Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I recently suffered a setback in my bid for reelection. I am beginning to get over the disappointment that I will no longer be able to serve the people of Georgia in the next Congress. I will miss serving. However, there were some alarming things about the campaign to defeat me that I think my colleagues of both parties should look out for. I am not talking about the Republicans who crossed over to vote for my opponent, but the heavy involvement of Indians in the primary. I am one of the Members of Congress who has tried to get out the truth about South Asia, and I am proud of that. Earlier this year, I was one of 42 Members of Congress who wrote to President Bush to urge the release of Sikh and other political prisoners in India. Apparently, this irritated the Indians because the newspaper article I am inserting in the Record along with this statement shows that they admitted that they invested heavily in the effort to defeat me. To my colleagues of both parties who have also been involved in the effort to expose India's brutal record, I say: Watch out; they are coming after you, too. India has a record of illegal interference in U.S. elections. Former Ambassador S.S. Ray publicly urged the reelection of former Senator Larry Pressler and in opposition to now Senator Robert Torricelli. An Indian American immigration lawyer named Lalit Gadhia funneled money from the Indian Embassy to Congressional candidates, according to the Baltimore Sun. Most of the candidates were of my party, people I am proud to have had as my colleagues during my service in Congress. But it is still illegal and wrong for India to funnel Embassy money to these Members' campaigns. Now I have become the latest political officeholder in India's cross hairs. I won't be the last unless their activities are exposed. Mr. Speaker, whether I am in office or not, I don't intend to let a foreign power determine the results of American elections if I can help it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the article showing Indian involvement in my primary into the Record to help expose their activities. [lsqb]From The Times of India, Aug. 21, 2002[rsqb] Indian-Americans Help Unseat US Lawmaker (By Chidanand Rajghatta) Washington.--The headlines credit the Jewish lobby for the defeat of lawmaker Cynthia McKinney in the Congressional primaries on Tuesday. But a neophyte Indian-American activists group, which co-wrote the script for this unusual Georgia election that attracted nationwide attention, is happy with just the footnote that recorded their role. They like to do it quietly. They are not as political or as established as the Jewish lobby. Congresswoman McKinney outraged a lot of people with some bizarre remarks. Among her more provocative comments was her theory that President Bush purposely ignored warnings about 9/11 to help the U.S. arms industry. The comment angered not just the Jewish groups, but regular Americans as well. The African American incumbent was not shy of expressing her opinion on the subcontinent either--mostly ill-informed repeats made at the behest of the Pakistani and Khalistani lobby, according to Indian-Americans. A sample: The Indian government is responsible for terrorism against its own people. It engineered the massacre of bus passengers in Kashmir and the blowing up of a passenger airliner. Community leaders said she recorded that kind of ``unsubstantiated nonsense, usually peddled by disgruntled and discredited conspiracy theorists,'' in the Congressional Record. But it was when she began talking about the imminent breakup of India because of its ``17 different separatist movements'' that the Indians of Georgia lost it for her and banded together. One prominent activist sent out an e-mail to 3400 Indian- Americans in the area reporting her remarks (under the subject line--``Balkanisation of India--advocated by Rep. Cynthia McKinney'') and urging them to work for her opponent, a local judge named Denise Majette. Led by a prominent dotcommer in the area, they were soon holding fund-raisers for Majette, who like McKinney is also African-American. They chipped in with $20,000, although much larger sums came in later from Middle East groups--the Jews backing Majette and Arabs and Muslims supporting McKinney. Indian-Americans contributed in other ways too. Several volunteers worked full weeks for Majette's campaign. She was invited as the chief guest for an Indian-American beauty pageant. A motel owner turned his electronic billboard next to the main highway into her campaign sign. It was much after the Indian-American effort began that the Jewish lobby rolled into town. But the two sides joined hands for a phono-thon and pooled other resources for the campaign. When the results came in on Tuesday, Majette had polled 58 per cent to McKinney's 42 per cent. The Indian bush telegraph--e-mail--was buzzing. ``Money is important. But volunteer and other efforts are equally important. Even more important is that we need to be on the radar screen of the candidate we are supporting. Ms. Denise Majette hopefully knows that we made a difference in her bid. Please keep in communication with her to further the relationship between IA (Indian Americans) and her,'' one prominent activist wrote. ``The good news is that we offered our support before the poll numbers and Jewish money transpired. Thus, we got noticed,'' another group leader responded. In keeping with the low-profile effort, none of them were eager to be identified. The Indian embassy also quietly celebrated McKinney's loss, although, sticking to the principle of non-interference in local elections, it declined any comment. The embassy has been accused in the past of being a little too interested in the Congressional races. Democrat Majette will now go up against the winner of the Republican primary for a seat in the Congress in the main elections due in November. But for now, Indians and Indian- Americans can breathe easy that they do not have to hear Cynthia McKinney's conspiracy theories in Congress.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the attacks of September 11th, 2001 caused significant changes throughout our society. For our military services, this included increased force protection, greater security, and of course the deployment to and prosecution of the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Sadly, one of the first acts of our President was to waive the high deployment overtime pay of our servicemen and women who are serving on the front lines of our new War. The Navy estimates that the first year costs of this pay would equal about 40 cruise missiles. The total cost of this overtime pay may only equal about 300 cruise missiles, yet this Administration said it would cost too much to pay our young men and women what the Congress and the previous Administration had promised them. In another ironic twist, the War on Terrorism has the potential to bring the U.S. military into American life as never before. A Northern Command has been created to manage the military's activity within the continental United States. Operation Noble Eagle saw combat aircraft patrolling the air above major metropolitan areas, and our airports are only now being relieved of National Guard security forces. Moreover, there is a growing concern that the military will be used domestically, within our borders, with intelligence and law enforcement mandates as some now call for a review of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibitions on military activity within our country. In the 1960s, the lines between illegal intelligence, law enforcement and military practices became blurred as Americans wanting to make America a better place for all were targeted and attacked for political beliefs and political behavior. Under the cloak of the Cold War, military intelligence was used for domestic purposes to conduct surveillance on civil rights, social equity, antiwar, and other activists. In the case of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Operation Lantern Spike involved military intelligence covertly operating a surveillance operation of the civil rights leader up to the time of his assassination. In a period of two months, recently declassified documents on Operation Lantern Spike indicate that 240 military personnel were assigned in the two months of March and April to conduct surveillance on Dr. King. The documents further reveal that 16,900 man- hours were spent on this assignment. Dr. King had done nothing more than call for black suffrage, an end to black poverty, and an end to the Vietnam War. Dr. King was the lantern of justice for America: spreading light on issues the Administration should have been addressing. On April 4, 1968, Dr. King's valuable point of light was snuffed out. The documents I have submitted for the record outline the illegal activities of the FBI and its ColntelPro program. A 1967 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to 22 FBI field offices outlined the COINTELPRO program well: ``The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, disrupt, misdirect, or otherwise neutralize'' black activist leaders and organizations. As a result of the Church Committee hearings, we later learned that the FBI and other government authorities were conducting black bag operations that included illegally breaking and entering private homes to collect information on individuals. FBI activities included ``bad jacketing,'' or falsely accusing individuals of collaboration with the authorities. It included the use of paid informants