjointed approach to its development. An emergency exists on the continent. Africa is the poorest region of the world, containing a majority of the world's poorest countries. Only one in three people in sub-Saharan Africa get enough to eat every day, and one out of two do not have access to clean drinking water. An emergency. Only one in three children completes elementary school. An emergency. Average life expectancy in Africa is just 49 years of age and in countries hardest hit by AIDS, just 30. An emergency. While poverty has fallen in much of the rest of the world, 20 African countries are poorer today than they were 20 years ago. An emergency. Overwhelming debt burdens, falling international development assistance levels, the onslaught of AIDS, and a combination of falling prices for Africa's exports and unfair international trade policies are pushing Africa backwards, stealing the gains of a generation of hardworking African people. An emergency. Africa is now at the epicenter of the greatest catastrophe in recorded human history, the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) will offer an amendment which I hope all Members of this Congress will support to fully fund the President's AIDS initiative. Since its first discovery 2 decades ago, more than 18 million Africans have died of AIDS out of 25 million AIDS deaths worldwide. All day, Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear Members of the Congress come to the floor and say, We are doing something for AIDS. We are helping the Africans. We are doing something. We are showing something for Africa. But what about this bill addresses the more than 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa who survive on under $1 per day? AIDS has nothing to do with that massive economic inequality. Infant and child mortality rates remain high, AIDS notwithstanding; and access to health care and education is shrinking in many countries. Food insecurity is growing, most seriously in southern Africa and in the horn of Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa's massive external debt is the single largest obstacle to the continent's economic development, not the criteria established by the Millennium Challenge Corporation or the Millennium Challenge Account. We will hear other Members of Congress come to the floor and say, The Millennium Challenge Account, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, we are doing something through the MCA. Out of 48 sub-Saharan African countries, only three qualify for the benefits offered by the Millennium Challenge Corporation. I have laid out many of the statistics about the crisis on the continent, an emergency in Africa. But my colleagues would come and say, We are doing something because we are talking about AIDS. We are not discussing development and growth; we are not talking about a Marshall Plan for Africa. And this bill woefully undermines the amount of resources that this Congress could provide. Over the past 2 decades, African governments have paid out more in debt service than they have received in development assistance or new loans. My colleagues are going to come to the floor and say, We are doing something for Africa in terms of development assistance and loans. Here is the problem. Too few African countries will be benefiting from U.S. development assistance in the midst of a severe emergency on the continent. The MCA is the equivalent of saying, Africa, do what we want you to do and we will relate to you. But if you do not do what we want you to do, we will have no relationship to you at all in the midst of a profound emergency. Debt repayments divert money directly from spending on basic social needs, including the response to the HIV/AIDS crisis, trapping countries in a cycle of underdevelopment and dependency. From 1990 to 2000, sub-Saharan Africa experienced more than twice the number of casualties from conflict than any other region in the world. Mr. Chairman, I close on this note. In Sudan, Africa's largest country, civil war has raged for 36 of the last 46 years. It has cost more than 2 million lives and has displaced more than 4 million people. What about this bill does anything to address that problem? Since 1998, the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has cost an estimated 2 million lives, a holocaust of sorts, most the victim of hunger and disease; and at least another 2 million have been displaced. What about this bill does anything to address that problem? Mr. Chairman, these are serious problems that require real resources to address them, not just lip service. After general debate, I will offer an amendment that offers a comprehensive approach to addressing this emergency in sub-Saharan Africa.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a passionate proponent of achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. For too long, the Holy Land has been soaked in blood and scorched by hate. In the last 31 months alone, the devastating conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has claimed more than 2,700 lives and has shattered countless others. With so much lost life, it is time to find peace. It is time to turn from old ways and to ``beat their swords into ploughshares.'' It is time for the olive branch to take root. Thus, I strongly support the so-called ``road map,'' the Mideast peace plan carefully devised by the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia and firmly backed by President Bush. Representing precious hope for an end to the violence and a final settlement, the road map envisions two states--one for the Israelis and the other for the Palestinians--living side-by-side, both sovereign, secure, free and democratic. Under the terms and conditions of the road map, the United States rightly assumes its central role of helping to lead the parties along the path to peace. As an honest and balanced broker and mediator between the two sides, the United States must help both to reconcile differences, to accept obligations, and to take the simultaneous steps for progress and peace. Undoubtedly, the success of the performance-based road map will require the active leadership and involvement of the United States. It will demand the commitment and courage of the Israelis and the Palestinians. It finally will come when each side gives to the other what it wants