Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the CARES program that the VA is looking to is to reduce wasteful and underutilized space; that it is costing $1 million a day. I understand the need not to be wasteful, but the St. Albans facility is not a place of waste. It is not only a key to the County of Queens, it is a key for all of New York City and is also a huge economic engine in the City of New York. We need this facility, particularly now; and it is really something that is not underutilized. In fact, it is overutilized. And so I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and keep the St. Albans VA Facility for fiscal year 2004 and accept this amendment.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, as we enter this late night, I am reminded of a show: Things that make you say hmmm. When I think of just the title of this bill and what is referred reimportation of drugs, I say hmmm. Reimportation tries to give the implication that the drugs were manufactured here, gone over, and they are coming back here so, therefore, they are safe. If the issue of safety were not there, what would we be talking about? We are really talking about the reimportation of drugs from many a different country. The FDA, if you just look up at the Web site of the FDA, over the last 5 years they have only inspected labs, labs over the last 5 years. Yet, we say safety is not an issue. My esteemed colleague from Illinois talked earlier. He said he spoke with the former Secretary of the FDA, Donna Shalala; and she said if the FDA had additional money, maybe they could do this. Well, as indicated, there is no additional appropriations here because the implication is if the FDA does not have the money, they cannot ensure safety of the medicine. What money will go to the FDA? There is no appropriations to this bill. Just recently there was a situation that occurred in Florida where 19 individuals were indicted for distributing millions of dollars of counterfeit cancer, AIDS and other drugs. It occurs all over this country. If H.R. 2427 were to pass tonight, this is exactly what the Congress would be encouraging. Yes, we would be encouraging counterfeit drugs, improperly stored drugs, expired drugs, diluted products to enter our borders and to be distributed by qualified individuals, who, when I read the bill, qualified individuals, who they are? They have added, qualified individuals can bring this in, but there is no clear definition of who those qualified individuals are. Supporting this bill suggests that health and safety warnings, I present, are simply myths. I beg to differ. I have two pills in my hands. Distinguish between an authentic pill and a counterfeit pill. I ask anybody to just tell me how you, not experts, can determine which is the real one and which one is the counterfeit.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to lend my strong support for the Kilpatrick amendment of the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill. This proposal to provide an additional $300 million in funding for HIV/AIDS is critical, prudent, and timely. The United States of America has the opportunity to show both the resources and action and commitment to tackling the AIDS crisis on a global scale. As has been stated, an estimated 42 million people worldwide are currently living with the AIDS virus. Last year alone, over 3 million people died from AIDS, and another 5 million were newly infected. In selected countries on the African continent, AIDS will kill, kill one in two young people. Other regions of the world have been hit hard from AIDS as well. In fact, AIDS is the leading cause of death in many Latin American and Caribbean countries, with 2 million people living with HIV. Over 7 million people in Asia and the Pacific are living with HIV. There is no denying the immediate need for additional HIV/AIDS assistance. This international killer is indiscriminate in its targets. It respects no geographical boundaries and heeds to no race, no age, and no religion. AIDS has become the number one killer in communities throughout the world; and we must attack it with the precision, the determination, and the coordination it requires. This proposed injection of new funds is offset by using funds budgeted for the Millennium Challenge Account. We have an opportunity to put much-needed and available funds toward a dire and critical need. Mr. Chairman, I have heard from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this, they say that this will weaken MCA. I am convinced that when we look at this new foreign assistance initiative that has yet to be signed into law, that once the President, once it is signed into law, he will have to appoint a CEO with the consent of the Senate, he will have to hire 150 to 200 employees, there will be countries that have to be selected and proposals that will have to be reviewed and approved before any money starts flowing, which will probably not be until next spring. This amendment would leave $500 million to fund this new initiative, more than enough money to get the program operating and to fund proposals from eligible countries. I firmly believe that we can today make a bold and creative statement about both our judgment and our commitment to the global AIDS crisis by taking this bold and creative step. We must show the courage to make decisions and the wisdom to spend money where it is needed and spend it now. There are programs on the ground, up and running, ready to engage the struggle against this disease. There are troopers on the front lines of the HIV/AIDS battle and they need our assistance, cooperation, support, and the funds. We should not let even the slightest opportunity slip by where we could have provided ammunition against this dreaded disease. Mr. Chairman, we stand for a lot in America. We spend almost $4 billion a month fighting a war, and we talk about we want to make a difference in lives. Here is a chance for America to take the lead, to bring folks together and to say we are going to put our money where our mouths are. We are going to make sure that we save these lives. These lives. Because when we talk about trying to fight dictators and we talk about changing dictators, we want to change them because they are killing people. Well, this dreaded disease is killing people quicker than any dictator. We have the opportunity, if we only have the will, to put our money where our mouths are, and with this small $300 million, to say that we are going to make sure that we eradicate AIDS wherever it may raise its ugly head. Let us not just speak with words. Let us speak with deeds, deeds that can be heard around the world. Because if not, sometimes people say, for whom does the bell toll, and this is the boomerang. So for whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee, if we do not wake up.