to set up on false charges targeted individuals. And it resulted in the murder of some individuals. Geronimo Pratt Ji Jaga spent 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And in COINTELPRO documents subsequently released, we learn that Fred Hampton was murdered in his bed while his pregnant wife slept next to him after a paid informant slipped drugs in his drink. Needless to say, such operations were well outside the bounds of what normal citizens would believe to be the role of the military, and the Senate investigations conducted by Senator Frank Church found that to be true. Though the United States was fighting the spread of communism in the face of the Cold War, the domestic use of intelligence and military assets against its own civilians was unfortunately reminiscent of the police state built up by the Communists we were fighting. We must be certain that the War on Terrorism does not threaten our liberties again. Amendments to H.R. 4547, the Costs of War Against Terrorism Act, that would increase the role of drug interdiction task forces to include counter intelligence, and that would increase the military intelligence's ability to conduct electronic and financial investigations, can be the first steps towards a return to the abuses of constitutional rights during the Cold War. Further, this bill includes nearly $2 billion in additional funds for intelligence accounts. When taken into account with the extra-judicial incarceration of thousands of immigration violators, the transfer of prisoners from law enforcement custody to military custody, and the consideration of a ``volunteer'' terrorism tip program, America must stand up and protect itself from the threat not only of terrorism, but of a police state of its own. There does exist a need to increase personnel pay accounts, replenish operations and maintenance accounts and replace lost equipment. The military has an appropriate role in protecting the United States from foreign threats, and should remain dedicated to preparing for those threats. Domestic uses of the military have long been prohibited for good reason, and the same should continue to apply to all military functions, especially any and all military intelligence and surveillance. Congress and the Administration must be increasingly vigilant towards the protection of and adherence to our constitutional rights and privileges. For, if we win the war on terrorism, but create a police state in the process, what have we won?

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a strong and comprehensive prescription drug benefit for all Americans. As the prices for prescription drugs have risen at twice as the inflation rate, this issue is of the utmost importance to Americans in need of prescription drugs. Unfortunately, in the House there is only one prescription drug coverage proposal that will truly serve America's seniors and medically dependent populations. The Democrat prescription drug plan is the only proposal that is under Medicare, that gives consumers choice, that has no gap in coverage, that has legitimate drug cost controls, and that will truly assist American's with the exorbitantly rising costs of prescription drugs. The health of our nation depends on a strong drug proposal such as this. The Republican's bill would not provide the American people with an assured, reliable or substantive prescription drug benefit. The Republican bill would cover less than 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries drug costs, leaving millions of Americans with much of the high drug costs they now face. The Republican bill includes a ``hole'' in the middle, where there is no coverage for drug costs between $2000 and $5600. Perhaps the other side didn't do their research, as nearly half of all seniors have drug costs over $2000, and would receive no coverage under the Republican plan for part of the year. Where is the benefit of this drug plan? Isn't the point of a prescription drug benefit to alleviate costs? Well, the Republican plan will hardly alleviate costs. Nor will it insure that a plan exists for all Americans. The Republican bill would rely on private insurance companies to provide a yet-to-exist prescription drug-only plan. This proposal includes no guarantee for stable coverage by private insurance companies but merely suggests what plans private firms may offer. Under this plan, costs of the plans may vary, and seniors on fixed incomes will have less opportunity to plan for their drug expenditures and personal budgets. As for consumer choice, the Republican proposal stops well short of providing any choices. Under the Republican plan, if a drug is not on a formulary, then it is not covered, and even when a drug is on the formulary, this bill permits private insurance not to cover it. The Republican plan does not let people choose their own pharmacies, and instead creates private networks for drug delivery, increasing the time, trouble and travel seniors, caregivers and the disabled must go through to obtain necessary medication. Finally, the people that this program should most benefit--America's low-income senior population--are left out in the cold. In the Republican plan, low-income seniors will be required to pay up to $3600 out-of-pocket expenses per year to cover the ``hole'' in coverage, would have weak protections from high medicine copayments, and worse, could face denial of medicine if they are unable to cover the co-pay. The Democrat bill is not deficient in these ways. The Democrat plan has no hole in the coverage, and would not stick seniors with the $3600 potential bill that the Republican plan would. The Democrat plan limits out-of-pocket costs to just $2000 per year-- as much as 47 percent less than the limit under the Republican plan. The Democrat plan gives consumers choice, allowing them the freedom to use the pharmacy of choice, instead of the restrictive ``private network'' limitations of the Republican plan. Nor does the Democrat plan limit the access to specific medicines, and instead pays some coverage for all drugs, regardless if they are on the formulary or not. The Democrat plan would not steer, limit or channel American's to specific drugs as the Republican plan would. And perhaps most importantly, the Democrat plan has a method for controlling the actual costs for drugs. It is the dramatic increase in prescription drugs that has brought us to this juncture, and the Democrat plan would enable the Health and Human Services Secretary to negotiate prices on behalf of all Americans, thereby saving American consumers, taxpayers, and the government millions in drug costs. Under the Republican plan, there is no collective effort towards cost controls, and realistically, there will be no control of spiraling drug costs. Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in my opposition to the Republican bill and my support for a strong and true prescription drug benefit. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the AFL-CIO, the Medical Group Management Association, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, Families USA, the National Council on Aging, and perhaps most importantly, the American Association of Retired Persons all either oppose the Republican plan, or endorse the Democrat prescription drug plan. America's senior community--what has been called ``America's Greatest Generation''--deserves no less than a substantive and strong prescription drug benefit bill. I urge my colleagues not to fall for the smoke and mirrors, and to realize that the Republican plan will not provide the relief and benefit that is needed to combat the rising costs of prescription drugs. Our seniors do not deserve limited choices on drugs and pharmacies, and should not be made to shoulder the high costs of the Republican plan. Don't be duped America--there is only one bill that works for America, only one bill that will provide Americans affordable access to drugs, and that is the Democrat prescription drug bill.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the outstanding record of public service of Joe Criscuolo, a noted social activist of the Atlanta area community and personal friend. Our community is deeply saddened by his unfortunate and recent demise. A man of humble beginnings, Joe Criscuolo, 84, grew up in New York during the Great Depression as a first generation Italian-American. The hardships endured by the Criscuolo family generated Joe's great sense of concern and sensitivity for issues of the working class. Mr. Criscuolo's youthful concerns would later evolve into a grand scale record of service and activism on behalf of marginalized groups spanning the course of his lifetime. Joe's high level of involvement in reform movements was matched by his wife Mrs. Goldy Criscuolo's equal zeal and service for progressive causes. Well into their senior years when most of their peers were enjoying retirement and the fruits of years of labor, they stood firmly together against the grain. Wherever people were oppressed, Joe and Goldy Criscuolo supplied infinite hours of service with no regard for gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other social characteristic. Louder than any vitriolic words or opposing groups, Joe's actions spoke volumes to the value of service. I have personally drawn strength and inspiration to wage unpopular fights from Mr. Criscuolo's unwavering altruism for people in need. A few of Mr. Criscuolo's momentous battles were the campaign to reform the Italian education system, the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, and the movement against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Dade County School System. Additionally, Joe Criscuolo and his wife were active members of the Atlanta Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW); the Martin Luther King, Jr. March Committee; the Grady Coalition; the Atlanta chapter of ACT-UP (the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power); and the coalition to change the state flag among others. Joe recently worked to support Hate Crimes legislation, to prohibit predatory lending, and to ensure affordable public transportation for poor and working people. Mr. Criscuolo leaves to cherish his memory a devoted wife Mrs. Goldy Criscuolo; one son, Jim M. Criscuolo; a daughter-in-law, Candace Criscuolo; three grandchildren; two siblings; and a host of relatives, friends and other individuals whose lives have been touched in a positive way. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Joe Criscuolo's exemplary record of service, which is a model for us all. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Joe Criscuolo for his endurance, passion and will to go against the grain.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to call attention to the appalling campaign of terror-through-rape recently uncovered in Burma. A report by the Shan Women's Action Network and Shan Human Rights Foundation reveals a truly horrific campaign of systematic rape carried out by the military against women and girls--some as young as five years old--in Burma's Shan State. While Burma's record of repression is well known, this new report shines a light on atrocities previously hidden by the dark clouds of dictatorship. The report, based on interviews with girls and women refugees along the Thailand-Burma border, documents the rapes of 625 women and girls by Burmese military forces against villagers in Burma's Shan State. Given the alarming numbers in this limited refugee population, it is likely that this is but the tip of the iceberg. While the exact scale of this atrocity is unknown, there can be no doubt that Burma's military leaders are using rape on a wide scale as a weapon of war against its own civilian population. According to the report, an astounding 83% of the documented rapes were committed by military officers from 52 different battalions, usually in front of their own troops. 61% of the cases were gang rapes, and many women were raped inside military bases. Many were held captive and raped repeatedly for months on end. Many women recounted the terror of being severely beaten, tortured, or mutilated. In 25% of the documented cases the women were murdered after being raped. The report also notes how those murdered by the Burmese military were left in public areas in order to intimidate and terrorize villagers and family members. In this report, hundreds of courageous Burmese women and girls recount the terror of their experiences. One young Burmese woman told of how she found her five year old sister ``tied up and crying, with her sexual organs bloody . . .'' Another recounted how she and other women of her village ``were forced to serve as sex slaves.'' Ironically, these new revelations of mass rapes come on the heels of the release of 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi. But we harbor no illusions about the nature of this brutal military regime. Mr. Speaker, whether they take place in Burma, Bosnia, or Eastern Congo, rape as a weapon of war is a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions and a crime against humanity. I call on the State Department, United Nations, and my colleagues in the Congress to speak out strongly against the military regime that continues to sanction and condone these rapes and other atrocities.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which is a sham and does nothing for seniors in my district, in my State and in my country.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, Rita Lazar is a remarkable woman. She lost a child, a son, in the horrible attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. But Rita Lazar remains a pacifist, dedicating her life to eradicating war all over the world. And she is brave. She wrote a letter to the New York Times, that in essence said that although she knew this country's response to 911 would be war, she and many others feel that the answer is peace. She asked, as many have asked, that this country not go to war, not in the name of her son. Not in the name of her child. All over the world, there is a movement afloat. People are coming together to say please, please, please, do not go to war--not in my name, and not in the name of my child. Not in My Name. Not in the Name of My Child. People are saying to governments . . . War? No, not in my name. Destruction? . . . No, not in my name. Weapons of Mass Destruction? No, not in my name. Pollution? No, not in my name. People from every walk of life--young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, are saying: Not In My Name. There is an entire coalition of people who, though horribly saddened by the events at the World Trade Center, send out a mighty call for peace. The September 11 Families for A Peaceful Tomorrow have given us a powerful message--they want a world in which no one, no child, no son, no father, no husband, no wife, no mother, no loved one has to suffer the horror of losing a family member in the name of war. Their bravery is a reminder of our duty towards making the world in which we live one of peace. If you go to their website at peacefultomorrows.org, you will see a quote from Martin Luther King Jr., that says, ``Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.'' These people, these brave and suffering souls, have lost sons and daughters and husbands and fathers and wives and mothers to the 911 attack, and yet, miraculously, they are saying, don't go to war, not in the name of our loved ones, Not in the Name of My Child. Among them are Phyllis and Orlando Rodriguez, who lost their only son Greg at the World Trade Center. The Rodriguez' also sent a letter to the media with the headline, ``Not in Our Son's Name.'' They pleaded for a peaceful solution to this conflict, and they are joined by thousands upon thousands of people all over the world, as witnessed by the huge rally in Washington, DC on April 20 2002, where an estimated two hundred thousand people called out for an end to war. And this cry is deepening, from a cry against war to a cry against injustice everywhere. People all over America are saying that they don't want American corporations stealing the resources of other countries and destroying the forested lands and waters of this country--not in their name. Israeli settlers have a peace group called Not in My Name. They are saying to the Israeli government, yes, we want a home, yes, we want a safe place to be, but not through violence and destruction and terror. They are saying to the Israeli government--don't take land from Palestinians, don't destroy their infrastructure, don't take their homes, don't destroy their family structures and their communities and their neighborhoods. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Why is this Not in My Name movement growing? Because when all is said and done, people all over the world, rich and poor, old and young, want to do what is right. Americans want to do what is right. People know it is wrong for destruction to occur in their name. Not in My Name. Not in the name of my child. It's like saying to a murderer--``Don't kill for me,'' It's saying to those who pollute our waters, Not in my Name. It's saying to those who destroy the economy of other countries--Not in my name, not in the name of my child. Americans are gathering the courage to just say no. We are saying no to addictive lifestyles, addictive consumerism. We are saying no to wars and corporate takeover and the IMF loans that gobble up people and their resources. And all over the world, people are saying, if you are committing these acts in my name, then don't. If you are committing these acts-- waging war on the innocent, destroying the environment, buying bombs when babies need bottles . . . then don't do it for me. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Americans want peace, and justice and to live up to the conscience of its forbears. So we are joining people of good will around the world who say, Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child. Not in My Name, Not in the Name of My Child.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I speak to commemorate and recognize the tragic attack that took place against the U.S.S. Liberty on June 8, 1967. Although thirty-five years have come and gone since this historic event, the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty are still struggling with the fact that their story has never been heard. While there has never been an official investigation into this event, we have learned from survivor accounts that for over 75 minutes the Israeli Defense Forces attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, killing 34 American soldiers and wounding an additional 172. With over 85% of the crew either dead or wounded, they somehow managed to keep the ship afloat after being hit by over 1000 rounds of rocket, cannon, machine gun, napalm hits, and even a direct hit from a torpedo. This unprovoked attack took place in international waters, and by a trusted ally. The only explanation given to the survivors and their families as to why this attack took place was that it was an accident and that their ship was not identified as being American, regardless of the fact that our flag was proudly flown throughout the attack. Unfortunately, that explanation is not good enough for those whose lives have been impacted by this attack, and it should not be good enough for the American people. Let's not wait another thirty-five years before we provide the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty an official investigation into why this attack took place and allow them to tell their story. We owe them more than a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice; we owe them the truth.