Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I will add to that, if I may, initially, you can go back to my time and before, we were competing with individuals within our State or individuals within our tri-state region or even just individuals within our Nation. But the gentleman is so right. Right now our students have to compete with other students all across this globe because of the global economy and how it is now all intersected and interconnected. What we are really talking about here is the national defense of America, and the national defense of America depends upon the education of our young people. If we close that opportunity down by making it unaffordable to them, then we are really putting our country in a great, great danger of not being able to continue the greatness that we have thus far.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentleman should say tax credit, very interesting, because this country, as we talked about earlier, about helping the rich, but showing the direction that we could move in. I want my colleagues to listen to this. John Kerry has what he calls a ``college opportunity tax credit.'' What this simply says, it will make 4 years of college affordable for all Americans. We are talking about all Americans here. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition, and that is the typical tuition cost and fees at our public institutions and universities. Senator Kerry's tax credit will be refundable to our most economically-vulnerable students and for those who receive other credits. That is the direction that we should be moving in. That is why the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) was here leading the 30-Something hour. That is why I think that we have the gentleman from Ohio here and the gentleman from Florida here and the gentlewoman from California who was here and others that are involved, that is the direction of continuing the greatness of America by investing in our young to make sure that their tomorrow is brighter than our today.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Just what we are talking about, showing that you have a plan and moving away, Senator Kerry talked about his College Opportunity Tax Credit, but he also understands the deficits that the universities are having. So he also has a plan. It is called the State Tax Relief and Education Fund where Senator Kerry will help States struggling to bridge deficits resulting from the Bush economic policies with $25 billion to stop educational cuts and tuition increases across the country. So it seems to me we are moving in the right direction. He also is talking about service for college so that if, in fact, he will initiate an offer to Americans to earn the chance of the equivalent of the State's 4-year public college tuition in exchange for 2 years of service. Senator Kerry will set a goal within the next decade of enlisting 500,000 young people a year in service for college. Steps in the right direction. Educating our young people, making it affordable for them and strengthening our country. This is what America is all about.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear about the books, because I could tell my colleagues, I happen to be able to help my daughter, but I know what the cost of the books are, because I have to pay for them and I have to go into that billfold that the gentleman from Florida went into. Sometimes mine is empty, but it is empty because I have to pay for those books. I want to hear about the cost of books.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to decide where to start in expressing one's outrage about the revelations, including the graphic photographs, that our military personnel literally tortured Iraqi detainees at a prison near Baghdad. It is even harder to know where the responsibility ends for conduct that obviously violates the Geneva Convention on care for prisoners of war and Geneva Convention on the obligations of an occupation authority. For any decent-minded American, whether he or she supports the war or opposes the war, to remain silent about this conduct is to be complicit with this conduct. To refuse to condemn it in the strongest terms possible, to be reluctant to hold accountable not only those who did this but also those who permitted it, those who ordered it, those who created an atmosphere that encouraged it, and those who sent the signals that everything and anything goes, no matter how far up the chain of command, it jeopardizes our relationship with the entire Arab and Muslim world. We should all fear for every American soldier and civilian in Iraq whose life has been placed in jeopardy by this irresponsible behavior and, frankly, the irresponsible conduct of this war. Before these revelations, it was manifestly clear that our Iraq policy was in deep, deep trouble. It was already clear that we faced a widening and deepening resistance. It was already clear that the administration's characterizations of the resistance as ``dead- enders,'' ``remnants of Saddam's regime,'' and ``terrorists from the outside'' did not coincide with reality. These allegations, revealed first last week by 60 Minutes II, then detailed by investigator reporter Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker Magazine, and substantiated in a courageous report by Major General Antonio M. Taguba, may have made our situation irrevocably untenable. Think of the predicament now facing U.S. occupation this way: What would anyone anywhere in the world want to do to someone who had done such despicable acts to a family member? The President and other senior administration and Pentagon officials have been quick to say that only a few participated in these deeds. My question is who are the few? Over the weekend, the mistreatment was said to involve only six or seven military police. Now at mid week, we are told that 17 U.S. soldiers are under investigation for their role in the abuses, including seven supervising officers who will receive an official reprimand or admonishment, six enlisted personnel who are charged with criminal offenses in March, and another four who are under criminal investigation. Against this backdrop, General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this past Sunday that he had not read the Taguba report. It has taken until today for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to make a statement, and according to a Pentagon spokesman, as late as today, Mr. Rumsfeld had not read the report either. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is the coordinator of our overall efforts in Iraq. She has been silent as well. Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the entire military should not be condemned for the actions of only a few. No one is condemning the entire military, but once again I ask who are the few? Does it include those, whoever they are, who told the military police to ``soften up'' the detainees for interrogation? I cannot accept, especially when we hear that military intelligence and private contractors ordered the actions, that these military police officers just happened to choose acts that are offensive in any culture, but are especially humiliating to males in the Arab and Islamic cultures. And logic leads me to believe the psychological implications were well understood, and the acts imposed on the detainees were deliberately selected. It is fair to ask what else may be going on? Has there been such a heavy reliance on private military contractors precisely to evade criminal liability? Have not Iraqis been given new reason to view the United States war on terrorism as a war on terrorism against them, their religion, and their culture? Congress needs to conduct a probe of the incidents and their wider ramifications. Congress and the American people must answer to questions that we can be sure that the people of Iraq and all Muslim lands are asking. While the full weight of punishment should be brought on all of those implicated, the American people, as a whole, need to appreciate how much higher the mountain now is that the President must climb to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and to persuade the Middle East to follow the model of American democracy. Under his leadership things continue to go from bad to worse to terrible.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. That is it, Mr. Speaker. I think if we do not create the kind of democratic institutions and help them go along, and not just America, I think that he said it absolutely right. Not just us, but with the help of the United Nations, with them involved, so that we can create a climate of security. Because only if they have security can they have elections, and then only with elections can they have a true democratic government. And I do not like to get into these comparisons to Haiti and Iraq and things of that nature. We know that there are substantial differences. But one thing that is clear is there is a question as to what people of Iraq want and wanted. There is no question as to what the people want. Yes, they want us and they want the United Nations there to help them. They are begging for us to do this. So this is not something that is imposed, and they are just saying, if you give us the window of opportunity to create a secure environment, we know what we want to do and we just need that kind of help, not just for a day or for a week, as I said, but where it is a continuous help, and just help us get on par with the Dominican Republic, for example. Forget being another United States. Help us so that when it is time to negotiate trade agreements when we are doing the FTAA that we as a country can take advantage of it and we can create the jobs. As the gentleman appropriately said, we can fish on our own. So we are moving now. We have got the FTAA coming. We have got some other pieces dealing with the Caribbean Basin Initiative. We have got various other trade agreements. And if we do not help now, these people could be left out. But if we help now, they can be included in. And guess what? It will be short-term pain for us for long-term gain for everybody because then they will not be dependent upon us. Our troops will not be necessary there. They then will become a prosperous neighbor, and we do not have to worry about people coming over in a boat trying to get to our Nation, trying to flee an island that should be one of the most beautiful islands in all of the Caribbean. That is what this is all about.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I will close with this: I will follow his leadership. He has been a great leader, and I think that the people of Miami, but more importantly, the people of Haiti, are well served by his leadership. I think he is doing this not in a political way, but in a bipartisan manner; and I look forward to being with him in the morning.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) for his leadership and for his courageous battle to make sure that the people of Haiti are not forgotten, and that is really what this is all about, and that is why the leadership of the gentleman from Florida's focus has been not on the politics, not on what is in the best interest of this one or that one. His focus has been on what can we do for those people, those average everyday citizens that live in Haiti who have dreams and aspirations just like we do, who all they want is for their children to be able to have a better life, to be able to get an education, to be able to go to work to provide a living so that they can have a family themselves and live a life that is a life that is free of violence and that is free of the deprivation of food and human rights violations. And that is what this is really all about. It is about people. And I am going to travel with the gentleman because he is going, and I know there is a bipartisan CODEL that will be leaving for Haiti tomorrow morning, and I have decided to change my schedule based upon his courageous trip that he has already taken, that he already visited, and he has gone out to not just the big cities. He has gone out to the side roads. He has gone out to the rural areas. He has gone out to where the people are. And I want to just get a chance to get a feel of that so that we can make sure when we come back here that we can implement a kind of program and a kind of attention on Haiti that does not last just for 6 months, just for 1 year or 2 years, but something where it is sustained, 10, 15, 20 years, to establish a true and strong democratic institution, not for the United States of America, quite frankly, not for Canada, not for France, not for anybody else, but for the people of Haiti, that little country that is connected to the island of Hispaniola. We need to make sure that we do something for those people, and I just appreciate the gentleman's leadership on that.