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I come before this body to offer an amendment to today's Ready to Teach Act. As we here in Congress continue to discuss year in and year out the education of our children, this Nation's future, I am pleased to offer an amendment that I feel will have a large impact not only on the diversity of schools today but also on the future academic achievement of our students. My amendment proposes to encourage partnerships between educational entities and inner city and rural secondary schools. This partnership will be funded by allowable uses of funds, which will fund outreach and coordinate efforts that encourage inner city and rural youth to pursue teaching as a career. The need for such collaboration is evident to both educational researchers and anyone who simply walks into nearly any public school in the Nation. Research shows that our educational system must increase its efforts to encourage a higher proportion of students of color and males into the postsecondary pipeline. Too often, students leak out of the college pipeline between their 9th and 12th grade years because they do not consider themselves college material. My amendment helps prevent that from occurring. By forming partnerships between educational entities and secondary schools, an opportunity is created to identify those secondary students who find teaching attractive and encourage them to remain focused on their studies. Not only does my amendment encourage teaching as a career, but it also encourages diversity. Obviously, a teacher's effectiveness depends, first and foremost, on his or her skills and high expectations; yet we also know that students benefit in important ways by having some teachers who look differently or some who look like them, who share similar cultural experiences, who come from similar neighborhoods, and who serve as role models demonstrating that education and achievement are things to be respected. It is important to expose children to a diverse teaching staff and to diverse role models within each of our schools. Where we have a rural or inner city school with teachers unlike the students, we are giving students a stunted educational experience. Mr. Chairman, as schools are redoubling their commitment to raising standards and closing achievement gaps, we need to seize every opportunity to boost the achievement of inner city and rural students. This amendment provides us with an opportunity not only to change the demographics of the teacher workforce, but also to encourage students to continue their pursuit of an education and to reveal to them the nature of the work of teaching. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their cooperation in allowing me to offer this amendment, and I request the support of all my colleagues as we seek to provide more educational opportunities to all our children. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, when I first saw the headlines of the bill, I looked at the bill, it came across my desk, because everybody wants to do something about small business. I first said to my staff, let's get on this bill; it will help small business. But then after I read it a second time and a third time, the devil is always in the details. The devil is in the fine print. The devil is in what you read. When I really read the bill, I found that this bill would actually be devastating; it is what we call short-term gain for long-term pain. When you look over the years, the pain that really will happen to people who we are trying to help in the long-term will be devastating. Then when I looked even a little bit closer and tried to watch it to see how it affected those low-wage earners that my colleague just talked about and minorities and women in particular, then I noticed another substantial devastating event, the fact that what this bill does because many of the people that we want to help, they happen to be minority and women and how they disproportionately will be affected by this bill. In fact, when you look at it, certain diseases because of people who are of color, Latino and African American, you look at approximately 2.8 million or 13 percent of all African Americans and 2 million or 10.2 percent of all Latino Americans have diabetes. They would not be covered under this. They could be cherrypicked. African American men have a 20 percent higher incident rate and a 40 percent higher death rate from all forms of cancer combined than white men do. They will be affected by this bill disproportionately. African American women with breast cancer are 67 percent more likely to die from the disease than Caucasians. They will be disproportionately affected under this cherrypicking, what this bill will do to them. Hispanics experience the highest invasive cervical cancer incidence rates of any group other than Vietnamese. They will be hurt and devastated by this. Hispanics account for nearly one-fifth of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States. African Americans account for approximately 35 percent of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States. They will not be covered. They will not be picked up by these folks. Now, more than ever, minority populations and women depend on health care. H.R. 660 stands to make this needed health care harder for those populations to obtain in the long run, not in the short run. In fact, most States require insurance to cover cancer screenings, maternity, diabetes treatment, and other benefits that provide medical care for minorities and women. However, Federal AHP legislation would allow certain insurers to avoid complying with these State laws. This means a loss of crucial benefits for many families, that 1 million that we hear my other colleagues talking about. While our Nation is faced with a new health care crisis, H.R. 660 is not the solution. It is absolutely not the solution. We must work to pass legislation that offers genuine relief to small employers while preserving the significant health care reforms undertaken by the States. I urge my colleagues to voice their opposition to H.R. 660, the so-called Small Business Health Fairness Act.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to discuss real intentions. The real intentions of the majority party to continue its careless actions that further devastate a suffering economy, that further diminish the opportunities of working and military families to care for their loved ones, and that further helps the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. My colleagues, last month's $350 billion tax-cut package that passed was not really about stimulating the economy, but instead it was about borrowing nearly a trillion dollars to engineer a permanent shift in the tax burden away from the very wealthy, and a permanent reduction in federal revenues. If the tax bill's real intention was to stimulate the economy, those 12 million checks of up to $400 would have been first in, not first out, of the legislation. Again, the real intentions of the majority came to light--to provide relief for upper-income taxpayers. These real intentions are best seen in H. Res. 270, which provides low-income families with a child tax credit, but only if higher-income families are also eligible. The intentions of the majority have caused many upper-income taxpayers to pay attention to what is currently happening and they send a thank you to those who support this shady legislation. They want to say: Thank you for borrowing another $82 billion at a time when the federal deficit has exceeded $400 billion for 2003 and approaches $500 billion for 2004, adding billions of dollars in ``debt tax'' onto the backs of the very families that need this assistance the most. Thank you for making a compromise between the two parties so hard to reach, for you are only further preventing discussion of a real prescription drug benefit and the rising percentage of unemployed people across this great nation. Thank you for ignoring the agreement reached in the Senate, you are only further keeping Congress from focusing on other important issues such as the 41 million uninsured people in this nation. Thank you for the corporate welfare to criminal enterprises like MCI Worldcom who stole the retirement savings of more than 1 million pension holders in New York State. These pension holders were victimized by MCI Worldcom's fraud and now see MCI abusing Sec. 108 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to avoid paying about $4 billion in future taxes because of its past criminal behavior. Finally, thank you for the deceptive games being played, we truly see how as a majority party how careless and clueless you are about what it takes to restart this economy and support needy families throughout this nation.