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the achievements of Mr. Herman J. Russell of Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Russell has been selected by the Atlanta Business League as its CEO of the Year for 2002. Herman Russell transformed his father's small plaster business into a thriving conglomeration of property development and management businesses, which now span throughout Atlanta, Birmingham and the Southeast. Mr. Russell's 43-year old company has sculpted a number of major landmarks that are a part of Atlanta's infamous skyline. Mr. Russell's accomplishments and influence extend well beyond the boardroom and into the community. He actively serves on several corporate boards and participates in many local, state and national charitable educational organizations. A philanthropist at heart, Mr. Russell provides scholarships for area youth, advice for budding entrepreneurs and support for economic development and empowerment. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Herman J. Russell, a pillar of the community. I am especially proud to know him and to have received lessons on the value of honesty and hard work. His unwavering integrity, consistent delivery of quality service, and generous community contributions exemplify the markings of a role model. Our community has been made better by his teachings and demonstrations of preparation, sacrifice, and dedication.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine from the Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, Ms. Allison Glover of Stone Mountain. On Tuesday of this week, Ms. Glover testified in front of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee in support of increased funding for the National Institutes for Health. The purpose of Ms. Glover's testimony was to raise congressional awareness of the silent killer, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIDS. Those familiar with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome understand that despite scientific research no direct cause has been found for the deaths of close to 3,000 infants a year in the United States. Ms. Glover is not your average government relations professional or lobbyist. Ms. Glover and her family are survivors. In May 2000, Ms. Glover and her husband lost their happy and healthy first-born son, Garrett, to SIDS. Garrett was peacefully sleeping in his cradle next to his parents, when he passed away. However, Ms. Glover channeled her grief and pain into activism. Ms. Glover's perseverance despite the loss of her child serves as a role model for all of us. Ms. Glover has since become an activist for SIDS research, working toward a goal of the eradication of SIDS. Today, Allison Glover is the SIDS Training Coordinator with the Georgia SIDS/OID Information and Counseling Program. This program offers comprehensive bereavement support services to all Georgia families who have experienced an infant death. The program also offers SIDS training courses to parents, healthcare professionals, first responders and child care providers. All of these programs are offered to the public at no cost. Ms. Glover honorably works to prevent her tragedy from becoming the tragedy of others. I salute Ms. Allison Glover for her courage in turning a terrible personal tragedy into positive public service for her community.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the exceptional performance of the Fernbank Elementary School Chess Team, who on Sunday, April 28, won the U.S. Chess Federation's National Championship for grades kindergarten through fifth in Portland, Oregon. The Fernbank Chess Team captured the title after successfully defending their state title and then defeating nearly 100 teams from 37 states during national competition. I offer special congratulations to Coach Lew Martin and team members Jackson Miller, Aluda Saliashvili, Pikria Saliashvili, Quinn Shallenberger, Cal Shallenberger, Justin Warren and Brennan Zito. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the tenacity and excellence displayed by this team as well as the success of this alternative after-school program in stimulating intellectual curiosity and inciting a wave of community pride.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I voted against this defense authorization bill in committee, and I plan to vote against it on the floor. This bill represents the largest real increase to defense spending since 1966. It contains over $40 billion more spending than last year's defense authorization, which was a huge authorization in itself. This year's defense budget increase alone is greater than the defense budget of nearly every other nation in the world. H.R. 4546 provides for over $383 billion in spending for the Pentagon and the weapons programs of the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, this new spending comes at the expense of valuable programs for America's families. Sadly, the Bush administration's tax cut for the wealthy has blown the Clinton surplus and reduced our ability to fully fund important programs like job training, prescription drug benefit, conservation spending and much more. The one-sided priorities of this bill reflect the belief that national security rests in occupying foreign capitals and overthrowing regimes, as our Secretary of Defense told us in committee, rather than in domestic tranquillity and quality of life for America's people. In addition to the singular focus of our national security attention, there are problems within the Pentagon that raise questions about such immense spending. On September 10, 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that ``according to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.'' Such a lack of financial accountability undermines the integrity of the Pentagon. How much more inefficiencies, financial loss and wasteful spending can the American people tolerate? In any other area of enterprise, people get more money when they prove that they know what they do with what they have already got, what they have gotten, but in the world of defense spending, the Secretary can acknowledge the loss of $2.3 trillion and get an almost unprecedented increase in funding. Additionally, the basis for such a large increase in spending is wholly unjustified. The events of September 11 were a tragedy to the entire Nation. However, the attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia were not prompted by any failure of the United States military, but instead were the result of a breakdown in our intelligence community. In fact, just last week Yahoo News reported that CIA Deputy Director of Operation James Pavitt ``dismissed charges the CIA was caught unaware by September 11 suicide attacks in the United States'' and that ``the CIA knew the network led by Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden was planning a major strike.'' Similarly, a Washington Post article dated May 3, 2002, stated, ``Two months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and recommended contacting other schools nationwide.'' The article continued, stating that ``law enforcement officials said in retrospect the FBI believes it should have accelerated the suggested check of U.S. flight schools.'' I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by Secretary Rumsfeld's cancellation of the Crusader program this week, and I was pleased to receive a phone call from the Pentagon to that effect. However, it must be noted that I had an amendment to cut the Crusader because, among other things, it experienced cost overruns and was too heavy and too large to get anywhere fast at any kind of rapid response. I would also note that the Crusader is a weapons system that has connections to the Carlyle Group which employs the President's father. $475 million is a lot of money. Sadly, the President requested half a billion dollars for the Crusader weapons system but cancelled our commitment to pay high deployment overtime pay to our troops. However, the fight to kill the Crusader is not over. Despite the cancellation, language in this bill will seek to keep Crusader alive. The Committee on Armed Services and the House should not allow that to happen. The Crusader has been rightly cut. It should remain that way, and the half billion dollars it has freed up should go to reinstating the high deployment per diem that the President cancelled in October. As by now my colleagues also know, this bill creates exemptions for the Pentagon in the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, removes protections from public lands, and creates horrendous precedent for wilderness areas. The Committee on Armed Services is not where our country's environmental policy should be made. With regard to missile defense, H.R. 4546 continues development of this dangerous, destabilizing and unreliable system. The authorization provides $7.8 billion for missile defense following on the nearly $8 billion that was authorized last year. Yet the CIA's own national intelligence estimate states that attacks are much more likely using weapons of mass destruction via untraditional methods such as trucks, ships or airplanes. Rather than spending billions on a missile defense system, diplomacy through arms control and disarmament agreements will be much more effective in advancing peace and security in the days and years ahead and will cost far less than a Star Wars system. Though it deeply troubles me that one of the first acts of our President after declaring this war on terrorism was to sign an executive order denying previously promised high deployment overtime pay to our servicemen and women, the personnel and compensation section of this bill takes important steps for our servicemen and women. Though I am opposed to this act, I greatly respect the individual members of our armed services for their service and sacrifice in the name of our Nation. However, Mr. Chairman, despite whatever good this bill does for our servicemen and women and our veterans, it is still entirely too large and takes us down the wrong policy track. Additionally, as our defense spending increases year after year, sacrifices made in domestic spending never seem to be corrected. From resuming nuclear testing to advancing nuclear-tipped missile defense, from the rollback of environmental laws, to pork-barreling weapons systems, this bill is big, and it could have been a lot better.