for itself. But, since the publication and formal delivery of the road map, the enemies of peace have attempted to derail it. By launching brutal terrorist attacks against Israelis, they attempt to kill not only innocent civilians but also a diplomatic settlement. These saboteurs intend to undermine the Palestinian Authority, to terrorize the Israeli population, and to perpetuate violence and hate. We must not allow them to succeed in putting roadblocks in the road map. To remove the obstacles and promote the peace, Congress should give its unqualified and unambiguous approval of the road map. Time is too short and the stakes too high for us not to. Failing now to explicitly endorse the international peace plan risks compromising our interests, rallying the recalcitrant and forestalling a new future in the Middle East. Hence, the resolution before us rightly commends the President for his vision and commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian dispute. However, it should be even more specific. The resolution ought to expressly support the road map itself and the ongoing efforts within the international community to implement it. House Resolution 294 correctly insists that the Palestinians must fulfill their primary obligation to crack down on terrorism and violence against the Israelis. Yet, the resolution should be more comprehensive and balanced. It also ought to call on the Israelis to meet their responsibilities under the road map to dismantle illegal outposts and freeze settlements. The measure properly recognizes and respects Israel's right to defend and protect its citizens against terror. But, H. Res. 294 should be even more insightful. It ought to acknowledge that the security for which Israel longs and surely deserves will be achieved, not by military reprisals alone, but rather with the active and full cooperation of the Palestinians. As stated in a recent New York Times editorial, ``Nobody expects Israel to tolerate terror against its people. But terror can be more effectively rooted out if responsible Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas are strengthened, not undermined.'' Hence, although not perfect, this resolution is an improvement from others on the Middle East. Unlike previous measures, it does not interfere, impede nor conflict with the ongoing peace effort. In fact, it is, for the most part, consistent with it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution as a means of endorsing the road map and promoting the peace.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the chairman to engage with me in a colloquy. I am pleased to have worked with the gentleman on the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies for the last number of years. I appreciate his support for and commitment to programs that benefit historically black health profession schools. I understand that this year there are significant challenges facing the subcommittee. However, I want to note two priorities that I am working to establish. The first is regarding the establishment of demonstration projects between community health centers and minority health professions schools for the purpose of health status disparities research and data collection, through the community access program. Community health centers have the potential to serve as valuable resources in biomedical and behavioral research aimed at reducing health status disparities among minority and medically underserved populations. Such demonstration projects were authorized in the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002. The second is encouraging the National Center for Research Resources to give priority consideration to supporting extramural facilities construction projects at historically minority institutions which have developed a comprehensive plan to address the disproportionate impact of cancer in minority communities. I have been working with Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles to ensure that resources are there to establish a center focused on care for minority cancer patients and research. Mr. Chairman, as we work towards the final passage of the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill, I ask that the gentleman work with me to ensure that we can support these two priorities.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). It is an honor to serve under the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). The chairman indicated at the beginning of his remarks there are two real roles, goals, responsibilities, if you will, for government under the Constitution: to provide for the common defense and to provide for the general welfare. Just a few days ago, the Congress of the United States voted in the amount of $369.1 billion to provide for the common defense; and the other constitutional provision for which the chairman spoke, providing for the general welfare, today we will vote in the amount of $138 billion. Go figure. If we are providing for the common defense, a clear responsibility under the Constitution, providing for the general welfare, $138 billion, certainly the Federal Government has room for improvement on this question. The key here is the 302(b) allocation for this bill, which limited our committee to $138 billion. The 302(b) allocation for this bill woefully underfunds a number of programs. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that is before us today. Today we are considering the bill which assists the most vulnerable in our Nation. This bill provides assistance to the unemployed and job training to those who need the skills. This bill provides health care treatment, research, prevention funds to those who are ill; and this bill provides funds for the great American equalizer. What was unclear in the chairman's statement was whether or not he advocated for more funds under the 302(b) allocation for this bill. If he advocated for more funds for the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, then he cannot at the same time say that the funding for this bill is adequate because it is inadequate if he argued for more funds under the 302(b) allocation. Mr. Chairman, this bill does provide more money for title I, but it does not provide adequate money. Title I is the primary Federal program that helps school districts meet the new accountability and academic results mandated by the Leave No Child Behind Act. With the title I funding, low-income, low-performing children are able to get help particularly with reading and mathematics, the two subjects that the No Child Left Behind Act requires be tested in grades three through eight beginning in 2005. Title I is a critical source of funding for high- poverty schools. In adopting the rigorous new accountability standards in title I, Congress on a bipartisan basis agreed to phase in increased title I payments over several years. For fiscal year 2004, the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes $18.5 billion with additional increments each year through 2007. The majority's fiscal year 2004 budget resolution promises $1 billion, or 9 percent increase over fiscal year 2003 for title I grants for school districts for a total of $12.7 billion. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that title I falls woefully underfunded in the chairman's mark. The Majority's FY 2004 Budget Resolution promised a $1 billion or 9 percent increase over FY 2003 for Title 1 grants to school districts, for a total of $12.7 billion. Yet, the Committee bill provides only the President's request of $12.4 billion a--$666 million or 6 percent increase over last year and the smallest increase in 4 years--and falls $334 million short of their promise. The Democratic Substitute offered in full Committee mark-up would have eliminated this gap by providing the additional $334 million for Title 1 grants, for a total of $12.7 billion. These funds would have allowed schools to hire an additional 6,600 teachers to provide high quality instruction to about 140,000 disadvantages children who are falling behind. The $12.4 billion included in the Committee bill for Title 1 is $6.15 billion below the amount targeted in the NCLB Act. Let me say that one more time--$6.15 billion is below the amount targeted in the No Child Left Behind Act. With the additional $6.15 billion, an additional 120,000 teachers could have been hired to provide instruction to approximately 2.5 million low-income children across this country. NCLB imposes significant new mandates on Title 1 schools, including new annual testing requirements in grades 3-8, ``adequate yearly progress'' to achieve academic proficiency for all children disaggregated by low-income, minority, limited English proficient, and children with disabilities status, new teacher and paraprofessional qualification standards, new data collection and reporting, and additional parental notice requirements. More than 8,600 Title 1 schools, enrolling 3.5 million disadvantaged students nationwide, have been identified as failing to meet state academic standards. These chronically failing schools will face additional sanctions under the No Child Left Behind Act if they do not improve their academic performance. More schools will be labeled failing as states implement new ``adequate yearly progress'' requirements. High-poverty schools have the greatest challenges, but the least experienced teachers, lower teacher salaries, and higher teacher turnover-factors with a negative correlation with student achievement. Since FY 1996, Title 1 funding has increased from $6.7 billion to $11.7 billion, an increase of $5.0 billion or 75 percent. However, these increases were in spite of, not because of, House Republicans. If House Republicans had had their way, they would have cut Title 1 funding by a net $1.8 billion between 1996-2003. House Republicans tried to slash Title 1 funding below the President's requests by $1.4 billion in FY 1996, $414 million in FY 1997, $392 million in FY 1999, $264 million in FY 2000, $416 million in FY 2001, and $500 million in FY 2003. In total, these cuts of $3.4 billion were offset by increases of $1.6 billion in FY 1998 and FY 2002--two bipartisan years when Democrats secured additional education funding for the LHHS bill. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this bill. In January 2002, the President signed into law Congress' commitment to the most vulnerable children in America--Title 1. This bill falls $6.15 billion short of that commitment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for the very kind and generous and very thoughtful introduction. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill to extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) is to be congratulated for his foresight in the creation of this legislation and the appropriate ways that a commission might study the ways in which this Nation might honor, I believe, our most revered President. I was recently appointed by the distinguished Democratic leader to the 15-member commission which has the esteemed responsibility of studying and recommending to Congress ways to appropriately honor President Lincoln in 2009, the bicentennial of his birth. I think it is very important to interpret the 16th President's life and work. President Lincoln was an anti-slavery advocate in a Republican Party that sprang to live on an anti-slavery platform. His election in 1860 added fuel to the fire of disunion over slavery and its spread west, a disunion that triggered the American Civil War. While Lincoln was gradualist in his approach to ending slavery, he never wavered on a position that he knew would lead to its end. Slavery would not be allowed to spread into the western territories. Initially seven, and ultimately eleven, southern States seceded from the Union rather than live under the rule of what many Democrats of that era referred to and called the black Republican Party. Lincoln valued the Union above all, but he knew that the result of saving the Union was emancipation for the slaves. If the Union had not been preserved, slavery would not have been ended. Strategically, Lincoln understood that the Union was a common ground issue around which he could rally the American people while slavery was divisive. By holding his coalition together around the issue of the Union, enough unionists eventually saw the connection between preserving the Union and ending slavery. Clarity on that connection helped Lincoln ease into emancipation in the middle of the war when it gave the North a huge boost. This cleared the way for the 13th, the 14th and the 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States. President Lincoln said 140 years ago this November in Gettysburg that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the face of the Earth. To Lincoln, the people meant every American, not just a select few. His policy and ultimate sacrifice for this noble belief are instructive for every American, especially public servants. I am deeply honored to be among those who will shape a national celebration of his legacy.