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, MCI WorldCom represents the largest corporate fraud in United States history, costing shareholders more than $180 billion and still counting. So far, more than 22,000 jobs have been lost, and the company just received a tax refund from the Federal Government totaling $300 million for the so-called overpayments on the fraud MCI WorldCom committed. Meanwhile, the impact in New York has been devastating. MCI WorldCom has laid off 30 percent of its workforce in New York, with most of the cuts coming in Long Island. New York State's pension fund, the second largest in the Nation, has lost about $306 million on MCI WorldCom, the worst single loss in the firm's history. Not to be excluded, New York City's five pension funds reported that they lost $160 million on WorldCom stock. Why should we care? Because these pension funds represent a portion, possibly a significant portion, of New York State's public sector employees, policemen, firefighters, teachers, et cetera, who became victims of MCI WorldCom's fraud. Just the State pension fund alone represents more than 950,000 active and retired public employees and their beneficiaries. There is so much more that can be said of this case; however, since time is brief, I will focus my remarks on what I believe are the most egregious items of this case. First, the proposed settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. I am extremely disappointed with the SEC's decision to settle with MCI WorldCom for a mere $500 million, and I know that sounds like a lot, but the original $1.5 billion fine represented less than 1 percent of the losses amassed by shareholders because of the company's fraud. This eye-popping ruling brings the SEC's credibility into question. Such ostrich-like attitudes by the SEC will only increase cynicism from investors on the SEC's legitimacy. As MCI begins to rebrand its corporate image and seeks to distance itself from its criminal stigma, it is incumbent upon the SEC to act in a decisive manner that adequately punishes MCI WorldCom for its massive crimes. Their clever attempts to return to corporate normalcy cannot be realized until MCI WorldCom makes complete restitution for its criminal acts. As the regulatory agency tasked with overseeing corporate behavior, the SEC should serve as a strong enforcer and not a willing accomplice that rewards criminal activity. Last week, I filed a petition with the U.S. district court requesting that Judge Rakoff delay any decision in the MCI WorldCom-SEC settlement until adequate information is available publicly to enable the thorough evaluation of the company's fraud, the proposed settlement, and MCI WorldCom's current and future plans for compliance with applicable law. I also urged the court to hold a hearing on the findings set forth in the upcoming reports of the examiner in bankruptcy and the special investigative committee and evaluate the proposed settlement only when the SEC's investigation of the company is complete. The second issue regarding this case is MCI WorldCom's attempt to use the Federal bankruptcy laws under Chapter 11 reorganization. As a member of the House Committee on Financial Services and a supporter of reforming our bankruptcy laws, I can tell my colleagues this is not the intent of Congress. Reorganization under the bankruptcy laws should not apply when the assets are the product of criminal activities. Bankruptcy should not be a vehicle for laundering stolen goods. I am shocked and appalled that MCI WorldCom, or any other company for that matter, can manipulate our laws in this manner after admitting to criminal behavior. This is why I am working on a legislative remedy that will correct this and plan to introduce that legislation very soon. It is important to realize that if MCI WorldCom is allowed to reemerge from bankruptcy with 90 percent of its debt eliminated and retain the fruits of its crime, they will gain a significant artificial advantage over its competitors who played by the rules. If this happens, the message that regulators, policymakers, and other government officials would then send to the marketplace is crime does indeed pay; cook your books, defraud your investors, and you too can seek bankruptcy protection and become a more viable competitor. The security laws are intended to protect innocent parties from fraud in the marketplace, while the Bankruptcy Code is intended to facilitate the reorganization of financially troubled companies who make unwise but honest business decisions; not companies who commit fraud. The case with MCI Worldcom is clear. There actions were to defraud investors, their employees and the public. And they did so very successfully. Before I conclude, I need to make two final points. MCI Worldcom executives have stated that they are owned tax refund on profits they ``really didn't make.'' Also, according to Business Week, the company plans to carry forward its newly recognized losses--``at least $6.5 billion''--from prior years in order to shelter future earnings from taxes. This loophole allows MCI Worldcom to abuse the tax code because under Internal Revenue Code Sec. 108(a), income from the cancellation of debt (COD) is excluded from a taxpayer's gross income if the cancellation occurs in a Title 11 bankruptcy proceeding or under other specified circumstances. Under the code, sec. 108(b), a taxpayer benefiting from this income exclusion must reduce its tax attributes, including net operating losses (NOLs). MCI Worldcom is exploiting an obscurity in the law. Rather than treat its NOLs and other tax attributes on a consolidated basis, the company is interpreting the law in a manner that allows it to deal with the NOLs on a separate basis. This would allow MCI Worldcom to preserve its NOLs and other tax attributes, so an estimated $10 billion or more of income to the new MCI Worldcom will be tax free. This means that the company will not pay taxes into the foreseeable future. Now, although I support targeted tax relief and I realized long ago that the Bush tax cuts benefitted those at the very top, this is ridiculous. Here again, I will introduce legislation to clarify the treatment of tax attributes under section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for taxpayers who file consolidated returns. Finally, I need to address MCI Worldcom's best customer--you, me and everyone who pays federal taxes. Why? Because the federal government continues to be its biggest and best customer despite the company's criminal behavior. For a matter of fact, the company is getting no-bid contracts like the one to build a wireless network in Iraq, a line of business the company is not even in. Curious? You bet. The federal government did not have this same policy with Enron and Arthur Andersen. Since committing the largest fraud in U.S. history MCI Worldcom has moved up to the eighth largest federal technology contractor according to a review by Washington Technology, with $772 million in sales. Why would the government award business to a criminal organization who is very unstable? You will have to get your answer from the Bush Administration. To allow a corrupt, criminal enterprise like MCI Worldcom to perpetuate its violation of the securities laws and visit this injury on an already distraught sector would be an injustice to the millions of its victims nationwide. Whether it is the proposed settlement, its bankruptcy proceedings, its abuse of the tax code or the awarding of federal contracts, MCI Worldcom must pay for its crimes and make full restitution. Anything less will be the biggest fraud of all.