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the government of India is compensating the families of those who lost their lives in the recent riots in Gujarat. While no amount of money makes up for the loss, this is a decent thing to do and I salute India for it. However, Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed to find out that apparently in the world's largest secular democracy, a Hindu life is worth twice as much as a Muslim life. According to News India-Times, the Indian government is paying out 200,000 Rupees each to the families of Hindus who were killed, but just 100,000 Rupees to the family of each Muslim killed. Mr. Speaker, I think it is offensive that a country that claims it is democratic thinks that the life of one person or group is twice as valuable as that of another person or group. What if our government declared white lives twice as valuable as black ones, or vice versa? Would that be tolerated? The article also notes that during the riots, ``Muslim establishments were targeted in an organized manner--even when they masqueraded under Hindu names and were run in Hindu majority areas.'' This seems to indicate the government's hand in the planning of the riots, an impression that is reinforced by the fact that the police stood by and let the carnage happen. This is simply part of an ongoing Hindu nationalist campaign to wipe out religious minorities. It is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and America must help to put a stop to it. We should stop all aid to India until all people enjoy equal rights and we should demand a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir, Khalistan, Nagaland, and the other nations seeking to get out from under India's brutal occupation. These steps will help bring real freedom, stability, and prosperity to the South Asian region. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the News India-Times article into the Record. [From the News India-Times March 29, 2002] Muslims suffer bias even after the riots AHMEDABAD--The state government has been booking those responsible for the Godhra carnage under draconian Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), while those who targeted Muslims and their business establishments in an organized manner in the state are being booked under the milder Criminal Procedure Code. POTO allows a person to be held without bail for 30 days. Rights activists here contended that this was yet another example of the state government's bias against the Muslim community, and called for the scrapping of POTO. Earlier, Chief Minister Narendra Modi's government had announced compensation of Rs. 200,000 ($4,166) for the victims of the Godhra tragedy, while the amount for those who died in the widespread retaliatory riots was fixed at half that amount, Rs. 100,000 ($2,083). Rights activists as well as journalists covering the riots have noted how Muslim establishments were targeted in an organized manner--even when they masqueraded under Hindu names and were run in Hindu majority areas.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has already spent America from surplus to deficit, and now he wants to do the same thing with the Superfund program. But instead of overspending, he wants to starve Superfund to death. Now, I'd be the first to admit that Superfund hasn't been a perfect program. At first critics were right that it was a bonanza for everyone except the communities who were suffering from pollution and contamination. But that's all changed now, and the companies that are polluting our neighborhoods and communities, now want to get off scott free and President Bush is aiding and abetting them. Sadly, President Bush named as his Secretary of Interior a woman who believes that companies have a constitutional right to pollute. Now, Bush is allowing that kind of thinking to leach into the Superfund program, thus shielding corporations from the responsibilities of cleaning up what they mess up. Now, President Bush wants teachers, and police officers, and America's working families to foot that bill. By eliminating the Superfund tax, corporate polluters will no longer have to support the fund that protects me and you from the damage that they do. Bush should stop rewarding his fat cat friends and represent America's working families.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the GAO recently released a report outlining the ways in which the Pentagon and its contractors fudged the results of a missile defense test in 1997. The report found that missile test results were fabricated by excluding negative test data, ignoring sensor malfunctions, and by delaying the disclosure of undeniable errors. All this is now irrelevant, the Pentagon concludes, because the system used in that test has not been used in 4 years. Well, Mr. Speaker, I disagree. The fact that these test books were cooked could not be more important. The President has asked Congress to match last year's $8 billion-plus missile defense appropriation and has formally issued his intention for the United States to pull out of the ABM treaty. Yet the Pentagon recently canceled the supposedly important Navy missile defense system due to cost overruns of 65 percent, and more recent missile defense tests were found to have been fixed by the use of GPS location beacons. Mr. Speaker, the CBO has estimated that a working missile defense system will cost another $64 billion by 2015, and the United States has been working on this since World War II and it still does not work. We do not need to give the Pentagon one more dollar.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am worried about what is happening to our great country today. I fear that many of us cannot see what is happening here. Maybe we are too close. Maybe there are even people who do not want us to see; but our friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere are reporting that they are seeing disturbing developments in our country, like the fading of our fundamental constitutional rights, the creation of a war machine that threatens world peace, the spending of a generation of Americans on this war on terrorism, and even an attack on truth in government by forming the Office of Strategic Influence to lie to us and to the rest of the world. The President even asked Hollywood to make these developments palatable to the American people. With this as a backdrop, I would just like to ask that Members close their eyes and imagine being drawn deeper and deeper into black space. If Members keep their eyes closed and if they close them good and tight, they will be able to imagine themselves going faster and faster and deeper and deeper into a black unknown. All of a sudden we see a bright light at a distance far away, but faster and faster and closer and closer it becomes brighter and brighter; and in one instant, with one grand motion, we can cross from the darkness into the light. But just before we make the crossing, a huge booming voice coming from nowhere, and at the same time coming from everywhere, booms all around us: You unlock this door with the key of understanding. Beyond it is another dimension, a dimension of hearing that which is not spoken, a dimension of seeing that which is invisible, a dimension of reading that which is not written. We are moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. Welcome. We just crossed over into the Twilight Zone, otherwise known as George Bush's America. For it is here and only here that the White House could receive warning after warning of massive attacks that were going to take place on American soil, the attack happens, and both the President and the Vice President, in separate phone calls to Tom Daschle, ask that Congress not investigate what happened and why. That could only happen in the Twilight Zone. Or that an administration battling worldwide perception, as well as a domestic one having come to power in circumstances like Zambia's or Kenya's, could form a shadow government inside the selected government, with no one in the real government knowing about the shadow government except the shadow leaders in it. That could only happen in the Twilight Zone. Or that this President could propose the biggest hike in defense spending, where his dad stands to make a mint, as long as increased spending does not get lost wherever the $2.3 trillion is that the Pentagon has already lost, and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, says we can afford it. That could only happen in the Twilight Zone. Or that Arthur Andersen, who kept Enron's books, could still have contracts to keep the books over at FBI, DOJ, and the Pentagon. That could only happen in the Twilight Zone. Wake up, America. We are not only in the Twilight Zone, we have crossed the threshold into George Bush's America.