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I have not yielded my time. Under the House rules, the pages are allowed to hold these pages, and as long as the gentleman does not refer to the pages by name, he can refer to the pages.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not referring to the pages themselves as pages. He is referring to the pages that the pages are holding, the 914, 878, 724. This is a parliamentary inquiry for clarification, Mr. Speaker. He was referring to the pages that the pages are holding.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 108th Congress of the United States of America, I write to congratulate and commemorate the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (SSMMA) on its 25th Anniversary. For the past quarter of a century, the SSMMA has provided leadership to protect and enhance the health, security, education and welfare of its people, and the vision to promote and ensure social and economic justice for more than 650,000 people in more than 40 municipalities in Chicago's South Suburban area. The SSMMA also has served as a tireless proponent of fairness, opportunity and prosperity for the Chicago Southland for 25 years; and has spoken in a common voice--and with common sense--to further the quality of life in these communities. Moreover, the SSMMA has served as a clearinghouse for elected officials from local, county, state and federal governments to work in harmony to improve housing, public safety, transportation, the environment, economic development, public works, technology and municipal management in its member communities. So, in recognition of the Association's dedication and advocacy for the common good, the 108th Congress of the United States hereby applauds and congratulates the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association for 25 years of successful public service and coalition building in the community.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that our young men and women, who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, have my unequivocal support. I will do everything in my power as a member of Congress to see to it that they have everything they need to win this war and return home safe and sound to their families. We can only hope and pray that this war will end quickly, and a minimum number of American, British, and Iraqi civilian and military lives are lost, destroyed or maimed for the rest of their lives. While the troops have 100 percent of my support, when appropriate, I will continue to articulate the grave concerns I have about the policies that sent them there. That is why I cannot ``express . . . unequivocal support and appreciation ... to the President ... for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism.'' There is no convincing evidence that Iraq was involved or connected to Osama bin Laden, AI Qaeda or the events of September 11, 2001--despite President Bush's many failed attempts to morph the two, in order to convince the American people that there is such a connection. Most Americans think that when our young men and women are risking their lives on the battlefield that Democrats, Republicans and Independents in this House would come together in a non-partisan manner to support our troops--because everyone does support them. An appropriate resolution supporting our troops in the Senate passed earlier by a vote of 99-to-0. But the Republican extremists in the House have no shame and no limits. They will politicize the blood of our soldiers if they think they can gain a political advantage. They have never met an issue they were unwilling to ``wedge.'' That's what Section 1 of this resolution is designed to do--create a wedge issue. I have no problem with Sections 2 and 3. Many Democrats, myself included, separate support for the troops from support for the President's policy. But the Republicans deliberately joined the two so they could make it a political wedge issue. Therefore, if you vote ``for'' the resolution it appears that you support the President's policy. But if you vote ``against'' the resolution, the Republicans intend to paint you as against our troops and unpatriotic in future elections. In other words, the Republicans have deliberately tried to set a ``Catch 22'' trap. Thus, to avoid the ``damned if you do and damned if you don't'' wedge issue the Republicans created, I am voting ``present'' on an issue for only the second time since I came to Congress on December 12, 1995. I do not support the President's policy in Iraq. Indeed, I filed a federal lawsuit to stop the President from going to war in Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress. I believe the President's actions in Iraq are unconstitutional and in violation of international law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress alone--not the President--has the power to declare war. The October resolution was not a declaration of war! Indeed, I believe that not just going to war without a declaration of war, but the attempt to cede such war-making powers to the President in the October Resolution was unconstitutional. And there is nothing in U.S., UN or other international law that justifies the unprecedented doctrine of preemption--preemptively attacking another sovereign country without first being attacked, or without presenting convincing evidence to the American people and the world that such a threat or attack is imminent. Therefore, I am concerned about a UN-ignored, but U.S.-led preemptive policy that has weakened the United Nations, weakened the structures of ``collective security,'' and weakened the rule of international law. As the wealthiest and only superpower in the world, the U.S. has the most economic and military interests in the world. The United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law have well-served those U.S. interests. Weakening any of them increases the threat to U.S. interests at home and abroad. So today, even as I give our young men and women in Iraq my unconditional support, I also renew my dedication to strengthening the United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law. They help guarantee peace and security in the world and, when fully utilized, make it less likely that American service men and women may have to be sent to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country in the future.