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, not because of political ideology, not because I believe my wife, my two sisters, and my three daughters should have the right to decide when to bring a child into this world, but because I read the bill. I researched the history and I understand the real issues involved here. Unfortunately, H.R. 760, the so-called partial-birth abortion ban and, again, partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, distorts the issue. H.R. 760 is a broadly written piece of legislation that would outlaw some of the safest and most common abortion procedures and makes no exception to preserve a woman's health or her fertility. There are other so-called facts in this bill that are not supported by medical research. Contained in the bill, it is written that the procedure is never necessary to preserve the health of the woman. The key word here is never necessary. Well, I say ask Vikki Stella, a diabetic who, after examining all other options with her doctor, made a decision, along with her husband, to terminate her pregnancy of a much- wanted son. Vikki's option to choose this procedure was believed to be the safest and most appropriate, leaving her the opportunity to live a healthy life with her husband and two young daughters, as well as the opportunity to bear the son that they later gave birth to, Nicholas. This bill distorts the truth and politicizes a constitutional right of all women in this country. And the in rulings of Roe, Casey and Stenberg by the Supreme Court, the Court stated that every abortion restriction must contain a health exception that allows an abortion when necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. This bill does not do it. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill in its present form. Mr. Speaker, I come before this body with two purposes in mind. First, to discuss the demons I battled as I came to a conclusion regarding my position on the legislation before us today. Secondly, to hopefully educate those listening and watching this debate taking place before us. As I sat in my office yesterday evening confronting my long-held beliefs and realizing the possible collision that my surfacing position on this issue may have with my political ideology, I chose to delve deep into the heart of the issue and question my beliefs regarding abortion that I had never questioned before. As I further focused over the legality and morality of ending a pregnancy, the rights of a woman, and the rights of an unborn child pre-viability and post-viability, I came to the decision to oppose this legislation. No, not to oppose it because of political ideology. No, not to oppose it because I believe my wife, two sisters, and three daughters should have a right to decide when to bring a child into the world. But because, I read the bill, I researched the history, and I came to terms with the real issue. Unfortunately, H.R. 760, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 distorts the real issue--preventing members in this body and constituents throughout the nation from truly understanding what is at stake. H.R. 760 is a broadly written piece of legislation that would outlaw some of the safest and most common abortion procedures, and it makes no exception to preserve a woman's health or future fertility. As the supporters of this bill incorrectly label the procedure of dilation and extraction, commonly known as D & X, but for the purposes of this bill as partial birth abortion, they vividly describe a procedure that they wish to ban in 2000 was found constitutional in the Supreme Court case Stenberg v. Carhart. First, I will address the manner in which this legislation describes the fetus as a child. Medical journals describe the object in the womb of the mother as a fetus until fully delivered. And I, like many of you, not being a member of society who holds accredited medical credentials must follow the standards put forth by the medical society. The proponents of the bill truly attempt to be creative in its attempts to have readers of the language imagine an actual child going through this procedure. It almost worked on me, but that is when I looked closer at the language and focused on Section 2, subsection 5 of the legislation. There, contained in the bill, it is written that the procedure ``is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'' And here is where H.R. 760 further distorts the truth. They key phrase here is never necessary. Well, this all depends on what one values as a necessity. Yes, one procedure could have an advantage over another in certain cases. Where one doctor may prefer dilation and evacuation, commonly known as D & E, which involves a doctor inserting an instrument into a woman's womb and dismembering the fetus, because it is the safest procedure to ensure the woman's life and health, that same doctor may choose D & X for another patient because it is the safest and most appropriate procedure for that particular patient to ensure the woman's life and health. Unlike the proponents of this bill, I will stand on this House floor today and admit that sometimes this gruesome procedure is a necessity for some women. For example, it was the only option for Vikki Stella--a diabetic who, after examining all other options with her doctor, made the decision along with her husband to terminate her pregnancy of her much-wanted son. Vicki's option to choose this procedure was believed to be the safest and most appropriate--leaving her the opportunity to live a healthy life with her husband and two young daughters--as well as the opportunity to bear the son she later gave birth to, Nicholas. My colleagues, this bill distorts the truth and politicizes a constitutional right of all women in this country. Incorrectly labeling the procedure and overriding the ruling of the Supreme Court as reaffirmed by the majority in Stenberg that a woman's health must be the paramount consideration, women across the nation are being denied their constitutional right. As a result of the ruling by the Supreme Court, every abortion restriction must contain a health exception that allows an abortion when ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' H.R. 760 does not do this. And for this reason, I find the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 unconstitutional and unworthy of my support, the support of my colleagues, and the support of the people of this great Nation. I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill in its present form.