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, during the 2 days of the hearings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, it was clear that the time for the fooling of the people may be running out. Of course, there are those Americans inside and outside of Congress who always question the veracity of the President's arguments for going to war. My hope is that the testimony at the hearings, along with a series of widely publicized books and articles published in the last year or so, the latest being Richard Clarke's ``Against All Enemies,'' will enable the broader public to connect the dots to the truth. I believe they will see that the dots of deception lead straight to the Oval Office. This response of administration officials to Mr. Clarke's charge that the President has done a terrible job on the war against terrorism is typical: throw sand into the public's eyes. Bait and switch. In other words, attack a person's motives while refusing to address the substance of the critique. Hide the facts. Concoct data. Delay. Blame everything on Clinton. Do the opposite of what you say. Claim not to remember a conversation or a meeting. Insist on redacting critical portions of critical congressional reports. Accuse critics of being disgruntled employees. All to cover up arrogant, reckless, and disgraceful conduct of foreign and domestic policy. We should commend those public servants who, in the aftermath of 9/ 11-PATRIOT Act hysteria, have put loyalty to country above loyalty to the President, risking their careers to shed light on the dark underside of George W. Bush's Presidency. This lengthening list includes the Minneapolis and Phoenix-based FBI agent who revealed that FBI field operatives tried to get higher-ups to pay attention to individuals on the counterterrorism watch list, including several who later crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, were in the United States taking flying lessons; the joint inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that revealed serious lapses on the part of the senior administration and intelligence officials during the lead-up to 9/11; John Wilson, a former ambassador, who disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium fuel in Niger, Africa. Wilson rejected the tales of the President and Vice President, Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, and National Security Adviser were telling about Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons program and, as we now know, the White House retaliated by telling a journalist that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA operative. In a book by Ron Suskind, former Treasury Department Paul O'Neill insists that from the very beginning, the administration and the President were fixated on invading Iraq, Mr. O'Neill, who told the President that a second round of tax cuts would damage the economy, and also reveals that Vice President Cheney contended that Ronald Reagan had proved that deficits do not matter. David Kay head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, congressional testimony that no weapons of mass destruction had been found, that no weapons of mass destruction were likely to ever be found, and that frankly, the administration and the intelligence community had it all wrong. And now, Richard Clarke, a senior counterterrorism official in the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations, who says immediately after 9/11, the President and other senior officials were focused more on finding a pretext for attacking Iraq than on finding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Clarke quotes Defense Secretary Rumsfeld as saying there were not any good targets to bomb in Afghanistan but plenty in Iraq. Mr. Clarke also contends that invading Iraq was a priority even before the President took office. If what Clarke, Kay, O'Neill and others have said is true, then it is fair to not only say weapons of mass destruction was a hype but also that every new explanation the administration has given since it declared an end to major operations is part of a cover-up of a war of choice, not necessity. This is the context in which the public can connect the dots of the administration's attempts to obstruct the joint congressional Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation of 9/11 and its belated cooperation and then only under the threat of subpoena with the independent commission investigating intelligence.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said, ``You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'' Until recently, the Bush administration has fooled some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time on Social Security, Medicare, tax cuts for the rich, economic recovery, the No Child Left Behind Act, nation-building, the war against terrorism, and, most especially, the war in Iraq. The President has been able to do this because most Americans simply do not believe that the President of the United States would distort and deceive on such basic issues as war and the well-being of children and the elderly. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by congratulating the leadership, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on this great bill. It proves that when Democrats and Republicans sit down and talk and work together, we really can come to a consensus. And the leadership of this committee should be applauded in a way that this bill, this important bill has gone through the committee. And I thank both the ranking member and the chairman. My position has never been to favor one depository institution charter over another but, instead, to support policies that give each charter the best opportunity to be competitive and improve service delivery to their business and individual constituents. It is my assertion that H.R. 1375, the regulatory relief bill, does just that for national banks, savings institutions, and credit unions, all of whom are vital to the financial health of this Nation and the provision of financial services to businesses and individuals nationwide. For national banks, the bill eases certain restrictions related to directors, provides for flexibility in declaring dividends, and makes it easier to expand through intrastate branching or mergers with State banks. For savings institutions, the bill provides more flexibility to provide automobile loans and leases for personal use. It also eliminates the limitation on small businesses, lending based on percentage of assets. These changes, among others, will greatly allow savings institutions to increase the diversity of their lending portfolios. Federally chartered credit unions will be able to purchase and hold for their own account highly rated investment securities. They will be able to provide check cashing and money transfer services to nonmembers within their field of membership. These changes, along with others, such as easing the process for voluntary mergers, will help credit unions diversify their portfolios and provide more services to individuals and the communities that they serve. The ever-changing dynamics of the financial service industry demands that from time to time this committee review the existing laws and take action where required, not just to increase the laws as we often do, but to adjust and even eliminate archaic laws that may be hindering the success of our financial industry. I believe that this is just what we have done with this regulatory bill, a bill that has a little bit of something for everyone.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but praise for our warriors in Iraq, but I oppose the President's Iraq war. If this was a resolution praising our warriors instead of using them as a pretext for applauding the President's after-the-fact arguments for going to war, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution proposing ways in which Congress and the President will raise our soldiers' pay, improve their housing at home and abroad, ensure quality health care for their families and survivors, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution guaranteeing the greater benefits, job training, educational and employment opportunities for returning veterans, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution demanding that the President develop a real foreign policy agenda instead of a doctrine of preemption and preventative war, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution calling on the President and the Intelligence Community to come clean on why no weapons of mass destruction have been found, I would vote for it. If this was a resolution condemning the no-bid contracts by which private military companies like Halliburton have enriched themselves and whose contributions have fattened the President's campaign war chest, I would vote for it. But since this resolution is none of the above, I am compelled to vote against it. Since this resolution is steeped in hypocrisy and self-congratulatory bravado while refusing to address the false pretenses upon which the Iraqi war was launched, I am compelled to vote against it. Again, this is poli-tricks, again, as this resolution was crafted to divide this Nation, not bring this Nation together. No, none of us had an opportunity on this side to contribute anything to this resolution, if, in fact, they want to have any kind of unity.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to applaud the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on Tuesday ordering the FCC to come up with new wholesale and unbundling rules that can pass legal approval. This decision sets U.S. telecom policy on the correct path as envisioned by both Chambers of Congress when we passed the Telecom Act of 1996. This requirement that the regulated local phone companies lease their phone lines to competitors at below-cost rates, ensuring constant financial losses, as witnessed over the past 3 years, has severely hindered investment and service quality to many communities, both large and small. The time for the FCC to act is now, and with the same sense of urgency the agency displayed after the Super Bowl half-time show. Quick action by Chairman Powell will help spur investment and job creation at a time when our Nation and this sluggish economy certainly need a boost.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Just on that point, because, I think it is important, on the whole western hemisphere because the first statement that we heard from President Chavez from Venezuela is indicating that Venezuela is not Haiti. Because just in April of 2003, there was an attempted coup there, again, threatening democracy; and we stood idly by. And but for the people of Venezuela who decided that they were not going to allow the coup to stand and put the president back, we were silent on that. Our hands were kind of caught, the administration's hands I should say, because the gentleman is correct. I do not think the Congress would have acted that way, but the administration's hand was caught in a cookie jar. Here we come just a few months, we move from that, and we have the same kind of coup. There is a lot of similarities in that, whereas we seem to disregard the institution of democracy because of the dislike of who happens to be the democratically elected president. What we should be doing is looking to see how we can strengthen those institutions of democracy, how we can be helpful to strengthen those institutions as opposed to saying that the way you do that is to have a coup d'etat which gets rid of government altogether and causes mayhem.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Just quickly, it is not only all of the press, but my constituents who have relatives that live in Haiti, and they are on either side of the fence. Some of them do not like Aristide either. But they do not like these common crooks that are there. When they call my office, they are telling me they are afraid for their mothers, for their grandmothers, for their uncles, for their aunts who are living there now. The situation is not better than it was before Aristide was forced to get on the plane. In fact, if anything else, it is worse. That is what they are calling my office and saying to me.