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a matter of grave concern for those of us who value freedom and democracy in this country. On December 14, Rabih Haddad, a prominent community leader and religious cleric in Anne Arbor, Michigan, was preparing to celebrate a major religious holiday with his wife and four children when a knock came at his door. There stood three INS agents who had come to take him away. Mr. Haddad is now being held in 23-hour solitary confinement several hundred miles away from his family, whom he is allowed to see only 4 hours a month. Mr. Haddad has been in jail for 76 days and has never been charged with a crime. On November 24, Mazen Al-Najjar, a former university professor and religious leader living in Tampa, Florida, was rearrested by Justice Department officials. Professor Al-Najjar had already been held for 3 years in Federal prison on secret evidence until December 2000, when a judge ruled that allegations against him were baseless and ordered the government to release him. He is now being held in 23-hour lockdown in a maximum security prison. Professor Al-Najjar has been in jail for 96 days and still has never been charged with a crime. In early October, Anser Mehmood, a New Jersey truck driver originally from Pakistan, was arrested by Federal law enforcement officials. His family was not allowed to visit him for 3 months, nor were they told of his whereabouts. Deprived of their only source of income, his wife and four children have been forced to sell all of their belongings and now plan to return to Pakistan. Anser has been in jail for more than 140 days and has never been charged with a crime. On September 18, Mohammed Refai, a legal resident of the United States, was informed that the 1-year extension of his conditional green card was being revoked. Then he was put in jail. The government denied him access to his lawyer for 2 days, and he remains in solitary confinement. Mohammad has been in jail for 162 days and has never been charged with a crime. These are just a handful of the stories of people who have been swept up in Attorney General John Ashcroft's dragnet and who have been denied the most fundamental rights of due process and rule of law. But there are literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of such cases all over the country. We do not know their names, and we do not know what they are being charged with. We do not know if they have access to legal assistance or even to their families. There are reports that many have been mistreated and denied access to their legal counsel and even visits by their families. We know that one such detainee has already died while in U.S. custody. But we do not know exactly how many others are being held because the Bush administration will not tell us. They will not tell us who they are, where they are, or why they are being held. The ACLU and other domestic civil rights groups estimate there are as many as 2,000 individuals, most of them men from the Middle East and South Asia, who are now swept up in this administration dragnet. The number will likely increase in the coming months as John Ashcroft goes after thousands more so-called ``absconders.'' We do know that one detainee, 55-year-old Mohammad Butt from Pakistan, died in custody at the Hudson County Jail in New Jersey. But the Justice Department offers little justice for those now caught in its snare. The great irony is that all along the administration has said that we are hated because we are free; not because of what we are, but because we are free. There is so much talk about how America is viewed abroad. Well, let us look at a recent headline: ``The disappeared: Since 11 September, last year, up to 2,000 people in the United States have been detained without trial or charge or even legal rights. The fate of most is unknown. Andrew Gumbel investigates a scandal that shames the land of the free.'' A scandal that shames the land of the free, and most Americans do not even know it. But that is not from a newspaper in Pyongyang; it is not from a newspaper in Tehran. It is from a newspaper from London, one of the largest newspapers, in fact, in London, from the Independent. If we want the world to understand who we are and what we stand for, we should bear in mind that everything we say and do is broadcast all over the world, even if it is not broadcast right here in America. When what is being broadcast are mass arrests of young men and closing down of charities, then we can only expect insightful rhetoric from abroad. It is time we start living up to our own standards of freedom, equality, and justice.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I just want to state publicly for the record that you are a tremendous woman, a woman of courage and a woman I admire. ``The black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect.'' That is what the Supreme Court wrote in black and white in 1857. In the presidential election year 2000, when the Supreme Court selected George Bush as our President and failed to order that the votes of black voters be counted, did the Supreme Court resurrect the ghost of Judge Tanksley who wrote those words? ``The black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect.'' Certainly in Florida black voters had no rights that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris felt bound to respect. They conspired with their leader, presidential candidate and Texas Governor George W. Bush to create a list, a so-called felons' list in order to target black people and keep them from voting. They came up with a list of 57,700 names from Florida and Texas as well as Ohio and New Jersey. Now, I do not think it is legal for Florida to deny Ohioans the right to vote. And we have our esteemed lawyers here, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) who can perhaps tell us about the legality of Florida disenfranchising people who supposedly were from Ohio and New Jersey. At any rate, for example, you have a voter by the name of Johnny Jackson, Jr., who is a black man from Texas, but in Jeb Bush's Florida, Johnny Jackson, Jr., becomes a convicted felon by the name of John Fitzgerald Jackson. Now, Katheryn Harris maintained that Johnny Jackson, Jr., is the same person as John Fitzgerald Jackson. So when John Fitzgerald Jackson in Florida goes to vote, Katheryn Harris, Secretary of State, and all those people say, ``Sorry, you cannot vote because you committed a felony in Texas. And in Texas your name was Johnny Jackson, Jr.'' Well, we know that that was not the case. And in case after case after case, black people were denied the right to vote. The black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect. It happened with names from Ohio, where blacks in Florida were targeted as whites in Ohio; and it happened even in New Jersey, with Latinos who ended up on the list as convicted felons, even though they had not committed any crime at all except to be a minority and a probable Democratic voter in a State that George W. Bush needed to get elected as President. Sadly, 90 percent of the names on the 57,700 list of convicted felons were wrong. Sixty percent of those who were purged were black. Ninety- three percent of the people who were targeted voted Democratic. Now, the subject of tonight's Special Order is: Is racism dead? Mr. Speaker, I will leave that up to you.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 6th, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before the House Armed Services Committee and asked for a record increase in defense spending. He pointed to the brave new world post-September 11th as justification for the largest hike in defense spending in 20 years. Sadly, Secretary Rumsfeld thinks that the brave new world of post-September gives us amnesia about 9/11 and the events before 9/11. He also mistakenly believes that all of his destabilizing proposals can be justified as a reasoned response to 9/11. An incredibly, both the Vice President and the President placed calls to Tom Daschle asking that the fog of ignorance around the events prior to and the day of 9/ 11 not be lifted. The fact, however, is that September 11 was not a failure of our nation's defenses. Rather, September 11 was a colossal intelligence failure--a failure to act on timely and accurate warnings predicting massive terrorist attacks against our nation. The LA Times and other leading press agencies have identified some of these missed warnings. And this was not the first time that our intelligence agencies have let us down. The same failure to act on critical warnings happened with respect to the terror attacks against our embassies in Africa. Even the CIA, the FBI and other senior Capitol Hill figures all now agree that there were serious lapses in the handling of perishable and highly significant warnings preceding the September 11th attacks. But instead of examining what went wrong with respect to these warnings and then trying to prevent it from ever happening again, President Bush and