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, I am honored to pay tribute to Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian on the occasion of his third anniversary in Office. During the last 3 years, he has maintained both economic and political growth for his country. The people of Taiwan enjoy one of the best standards in Asia and full political freedom. President Chen has also strengthened Taiwan's relationship with the United States. We appreciate his support of our war against terrorism and his pledge of humanitarian assistance to post-war Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the spread of SARS has threatened the entire region and permeated the west with sporadic infections. We hope that President Chen will be successful in controlling the spread of SARS in Taiwan and that Taiwan will not suffer the disastrous economical and medical set back such an epidemic would promote. Once again, I congratulate President Chen on 3 years of service to the Taiwanese people and wish him well as he strives to develop the political and economic landscape of Taiwan.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to bring an urgent matter to the attention of my colleagues in the House. After recording the largest corporate fraud in United States history, costing thousands of jobs and $176 billion in losses to investors, representing three times that of Enron, WorldCom is back, just rebranding themselves to their former name MCI. As a supporter of reforming our bankruptcy laws, I am shocked how MCI or any other company can be rewarded for cooking the books, cheating and stealing, and stand to gain by their criminal behavior. Reorganization under the bankruptcy laws should not apply when the assets are the product of criminal activities. Bankruptcy should not be the vehicle for laundering stolen goods. This is the case with MCI, even though they have changed their name and recently rolled out a new marketing campaign to distance themselves from their ``criminal stigma.'' What an artificial advantage for MCI, our bankruptcy laws. In conclusion, here is an idea how MCI can market themselves. They can market by saying: MCI stands for massive corporate indiscrepancies.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, the first tragedy of today is we did not have democracy at its best. Democracy at its best would have called for a debate on this great floor of the House of Representatives so that the Democrats and Republicans would have had an opportunity to roll out their respective plans so that the people of America would have known what the Republican plan was and what the Democratic plan was. However, it must be out of fear that the majority had decided that they were going to completely silence the minority by not allowing them to debate the issues on the floor so that the American people can see what is happening here in this House of Representatives. Therefore, I am compelled to come to make a statement in Special Orders as opposed to debating with my colleagues on something that is so fundamental and so important to our great Nation. It is important to its future, and it is important for our children and our children's children. So I have to rise today to express my concern and opposition to the huge, unfair, and illogical tax cut which the majority just propelled through the House of Representatives today. I listened to the debate this morning, and I had to wonder how long it would take, if you would call that a debate. Because it was only an hour and we did not have an opportunity to do anything else on our side, I had to wonder how long would it take before we, as a body, realize that this tax cut is nothing more than the 2001 tax cut in 2003 clothes. In May of 2001, we, those of us who are Democrats, made a passionate plea to the administration to temper and equally disburse its 10-year tax cut which did not protect the Social Security trust fund, did not include funds for much-needed domestic priorities, and was almost totally based on projected revenues barring any catastrophic event. A modest tax surplus meant that Americans had earned some tax relief. My Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), proposed a fair and responsible tax cut, job creation and economic stimulus plan. Most importantly, we tried to convince the administration that should some major national emergency require us to draw on emergency funds, there would be none if we spent it all then. The media and many called us pessimists and naysayers. But then sad for all of us, September 11 happened; and on September 12, 2001, we found ourselves poised to expend the greatest amount of personal, monetary, and political resources in our history. The debt ceiling has now become a ballistic missile, and it is unguided at that. Most importantly, we are now faced with the largest deficit in the history of this great country. This does not sound like fiscal responsibility to me. What this $550 billion fiscal monster does effect is another round of tax cuts tilted toward the affluent and deficits that will become a future tax on the rest of us and our children. The Social Security trust fund surpluses will be misused every year for at least 11 years to mask the even larger deficits. Estimates are that by 2012 the resulting debt load will be about $50,000 per American household. This is a travesty, and we should not be a part of it. Some say, what about some tax relief? I agree with providing some tax relief. I agree with not allowing marriage to be a discriminating tax category. I believe people should be given incentives to save more for their retirement, especially when they live longer, and the Republican policies that we see will make us live longer, but without Social Security. I cannot agree with leveraging Social Security, earned income and child tax credits, food stamps, family support, student loans, public housing, drug elimination programs, section 8 housing opportunities, and the virtual zeroing out of all unemployment compensation in order to make the rich richer and the real people the holders of a budget- busting, loose-cannon tax cut promissory note. So, as I conclude, we sought then, as we do now, to provide tax relief that is fair, responsible, and immediate. This tax cut is aimed at the coffers of the rich. We all know that tax cuts for the rich and affluent will not help the economy. The people who will spend the money are those who need it the most! Let's keep in mind that 2.6 million private sector jobs have been lost since the end of 2000! It is 2003 and we are still paying for unintended consequences, ill-conceived tax cuts and growing domestic obligations. This is not the time for ``country store'' give-aways!! and if we give anything away--we should at least give everyone something to spend and not just those who have it already. We should seek to do something that is fair, responsible and immediate. Economists nation-wide are in agreement that this type of tax cut will do little or nothing to crate jobs or stimulate the economy. More than 400 professional economists, including ten Nobel Laureates agree that: ``Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that such comments are not politically driven. They do not reflect some partisan attempt to dismantle sound and effective fiscal policy. The in-coming Director of the Congressional Budget Office, a Republican appointee, has testified to the skepticism of these tax cuts either stimulating the economy or paying for themselves. Mr. Speaker we sought then--as we do now--to provide tax relief that is fair, responsible and immediate. Throughout the day's debate, extension of remarks, special orders and other comments, my colleagues have eloquently highlighted the Democratic alternative: fair, responsible, and immediate have been our cry. I won't repeat the details--Mr. Speaker you know what they are. We were unable to even bring a Democratic alternative up for debate and that, Mr. Speaker, is the real tragedy of this debacle.