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment. What is our goal? Our goal is to end the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through comprehensive and unfettered inspections and disable their ability to develop or deliver them. How do we get there? Until the Lee amendment, most suggested, with a military stick. I think a carrot is more likely to succeed. What carrot? The carrot of lifting economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for comprehensive and unfettered inspections. Offering to lift economic sanctions in exchange for unfettered inspections will rally support within Iraq and among our allies. This positive incentive to get Iraq to comply has not and is currently not being offered by the Congress of the United States. But until we make this overture and change our policy of only lifting economic sanctions after a regime change, we will not have exhausted all peaceful means and alternatives to force. Give peace a chance, Mr. Speaker. Nonviolence, negotiations and inspections deserve a chance. Lift economic sanctions on the people of Iraq in exchange for unfettered inspections in Iraq. It will gain support within Iraq and amongst our allies. I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. On September 11, 2001, our Nation changed. We were traumatized when al Qaeda terrorists attacked our Nation, killed nearly 3,000 Americans, wounded many others physically, emotionally, and spiritually; destroyed families and buildings and disrupted our economy. The President, the Congress, and the American people responded quickly, appropriately and with courage. All Americans support the war on terrorism, and they want homeland security. However, terrorism not only changed our psyche; it changed our politics. Our politics shifted from hope to fear, and fear now clouds our thinking. September 11 and Iraq are two distinct issues. Nevertheless, President Bush is trying to take our legitimate fear following 9-11 and illegitimately link it to Iraq. The White House and some in this body have sought to link al Qaeda and September 11 to Iraq. That alleged link underscores the President's position that the Iraqi threat is imminent. However, congressional Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence members have said President Bush has presented no factual evidence proving that link. Even the President separates 9-11 from an imminent Iraqi threat, and here is the proof. President Bush sees 9-11 and Iraq as separate because just 2 weeks ago on September 24, he lowered the domestic risk of terrorist attacks from orange to yellow. He lowered it. If the Iraqi threat were imminent, would not the risk of terrorist attacks have at least remained the same, at orange, or even elevated and raised to red, a severe risk of terrorist attacks? But the President lowered it from orange to yellow. Yes, Iraq's threat is real; and in light of 9-11, it is normal for Americans to be afraid, but the Iraqi threat is not imminent. We should not let it affect our politics over the next 3 weeks. We should not vote on the basis of fear of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. We must vote our hopes and not our fears. So far this debate has been about military sticks, whether, when or under what circumstances to use them. But why not try carrots too? Most Americans do not know that the United States would not lift economic sanctions on Iraq even if Saddam agreed to and fully implemented all U.N. resolutions. In 1997 Secretary Albright said the U.S. would only lift sanctions when Saddam Hussein was gone, not when Iraq lived up to U.N. resolutions. President Clinton stated sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as Hussein lasts. But economic sanctions are only hurting the people, making life miserable for the average Iraqi, causing an estimated 500,000 deaths, mainly women and children. The economic sanctions are not hurting Saddam Hussein. If they were, he would not be the threat that the President says he is. Insisting on a regime change before lifting economic sanctions goes beyond the legal mandate of U.N. policy and is not authorized by any U.N. resolution. We need to lure Iraqi compliance with a meaningful economic inducement, not merely threaten them with military force. Why does the United States not offer to lift economic sanctions in an orderly and progressive way in exchange for unfettered and comprehensive inspections? Without the carrot of lifting economic sanctions in exchange for removing weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi government has no incentive to cooperate. Offering to lift economic sanctions in exchange for unfettered inspections will gain the support within Iraq and among our allies. Before there is any authorization for the use of armed force against Iraq, we must make sure that all peaceful means containing and eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been exhausted, including offering positive incentives, and the U.S. should lead this initiative. This positive incentive to get Saddam Hussein to comply has not and is not currently in play. But until we make this overture and change the policy of only lifting economic sanctions after a regime change, we will not have exhausted all peaceful alternatives to force. We are a Nation united by our Constitution and committed to the rule of law. That commitment is now challenged by an outlaw. We must bring this outlaw to justice but not become outlaws ourselves. And while our attention is focused on a military threat overseas, we are drowning at home economically. I believe we can creatively insist on a peaceful resolution to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction without an invasion and the actual use of force. Our military might is unquestioned. Our wisdom, our compassion, our commitment to a nonviolent means of resolving conflict is not. By that and that alone will move us toward a genuine peace, justice and security for all.