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think that CARICOM really should be applauded, because they really stepped up to the plate. They could have sat back and said just let it be. They could have been silent, as we were, up until that point, because we did not push CARICOM or anything. We are the largest democracy on the planet. Yet we did not go in there to urge any kind of diplomatic or political solution. It took the nations of CARICOM to step up to the plate and say, ``Look, we do not want mayhem and violence. We understand the history and significance of Haiti. Therefore, we are going to come up with this plan and try to get two people to the table.'' Who dropped the ball? Unfortunately, this administration dropped the ball, because it did absolutely nothing to urge the opposition to come to the table. In fact, by its silence it said, ``You do not have to come to the table,'' which one knew then would lead to a result of what could possibly be the 33rd coup d'etat in the history of Haiti. When we look at it, the question is, what if anything could have been done by Aristide at that time, because he agreed to everything. First the bishops came with an agreement. Aristide agreed to it. The opposition disagreed. No one compelled them to come to the table. Then CARICOM came. Then there was an international group that came. You would have one side there saying we are willing to talk. I for one had some problems with what was going on, and I thought having some more people involved in government and making sure there is a balance of power, that is what democracy was all about. As I looked at the CARICOM agreement, I saw there were concessions in there that individuals who may have felt they were locked out of government and not able to participate in a democratic process, that they were given, and that was going to be part of the negotiating peace, where they would be given the opportunity to sit in a floor similar to what we have here in the United States of America, in Haiti, so they could have the political debate to argue one side to the other. Now, for sure, in my estimation, I do not agree with most of the things that the Republicans in our House do, as far as what they are moving. But we do not get into armed revolt. What we do is talk about it and debate on the floor and I have an opportunity to participate. Sometimes I even question the opportunity to participate because we are limited in our rules. But still it is the democratic process. It is the institution that we have. I think that is how problems should be resolved, and that is what we should urge people to do. I said for a long time that I disagreed with the results that took place in the year 2000, where I believe that we had a President that was selected by the Supreme Court. I disagreed with that. But I thought that the way that we responded when we said okay, I disagree with it, but the Supreme Court is what our institutions say where there a dispute it is to be resolved. So even the fact that I disagreed with what took place and with the decision, I am going to agree with that. That would be a lesson, an example, for the rest of the world to see, and thereby we should then also encourage other individuals to establish these kinds of institutions and to support them and not undermine them with common crooks and criminals.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me, and I want to thank him for having this important hour. I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus as to all of his insight and his invaluable knowledge. I just left the hearing; and just piggybacking on the colloquy that was taking place, I just asked one of the witnesses that was brought in who used to be in charge of Haiti University, and I asked him a simple question since I know that part of the administration had brought him here and wanted him to testify since he was their witness, whether or not he thought that individuals in Haiti should receive asylum right now coming into America, whether he thought that the policy that the United States has of turning back Haitians and accepting Cubans was a fair policy. And he quickly and unequivocally said that he thought that that policy should change and it shows absolute discrimination against the Haitian people and that that is something we should be moving in a complete bipartisan manner to make sure that we take care of those individuals, particularly now because of the fact that our hands are virtually tied into what is taking place in Haiti currently. We need to talk about the security of the people that are on this little island called Haiti, 8 million people. What is going to happen to them? It seems to me that what took place here when we did not compel the individuals to sit down at the table to have a peaceful negotiation, when we knew that the alternative would be that common crooks and criminals would be coming in armed, coming across the border, people who had been banned for life and people who are really Benedict Arnolds because they were traitors to their own country, that they would be coming back to have an insurrection as well as killing innocent men and women on the streets of Haiti, that we should have done something about it. And now with no form of government that is there now, democracy basically we did not uphold, it has crumbled, the people in Haiti are at the mercy of these individuals. I think that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) clearly pointed out at the Committee on International Relations how he brought both The Washington Post and the New York Times showing this Philippe, who is a known criminal, convicted, is now declaring himself to be the leader and people holding him up as if he is ruling the country, and we saw no place in the paper, nor have I heard of anyone else saying, that they were in charge. We have not heard from the prime minister. We have not seen that the chief justice of the supreme court, anywhere in the constitution, when we talk about democracy, says is supposed to be in charge. Here is this guy demanding and commanding the police force, telling the people if this guy shows his face he is going to have him placed under arrest. So the people of Haiti are under, apparently, unless the papers are lying, and from what I see, are apparently under the jurisdiction of individuals who are convicted criminals. What they did was come, and now they have opened up and destroyed all of the prisons, where people who are under a legal system, we talk about institutions, but under a judicial institution system, that were convicted by law, they are now walking the streets and the people of Haiti are subject to them. So I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), we have to really wonder whether or not the people in Haiti are safe now. I hope that the troops on the ground are changing their position, because I know at one time they were only protecting United States property. So the question is, what about the people?