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I want to thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Chair, the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Cummings), for organizing today's Special Order on Haiti. I want to salute the members of the Haitian Task Force and my good friend and colleague who is from California and shares the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Financial Services with me, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for her outstanding leadership and tireless commitment to the people of the Nation of Haiti and in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic wherever it raises its ugly head. The Nation indeed owes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) a debt of gratitude. There is a saying that all politics are local. And for me, Haiti is a local political issue. I am proud to represent the constituents of the sixth congressional district of New York which has one of the largest Haitian American communities in America. But that is not the only reason why the Haitian people are important to me and why the Nation of Haiti is important to America. Haiti is important to me because America cannot and should not continue to have a foreign policy towards Haiti, which is one of the poorest nations, if not the poorest nation, in our hemisphere, a foreign policy which, in many ways, fails to support the rights of the Haitian people for democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity. This administration cannot talk with credibility and moral clarity about willingness to use our political, economic, military, and diplomatic foreign policy instruments in the name of spreading America's universal values globally. Yet, we only apply it selectively when it is in our national interests. Mr. Speaker, the people of Haiti are a proud people, a people who have a long history of being at the forefront of struggles against slavery and for independence against European colonialism in this hemisphere; a history which connects the people of Haiti with African Americans. In 1791, Haitian slaves initiated a successful slave revolt against France. The Haitian slaves ousted Napoleon and by 1804, the island became the first black independent nation. At first, our Nation did not recognize Haiti as an independent Nation out of fear that Haiti could serve as an example to others to fight against any country which practiced slavery. It was not until 1862 that the United States finally granted Haiti diplomatic recognition and sent noted abolitionist Frederick Douglass as America's Consular Minister to Haiti. But as we know today, for many developing nations, political independence from their former colonial masters did not automatically translate into stable democracies, economic independence, and sustainable development. Haiti, like many post-colonial developing nations, has struggled with internal civil wars and political instability. The people of Haiti have been dripped in decades of structural violence, dictatorship, human degradation, and economic poverty the likes of which are an affront to humanity. While the reasons for such sufferings are complex, the fact that it exists in today's world of wealth and technology right here in our hemisphere is something that we cannot ignore. We cannot ignore that our immigration policy treats Haitians differently from other immigrants seeking to escape political violence. We cannot ignore that our foreign policy regarding Haiti has become tied to partisan politics. We cannot ignore that Haiti faces an HIV/AIDS epidemic and this administration has played a role in hindering international economic assistance to Haiti because we cannot come up with a policy approach that balances the needs of the Haitian people with our requirement that assistance be used properly. So, Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say that if America can muster the political will and mobilize billions of dollars in resources to wage a war thousands of miles away from our shores, what about Haiti? When will America mobilize the same kind of resources and political will to wage a war against poverty, against disease, against human suffering right here in our hemisphere? If such rights and values are truly universal, Haitians deserve nothing less. We can do more to support the people of Haiti so that they can reclaim their human dignity. We can and we must. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my friend, for her tireless effort, commitment, and hard work.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 165. I want to thank my good friend Doug Bereuter, Chairman of the Sub- Committee on Europe for his leadership on keeping the issue of Cyprus on the table. With so much focus on Iraq, it would be easy to forget about other true multilateral efforts to support peace and stability in the world. Mr. Speaker, some may wonder why the issue of peacefully re-uniting Cyprus (a nation divided for nearly 30 years) is important for Americans and for the world? For many Greek and Turkish-Americans this international issue is deeply personal because it directly affects loved ones. In spite of the recent setback, Cyprus does represent one of the better examples of how America and Europe, working in cooperation, can help resolve international disputes. While we share the disappointment that the United Nations-led effort to craft a comprehensive settlement for Cyprus was not successful, it does not change the fact, that the effort itself represents a shining example of how important and relevant the United Nations truly is to pursuing peace and stability in the world. Mr. Speaker, for smaller nations in the world, which don't have strategically important resources, and live next to more powerful states, who have even more powerful allies, the United Nations and international law represents one of their only shields of defense, one of their best pillars of stability, and a means by which their voice is heard in the international community. House Resolution 165 allows this Congress to say to Americans, the citizens of Cyprus, and the people of the world that we stand with all those who wish for a re-united Cyprus that is prosperous, democratic and stable; and that global cooperation remains the best path for peacefully making that wish come true.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and of course from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa, we spend a great amount of time on exploring and understanding conflicts in Africa and how devastating the symptoms of the civil war and low-intensity conflicts can be in terms of loss of life and loss of development opportunities. However, we often do not spend sufficient time on the underlying causes of conflicts of the wars, including wars started and perpetuated over trying to control who gets to benefit from the free trade of Africa's vast natural resources like diamonds. Today's bill makes a positive step in the right direction to bring an end to those who would profit from conflict and war and violence at the expense of socioeconomic development. It makes a step in the right direction to wage a war on the international trade nexus of money, diamonds and weapons which help fuel conflicts in Africa. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for supporting this initiative. It represents a compromise between doing more to help stop the trade of illegal conflict diamonds while also protecting the trade of diamonds from countries which produce and sell diamonds in ways which support economic development. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1584 is a measure we can all support. We must not lose sight of the fact that for centuries Africa's vast resources have been used in legal and illegal ways and provide little benefits to African societies. If we want to change these realities, if we want the trade of Africa's diamonds, oil, and gold to support economic growth and development, we must devote as equal a level of attention and financial resources as we spend on trade liberalization and privatization efforts to assist African societies in building the necessary economic, regulatory, supervisory, and enforcement institutions and laws that every society must have to have a transparent, competitive and free market economy, an economy where both the rights and obligations of the private sector and consumers are protected, an economy which provides opportunities and freedom for all. This Congress can start today with H.R. 1584.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the troops, to our troops overseas and everywhere in the world, thank you. I thank them for their bravery, thank them for their courage, thank them for believing in this Nation, thank them for being willing to give their life for our freedom. We love them, we support them, and I am sure that is all 535 Members of Congress. As I look at this resolution, to me it is like a contract, and if a person signs a contract, that means they agree with everything in the contract. I do not agree with the doctrine of preemptive strike. Therefore, as to page 4, line 4 through 7, I disagree, and therefore, I cannot sign on to this contract. I really wanted to sign on to and vote for this resolution, and we had an opportunity to speak as one Congress, House-Senate alike, sending the same message. That is unity. What a great opportunity we had. What a great opportunity we missed.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership in bringing us to the House floor to speak to the American people tonight about the Bush administration's decision to choose war as the best way to make the American people safe. It is a choice which I believe is wrong. First and foremost, in opposing President Bush's decision, let me say unequivocally I support in every way the men and women of our armed services and the sacrifices they and their families are being asked to make. May God bless each and every one of them in this time of crisis and bring them home safely. Mr. Speaker, I believe in a strong America. We have more instruments of power than any nation on Earth. However, our greatest source of power is our moral clarity and purpose in how we use our strength. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has failed to understand this. As our President prepares to unilaterally and preemptively use military force against a nation which is not an imminent threat to us, we may be on the verge of threatening the very international laws and norms which are the foundation of global stability. Many of the consequences of such actions have already become known. America is more isolated than ever and anti-American sentiment is rising globally. However, it is the unknown consequences of this administration's choice for war which will likely be even more dangerous. My single greatest fear is that this war will jeopardize the help we receive from moderate Muslim nations in successfully bringing to justice those who directly attacked us on 9-11 and prevent attacks against Americans at home and abroad against known imminent terrorist threats. Contrary to the President's force dichotomy that our choice was either war or doing nothing, I believe we do have alternatives to this war. If Iraq was such a threat, we can continue to use robust inspections, sanctions, and a military containment box. There are others that I think are on the list that are much more of an imminent danger to us here in America, but it is clear to the world that this war is not really about Iraq's threats to America. The world believes that this war is about changing a regime we once supported and a test case for the Bush administration's doctrine of preemption, a doctrine that was not just created after 9-11, but a doctrine that was espoused back in 1991 by many of the same individuals in the Bush II administration during the Bush I administration. So it is not a new doctrine that we have to go by because of 9-11; it is a doctrine that was preached and talked about prior to 9-11 by many members of this administration. I believe it is a disservice for the strongest Nation in the world to adopt such a doctrine, because it represents a policy of fear and weakness. More importantly, it signals a dangerous devaluation of diplomacy as an instrument of statecraft to the entire world. Mr. Speaker, there is not a question in my mind that our military will defeat Iraq, but the real question for America and the world is what will come next and what damage to the region and international order will this cause? What will happen in the Arab and Muslim worlds when the U.S. military occupies Iraq in the name of stability? In the end, the question is: Will this make America safer? I believe not. I think we are making a mistake; but may God bless all of the men and women again that are there, that they may return home to their families safely.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 314, the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act. As an original cosponsor of the bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for his leadership on this bill. My thanks also go to the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who worked on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill to the floor. I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, and the other cosponsors of the bill from both sides of the aisle for their support and help for bringing this bill to the House floor. The bill before us is largely technical in nature and seeks to address a change in market practices not anticipated by the original Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. This act is a consumer protection statute which was established in order to protect consumers from deception and abusive practices by third-party debt collectors. Under the FDCPA, debt collectors are required to give certain notices to debtors regarding the nature and the amount of the delinquent debt. The original intent of this notice was to ensure the debtor understood why the collector was calling and what was owed. Under the act, collection activities by the original creditors were generally exempt from the FDCPA. However, third parties such as debt collectors are generally considered to be covered and are required to provide such written or oral communications to consumers. These notifications are generally referred to as the Miranda warnings to consumers. The reason for the bill before the House is to distinguish between mortgage servicers and third-party debt collectors. In the mortgage market, mortgages are bought and sold on a regular basis in order to provide liquidity for lending and better rates for the borrowers. In some cases, originators will keep loans on their books, but will decide