Vice President Cheney now seek to actually prevent the Congress from investigating these and other events surrounding September 11th. Indeed, Senator Richard Shelby, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee told CNN: ``It was a real massive failure . . . In my judgment too many bureaucratic failures, not enough coordination between the Agencies.'' The active efforts to prevent a Congressional investigation into the events surrounding September 11 not only violate the principles of good government but are an affront to the memories of all those who perished in the September 11 attacks. But sadly, the Administration now chooses to direct us on a path of war while refusing to allow us to know how we got there. I have been asked by my constituents to explain to them why and how September 11 happened. Indeed, the whole world community continues to search for answers to those exact questions. That cannot be done if the Executive Branch will not cooperative with the Legislative Branch in answering important questions about what was known before, during, and after the tragedies in New York and Pennsylvania and Washington, DC. Why doesn't the Executive Branch want us to know answers to these questions? Is there something that they don't want the American public to know? Instead of working with the Congress to search for answers to these questions the Administration has now become obsessed with finding ways to expand the U.S. military budget. The White House is now using our new War Against Terror as a means of siphoning public attention away from the events surrounding September 11th in order to generate widespread support for the largest increase in defense spending in a generation. The Administration has even identified a dubious ``axis of evil'' to further justify this increased spending. The President has requested an increase of $48.1 billion in defense spending. Sadly, many commenters have already pointed out that his father stands to personally gain immense profits from the President's proposals because of the former President's relationship with The Carlyle Group, a leading defense conglomerate. One particular defense contract, for the development and purchase of a mobile howitzer, the Crusader, exists with the Carlyle Group. Though the company has received millions for this, the Crusader is too hefty to transport, has not yet reached its production phase despite years of engineering and re-engineering, and is far from fulfilling its purpose or need. In his testimony before the Congress Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that America can afford this increase just fine. This comes after defense spending snared a whopping 62 percent of all new spending for the year 2002. This accounting is specious, as Rumsfeld himself noted on the eve of September 11th, that ``according to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.'' Increased spending should occur under no circumstances without increased financial accountability. Does Arthur Anderson keep the Pentagon's books? Rumsfeld's trick of throwing bones to would-be critics in the form of pay raises for the troops should not obscure the fact that the bulk of this budget hike goes not for pay raises, but for expensive gadgets such as missile defense, three new, separate fighter planes and space- based lasers. Of the $48.1 billion requested in more funding, less than 5 percent of that increase is for soldier pay raises. And let us not forget that the President's first act in this war on terrorism was to waive the high-deployment overtime pay for our troops who are on the front line of this war. I might remind Mr. President that we still have veterans from the Vietnam war suffering from the ill effects of Agent Orange, we still have Vietnam veterans impoverished and sleeping on the streets of our Nation's Capital, we still have veterans from the Gulf War suffering the ill effects of Gulf War syndrome and we still have service men and women in our armed forces living on food stamps and residing in poor housing. How in good conscience can the Secretary of Defense come before this Committee and ask for yet more money for aircraft, ships and missiles and not adequately address these critical issues concerning the personal welfare of our veterans and serving men and women? Sadly, however, at the same time that the President proposes the largest defense spending hike in 20 years, hisbudget also proposes to cut funds for programs that bridge the digital divide, reducing funds for highway construction and urban development and cutting funding for the EPA by $300 million. And despite the down-turned economic situation, the President has also proposed to cut back on job training, assistance for low income home heating, and rural housing and utility improvements. Moreover, funds to cleanup the Savannah River Site nuclear weapons complex are sliced, and abroad, international food aid and peacekeeping funds are also shrunk. At $379.3 billion, the President's proposal will not tell us how just a few months ago during the trial of suspects charged with initially bombing the World Trade Center in 1993, a suspect told U.S. officials that bin Laden's group was trying to make war on the United States and in particular would bomb an embassy, yet we did nothing and lost hundreds of lives in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. Nor will this budget explain the Mossad warning of a major terrorist force of 200 individuals entering the U.S., which apparently again fell on deaf ears. What of the supposed warning to German police by an Iranian in Hamburg of an impending attack on the U.S. using hijacked planes? And nor will this budget illuminate for us who performed the unusual stock trades on the Friday and Monday before September 11th, but has since decided not to pick up the tidy profit that was made. The U.S. Government is now being sued by survivors of the African embassy blasts because it has become clear that the United States had ample warning but chose to do nothing rather than prevent the loss of life. Given the prior warnings, insider stock trades, and convoluted financial interrelationships, September 11th represents yet another wasted chance to save innocent lives. The most shocking aspect of the President's request involves the New Defense Strategy to be implemented now. Secretary Rumsfeld testified that a major role now for the U.S. military will be to occupy an opponent's capital and replace his regime. In as much as the Secretary has identified some 60 countries, including our own, that host terror cells, and publicly stated his intention to ``drain the swamp,'' we can only surmise that the U.S. military is now in the business of taking over capitals around the world and replacing regimes . . . starting with Washington, DC.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the Veterans' Benefit Act of 2001. This bill contains numerous provisions that will help our nation's veterans obtain greater educational opportunities, it increases the resources available to assist veterans with finding housing, and most importantly, the bill corrects and expands legislation to provide compensation and benefits to veterans who are disabled. I commend the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Smith from New Jersey, and the ranking member, Mr. Evans for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. One provision in this that I am personally proud of is section 201, which removes the 30-year time limit for the presumption of service connection of respiratory cancers for Vietnam War veterans. This provision is adapted from H.R. 1587, the Agent Orange Respiratory Cancer Act of 2001, which I introduced and which was cosponsored by 47 of my colleagues. Agent Orange has rained havoc on the lives of thousands of Vietnam veterans, causing cancer, diabetes, and birth defects. Thankfully, for most veterans suffering from their exposure to this herbicide, benefits were made available. Unfortunately, a seemingly arbitrary 30-year time limit was placed on the presumption of service connection for respiratory cancers--among the most deadly types of cancer. Those veterans who suffered from respiratory cancers that appeared 30 years after their service were denied service connection, and thus benefits and assistance for these diseases. In effect, the U.S. government told them that they were on their own. In a recent study, the Institute of Medicine stated that there was no evidence that a time limit could be placed on the presumption of service connection, and this bill rightly makes that correction to past law. No longer will veterans who suffer respiratory cancers have to worry about their government forgetting about their service and neglecting their needs. Rare is it that common sense prevails in Congress to help those in greatest need, but I believe that this provision, and this bill, achieve such status. I thank the Veterans Committee Chairman and Ranking Member for their dedicated attention to the plight and troubles of America's veterans, for including the Agent Orange provision in the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001, and for passing this important piece of legislation.