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Where do they come from?

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), when I think about the whole Haitian task force. Number one, the record should reflect that this is the gentleman's first term in Congress, and he surely has followed right in the foot steps of his mother, Carrie Meek, who long stood fighting for the rights of Haitians and talking about the injustice that Haitians were receiving. And I think that his stepping forward on behalf of the Haitian people is clearly what he has done. We talked in the hearing about the wisdom that the gentleman has brought to the hearing today and that he brings every Wednesday to the Congressional Black Caucus meeting because the gentleman has this interdialogue with individuals from his community, the largest Haitian community on or in our country. And what the gentleman brings is a different insight. It is an insight that unless you have that kind of interaction, everybody would not know of. And the gentleman has done it in such an articulate manner, and we appreciate it. I mean, how the gentleman pointed out today, for example, that our policy, we had a problem talking about getting troops there to stop the common crooks from coming, but we had boats there instantly where you can see them from the shore to stop Haitians from coming here. That is why you only see 900 here. That was just very astute of the gentleman, and we thank him for bringing that forward.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I, too, want to join with the others in thanking him for his leadership for the past year and a half, but particularly on today, on this day where crisis and time is of the essence. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership on the Haiti Task Force. One always has to thank the great gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for simply being Maxine Waters. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed again another one of those times where it is true that the Congressional Black Caucus is indeed the conscience of the Congress, and I would hope that with today's meeting we have awakened the conscience of those individuals that are currently at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that we must not stand idly by as a Nation, a Nation that believes in democracy, and allow a people to die and a democracy to be wiped out. We are indeed the world's only superpower, and just off our shores, in our hemisphere, is a case of democracy being dismantled by individuals who, by every account that I have heard, are violent, are thugs and criminals. In fact, the opposition is supposed to be peaceful, though they will not get to the negotiating table or agree to anything that has been put on the table so that this can be resolved in a peaceful way. But because we are the only world superpower, it seems to me that we would have the ability to drive to get people to the table, to make that kind of difference, to save the lives, so that we can never see people dying in the streets, as we did just a short time ago in Rwanda. In fact, I appeal to Americans that even in being selfish about this, when you think about what is going on in the world, if you want to be selfish about this, you know, if you have instability in Haiti, there could be instability here. In fact, people are coming now. The President says, ``Don't come.'' But they are going to come if their lives are on the line. They are going to go somewhere, and they are going to try to come here. I think it is in our best interests to make sure that we intercede and have peaceful negotiations take place, and those negotiations are obviously not going to take place unless there is something affirmatively done to cause it to happen. We have the strength and the ability to do that. Now, we do not have to do it alone. Clearly there are others that have agreed that they will come. They are just looking for a word; they are looking for some kind of indication to say, ``Go do this,'' so we can bring Canada, we can bring France, and we can bring CARICOM along with us. Now, I will start wrapping it up, because I know that we have a lot of Members who want to say something in regards to this. I will conclude by saying that without military intervention, be it the United States, not just by ourselves, or an international military intervention at this point, I fear that the leaders of Haiti with the most guns will feel that they can rule Haiti. It becomes the law of the jungle. And I seriously cannot see how those who would kill and destroy the institutions that currently exist, such as hospitals and other institutions that are being burned, will bring this great country back up. Let us act now, because the camera of history is roaming. Let it not be on our time that we say that we stood by and did nothing, allowing democracy to topple and people and bloodshed to fill the streets. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President of the United States to do something to act, to lead, to save lives and save democracy in the country of Haiti.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, if not now, when? Blood is in the streets. Anarchy is happening to our neighbor right next door, our third border is at stake. It is time for the United States of America to take serious the activities that are taking place on that island called Haiti, for indeed we should have been there long ago, talking and trying to negotiate and bringing things so that democracy can prevail. We are the largest democracy on the planet Earth; and if democracy means anything, we should look just 90 miles off our shores and say that we are going to support and stand for democracy and not stand for anything that will be less than that, where mere villains and thugs can then take over a country. We should stand strong and say that we are not going to allow that to happen, that we want democracy to flourish everywhere, not just overseas, not just away from home, but right on our third border. That protection that we need, we should be mounting the troops together, the United Nations as well as other foreign countries, to bring to the people on the ground peace.