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, at the international Relations Committee meeting of November 28, 2001, which considered the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, I asked a question of my colleagues who were vociferously supporting this misdirected piece of legislation: ``Can anyone explain how the people in question who now have the land in question in Zimbabwe got title to the land?'' My query was met with a deafening silence. Those who knew did not want to admit the truth and those who didn't know should have known-- that the land was stolen from its indigenous peoples through the British South Africa Company and any ``titles'' to it were illegal and invalid. Whatever the reason for their silence, the answer to this question is the unspoken but real reason for why the United States Congress is now concentrating its time and resources on squeezing an economically-devastated African state under the hypocritical guise of providing a ``transition to democracy.'' Zimbabwe is Africa's second-longest stable democracy. It is multi- party. It had elections last year where the opposition, Movement for Democratic Change, won over 50 seats in the parliament. It has an opposition press which vigorously criticizes the government and governing party. It has an independent judiciary which issues decisions contrary to the wishes of the governing party. Zimbabwe is not without troubles, but neither is the United States. I have not heard anyone proposing a United States Democracy Act following last year's Presidential electoral debacle. And if a foreign country were to pass legislation calling for a United States Democracy Act which provided funding for United States opposition parties under the fig leaf of ``Voter Education,'' this body and this country would not stand for it. There are many de jure and de facto one-party states in the world which are the recipients of support of the United States government. They are not the subject of Congressional legislative sanctions. To any honest observer, Zimbabwe's sin is that it has taken the position to right a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue--to return its land to its people. The Zimbabwean government has said that a situation where 2 percent of the population owns 85 percent of the best land is untenable. Those who presently own more than one farm will no longer be able to do so. When we get right down to it, this legislation is nothing more than a formal declaration of United States complicity in a program to maintain white-skin privilege. We can call it an ``incentives'' bill, but that does not change its essential ``sanctions'' nature. It is racist and against the interests of the masses of Zimbabweans. In the long-run the Zimbabwe Democracy Act will work against the United States having a mutually beneficial relationship with Africa.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Well, I thank my colleagues very much, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), my good friend and mentor. The gentlewoman from Florida talked about policies from Florida coming up to D.C., and I guess what I want to talk about is policies from Texas coming up to D.C. and the impact that it is going to have on all of us. We know that minorities are hit hardest in times of trouble and lifted last in times of plenty. But I think it is correct to point out tonight some of the particular problems that are faced by minorities in this country. Eighty percent of all Federal prisoners are minorities. Fifty percent of them are black. Blacks and Latinos are not graduating from high school. There is a 56 percent graduation rate for blacks, 54 percent graduation rate for Latinos, juxtaposed to a 78 percent graduation rate for whites. Forty-three percent of American children live in or near poverty. Thirty-three percent of black children live in poverty; 30 percent of Latino children live in poverty. Let us talk about being able to just reach the age of 1. Black infant mortality is twice that of the rest of the American population. And as I was sitting in front of my computer terminal, as I do too much because my eyes are getting worse, a name came out at me. Jesus Blanco. Jesus Blanco was the first person in the year 2001 to freeze to death on the streets of Washington, D.C. How in the world in this country in the land of plenty can we have people freeze to death on our streets? Five people froze to death in Washington, D.C. Let us remember the name of Jesus Blanco. Twenty-three million Americans were forced to seek food assistance. But this was when times were great. This is before there was a recession. Just imagine what it is going to be now, when times are bad. And instead of homeland security that protects our most precious assets, our values and our people, President Bush gives us three hits and two misses in Star Wars national missile defense. He gives us military tribunals that put us in the same league with Peru. Remember Lori Berenson? Burma, Egypt, all of whom we have criticized for their military tribunals, and now we are going to do the same thing and follow in their footsteps. President Bush gave us a recession. Even though the recession did not start as 2001, as early as December 21 in 2000, Bush said, and I know it is true because it is here on the CBS News Web site, December 21 Bush said, ``I have said that there are some warning signs on the horizon. I think people are going to find out that when I am sworn in as President, I will be a realist. And if there are warning signs on the horizon, we need to pay attention to them. We need to act in a positive way to make sure that our economy continues to grow so people will be able to find high-paying jobs. One of my responsibilities is to anticipate problems and be prepared to act.'' But that is not all.

Ms. McKINNEY. Well, we all know that Fast Track is not the solution, because I used to represent a rural district. I know my colleague from North Carolina currently represents a rural district, and we lost our jobs.

Ms. McKINNEY. If I can return, because I would like to finish this, Vice President Cheney, who before he was sworn in was talking about the recession that was on the horizon, and Bush said as early as this year that a warning light is flashing on the dashboard of our economy and we just cannot drive on and hope for the best. This was reported by the American Prospect in April of this year. Now, we have got President Bush and Vice President Cheney saying all these things, and President Clinton told them not to talk up a recession; do not talk it up. But we have seen plenty of stimulus. We have seen stimulus for the airline industry, even before we took care of airline security. We have seen stimulus for the insurance industry before the victims of the September 11 tragedies have even been taken care of. And what about America's working families? The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) even brought us today people from Florida who were crying not to cripple our public hospitals. But that is what they are going to do. It is the economy, stupid. That was 1992. And advertise economy, stupid, which I am sure the American people will hear on 2002. A piece of the pie. A political piece of the pie as well as an economic piece of the pie. I will yield now, but I have some devastating news about the election down in Florida that I want to talk about. Because when we talk about public policy up here, it depends on the actions of people who go to the polls and vote and think their vote is going to be counted. And then when they find out that their vote has been stolen from them, and we end up with this kind of public policy, maybe it has to do with how we even arrived at the people who are sitting making that public policy today.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned awhile ago a fact of what happened in the elections in Florida, which I would like to take an opportunity to revisit, and I am glad that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) has agreed to stay here so that she can respond to this information. An enterprising journalist by the name of Gregory Palast who operates out of London and works with BBC-TV has provided some very interesting information to me. I have got a list here, and the list is about those people who were put on the voter file that said that they could not vote because they were convicted felons. I have got the list here. For instance, number 354 on the list is Johnny Jackson, Jr., who is a black male from Texas, and then, unfortunately, John Fitzgerald Jackson. They said that those two people were the same people, so John Fitzgerald Jackson in Florida was denied the right to vote because a list from Texas that had the name of Johnny Jackson, Jr., on it, said that Johnny Jackson, Jr., was not eligible to vote. I have got on this list, for example, Thomas Alvin Cooper, who is a white male from Ohio. Thomas Cooper is a pretty common name. There is more than one Thomas Cooper, I am sure, in all of the people in Florida. But Thomas Cooper was denied the right to vote in Florida, and Thomas Cooper in Florida, who was denied the right to vote, was a black man. I have got here Michael Rodriguez from New Jersey, and I am sure Michael Rodriguez is a common name. But in Florida, Michael Rodriguez was denied the right to vote. In New Jersey it was Michael A. Rodriguez. What this list shows is that there were about 2,800 people who were not allowed the right to vote because the State of Florida said that they were convicted felons in other states, and, therefore, they could not vote in Florida. Mr. Speaker, 57,700 people, innocent people, I might add, were targeted for removal. Ninety percent of the people on the list that was purged so that these people could not vote in Florida, 90 percent of the names were wrong. At least 54 percent were black. 80 percent of those who finally were purged were black, and 93 percent of the people who were targeted to be purged vote Democratic.