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my unparalleled support for this bill. However, I do not feel that this bill is complete in its entirety. Provisions concerning a feasibility study for a future sister museum facility at the site of the African Burial Ground in New York City, which were present in the Lewis/Watts bipartisan piece of legislation in the last session, are not included in this current bill. The erection of the African Burial Ground International Memorial Museum and Research Center in lower Manhattan is a goal that I intend to work feverishly on with my New York colleagues and others. Such a facility would pay homage to those souls who were brought to this country to help build it, while under enslavement. Such a facility would join the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, the Museum of the American Indian, the World Trade Center site, and other great New York City landmarks as a national and international symbol that tells America's full story of freedom, the quest for freedom, and the openness of our society. Most important, the study of African culture through the results of DNA testing on the African Burial Grounds will help to further educate and enlighten our citizens to a culture that is central to the building of this proud nation. As the Lewis/Watts bill reflected in a Finding, the Secretary of the Smithsonian declared in 1998 that the African Burial Ground site provided the ``perfect'' opportunity to dissect the institution of slavery in this country--urban, rural, northern, and southern-- including the aspects of the international trade. The Burial Grounds in New York are home to the remains of 20,000 enslaved Africans. These men and women were first generation African Americans, who had to endure inhumane conditions aboard slave ships, before they were forced into labor. I attended the ceremonies of October 3rd and 4th at the African Burial Ground commemorating the reinterment of some 430 sets of remains that had been under study at Howard University for the last decade. Thousands of people were also in attendance for this event, signaling a clear indication of the powerful feelings of respect that lies with our citizens for an African sanctum in lower Manhattan. I feel that, ultimately, the new national museum should follow the model of the National Museum of the American Indian, with facilities at both Washington and New York City. The facility in New York, in combination with the magnificent facility to be created here in Washington, would have an overall national and international impact of breathtaking scope and scale. As evident during the ceremonies, an African Burial Ground museum facility would also play a significant role in the revitalization of lower Manhattan in this post-9/11 world, with the hopes that it will become a major national and international visitor's mecca that would join with other New York sites in bringing millions of people, and with them, an economic boom to the entire area. I whole-heartedly believe that the African Burial Ground is a true national treasure. It is unique in this nation and all the world as an archaeological site, and a site of unparalleled significance, symbolism, and power. A site and museum facility of this magnitude of importance must be part of any national museum, and it must be part of New York's African Burial Grounds. I would like to thank John Lewis for his long fight to make the dream of a National Museum of African American History and Culture a reality. I would also like to thank my distinguished colleagues from Kansas and Connecticut, Senators Brownback and Dodd, for leading these efforts in the Senate.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about my recent trip to Iraq and to answer some of the questions millions of Americans have been asking every day since the President first announced that he would seek another $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Just this Friday I returned from a 5-day trip with eight of my Republican and Democratic colleagues as part of a delegation. We toured the south, the north of Iraq, as well as Bagdad; and I was able to see firsthand the schools that have been rebuilt, the teachers we have retrained, and the hospitals, universities and newspapers that we have helped open. I saw Iraqi police in training; and most importantly, I talked to our young men and women, many of them still teenagers or just in their early twenties, who have continued to risk their lives to bring democracy and the comforts of life we enjoy here in the U.S. to Iraq. I came back, like so many of my colleagues, believing that there is no question that this should be about us providing for and supporting our troops, and that we do need to assist in reconstructing Iraq and to ensure the safety of Americans here in the United States and those working abroad in our embassies or even simply traveling abroad. However, it is just as clear to me that we cannot really afford to stay in Iraq, nor can we leave at this time. We cannot stay because the basis upon which we invaded and now occupy that country, in my opinion, was false. Our preparations and understanding of what occupation would require were faulty. Yet, if we were to pull out now, our mistake could subject the region, the world, and especially our country and our people, to grave dangers of terrorism. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a haven for terrorists, but the porous borders of post-Saddam and even the failure of the administration to plan for such an eventuality may be making Iraq such a haven now. The President has put us in a terrible fix. We cannot afford to stay, yet we cannot leave. Meanwhile, we cannot even afford the initial down payment on his flawed policy of preemption. The country cannot afford the $87 billion the President is asking the Congress to appropriate. Indeed, experts say that Iraq this year could only absorb $6 billion. So why is Mr. Bush demanding three times that amount? America cannot afford the price tag that the President has put on this Iraqi misadventure unless he agrees to rescind the tax cuts to the top 1 percent of Americans, unless he understands that we have got to work in a multilateral situation and brings in a true form other nations to share in the cost of this. Because otherwise, the money that we will be spending will be money that we will be taking from the middle class and working class people of this great Nation and the poor who are already paying for this war, especially with their sons and their daughters. Let us make it so this is a shared sacrifice by all Americans. Most of all, our men and women in uniform in Iraq need a change in policy. Mr. Chairman, I vote against this measure. This is a perpetuation of a failed policy and misguided priorities. Even so, the President can turn this around once he makes a choice between troop strength and tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. The President can turn this around once he makes a choice between international cooperation and stuffing the pockets of partisan cronies. Mr. Chairman, we know this is just the first installment.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following document for the Congressional Record. [From the Financial Times, June 17, 2003] The Horn In Peril When is a ``final and binding'' decision reached by a neutral body of legal experts open to negotiation? The international community is facing this question in the Horn of Africa, where the regional giant Ethiopia has rejected as ``unacceptable'' a Border Commission ruling on its border with tiny Eritrea. The outside world was appalled when two of Africa's poorest countries went to war in 1998. It heaved a sigh of relief when both governments agreed, after losing at least 70,000 lives, to submit their frontier to international arbitration. But Ethiopia's rejection of the unanimous decision reached by a Border Commission sitting in The Hague has raised the prospect of, at worst, a new war and, at best, an indefinite stand-off. External donors sympathise with the tricky position in which the ruling places Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia's prime minister. Undermined by hardliners in his own party, Mr. Meles is also resented by ordinary Ethiopians who have never accepted the independence of Eritrea, their former coastal province. Foreign governments know that losing Badme, the settlement that was the flashpoint for the war, represents a symbolic humiliation for the prime minister. They also nurse a certain distaste for an authoritarian Eritrean government that has jailed domestic dissenters and closed down the private press. But if international arbitration were easy for losing parties to swallow, wars would never occur in the first place. If the Border Commission's decision on Badme were to go unenforced, Eritrea could reconsider its prompt pull-out from the contested Greater Hanish Island, allotted by an international court to Yemen in 1998. Nigeria could continue to defy the International Court of Justice's ruling last year that the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula belongs to Cameroon. ``Might is right'' must not become the deciding principle in territorial disputes across Africa, where so many colonial borders cut across cultural and ethnic lines. Ethiopia's rejection comes at a time when both countries are appealing for millions of dollars in food aid to alleviate a four-year drought. The failure to settle the border dispute will not come cheap. Maintaining a 4,000 strong United Nations buffer force has already cost about $500m (euro 420m), which could have been better spent feeding starving rural families. Donor countries cannot sit idly by while positions harden to a point where future compromise becomes impossible. While there is an understandable reluctance to use humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip, they should leave Ethiopia in no doubt that longer-term development aid is at risk. And they should firmly spell out this link before Ethiopia's ruling party conference takes place this autumn, when Mr. Meles risks being boxed in by the impassioned nationalistic rhetoric of his colleagues. There is far more at stake here than the relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment just simply says that no funds in fiscal year 2004 can be used to close the St. Albans Veterans Facility. Basically, the St. Albans veterans care facility has been a key provider of services and jobs at St. Albans for as long as I can remember. It sits in the heart of my district on what was formerly a military base in Queens County, New York. The St. Albans VA Primary and Extended Care Center provides primary care and offers specialized geriatric programs and restorative rehabilitation. Geriatric programs provide comprehensive evaluation and safe, effective management of elderly cognitively impaired veterans. An outpatient adult day care health care program and home-based primary care program exists and cares for the physically disabled, medically complicated elderly veterans who are at risk of nursing home placement or recurrent hospitalization. A comprehensive psychosocial rehabilitation domiciliary program providing incentive therapy, vocational counseling, and independent living skills training for patients seeking to return to independent living is provided by the VA Primary and Extended Care Facility. This facility has 386 beds. This facility provides inpatient extended care services, including skilled nursing, antibiotic therapy, and respite care. Also provided is subacute restorative rehabilitation for the elderly. The campus also hosts an ambulatory care center that provides primary care and specialty care, including podiatry, audiology, dental service, and optometry. VA adult health care and home-based primary care programs, providing outpatient geriatric care, is present at the St. Albans campus. A homeless domiciliary emphasizing comprehensive psychosocial rehabilitation exists at the extended care center. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).