to sell the servicing rights to other parties. This legislation was developed in response to a growing concern that some mortgage servicers were unclear whether these transfers were covered by the FDCPA and what the appropriate communication should be between the mortgage servicer and the consumer. H.R. 314 would clarify this problem by providing a narrow exemption from the requirement to provide Miranda warnings under the FDCPA for a mortgage servicer who acquires responsibility for servicing mortgage by assignment, sale or transfer. Under this exemption, a mortgage servicer would not be required to provide a Miranda warning for any loan that is actually in default at the time of the transfer of servicing rights. This means that the exemption is narrowly drawn so as to affect a small number of mortgages. In addition, this bill ensures that this exemption only applies to collection activities in connection with these specified loans. As a result, a mortgage servicer cannot use this exemption with respect to other loans which may become in default after the transfer occurs. I also want to highlight the fact that this bill does not provide an exemption from other substantive borrowers' rights. Rather, this exemption is narrowly drawn to apply only to the Miranda warning which third-party debt collectors are required to give to consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to debate an issue that is of great importance, an issue that involves both the known and unknown consequences that only a war can produce, for America, the Middle East, and indeed, the entire world. This will be by far the most difficult vote that I have had to take since I became a Member of this body in 1998. It comes at a time when many Americans, particularly many New Yorkers from the Sixth Congressional District which I am proud and honored to represent, are still in pain from the trauma of the attack on 9/11. I have no love for Saddam's brutal regime, and I would support any action that the international community and the United Nations and our friends in Europe and Asia and the Islamic world would agree was in the best security interests of the world community. I, however, do have questions about why we must take this vote now. What is different between now, 4 months ago, 12 months ago, 24 months ago, or 48 months ago? More importantly, I have deep concerns, many echoed by allies and Iraq's neighbors, about the unforeseen consequences and instability which would be caused by the U.S. military attack on Iraq. At a time when the economy is faltering and so many other domestic issues are being left unattended, this Congress is being forced to consider the authorization of the use of force, perhaps unilaterally, against a regime we have known about for 20 years, a regime which has always been undemocratic and brutal against its own people. Yet our government once ignored those facts because it was felt it was in our best interests to support the regime with the very same capabilities we now say threaten America. At a time when we are in the middle of a war against terrorism with the help of a number of majority Muslim nations who are protecting American lives against known threats, this authorization of use of force against potential threats could result in the reduction of help from new friends and allies and, thus, put the lives of Americans at risk. Is that what we want to do? It is not surprising that during a time of mourning and healing and, most of all, fear, we would speak of the evils of Saddam as a threat to America and a threat to the world but yet not provide this Congress with the evidence to support such claims. Certainly, when it comes to our security, there is no debating that I stand with all Americans when it comes to protecting Americans, and that is why I fully supported any and all actions to bring those who committed attacks on 9/11 to justice. Yet, as of last night, no evidence has been offered linking Saddam Hussein to those who attacked us on 9/11. More importantly, let us not tell the American people and the world that we would use force against Iraq in the name of the world's freedom and security. Let us not say we are authorizing the President to use force against Iraq to protect the credibility of the United Nations by enforcing all U.N. security resolutions pertaining to Iraq. I have yet to see the world, nor Iraq's neighbors, ask America to protect it from Iraq. In fact, many friends and allies in our own intelligence agencies say a number of other nations pose far greater threats to security. Others, both inside and outside this administration, speak about ``sending a message'' and that the ``credibility'' of our Nation and the world is at risk if we do not stand ready to act with force. I want every Member to say that they are ready to comfort a loved one of an American soldier who might give their life for their country not to confront a threat but because it was important to send a message. Since when do we authorize the use of force not to address a threat but because not to use the force would hurt our credibility? It is not surprising that during a time of mourning and healing and, most of all, fear, we would speak of these potential threats from Iraq and mix them with the war against terror as a pretext for bringing back an old approach to national security and call it a new policy. The ideas of using pre-emptive military strikes against unknown threats and even the ability to potentially threaten, as stated in the administration's new national security strategy on September 20, 2002, are not new. The very same ideas can also be found in the 1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance document and the 1993 Defense Strategy for the 1990s document. Both of these documents were written under the direction of the current Vice President, the Deputy Defense Secretary and Secretary of State when they served in various Defense Department- related positions in the last Bush administration. If we truly live in the new world, then why is the Bush administration presenting us with what it calls a ``new approach'' to national security for Americans in a new world, using the same old ideas that were once rejected by the American people, ideas which even Nelson Mandela said could be a threat to world security? Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that this debate about Iraq raises two fundamental questions for our Nation and for our generation, questions which, depending upon how they are answered, will affect the lives of generations to come. One, what kind of world do Americans want our children to live in? Two, in the 21st century, do Americans think the best way to achieve security is by U.S. global military dominance or U.S. global cooperation? I believe that after 9/11 it is now more important than ever for the American people to have a greater say on whether they believe they will be safer in America and, in an increasingly smaller world, if their government adopts a posture of global military dominance or a posture of global cooperation. Many Americans feel that increased public diplomacy must be a part of the war against terrorism because one of the reasons why a murderer like bin Laden was able to recruit individuals to attack Americans is because some in the world are isolated and do not know the truth about America. Fighting terrorism requires global solutions, which can only be obtained through cooperation, not by threatening the world that we will go it alone whenever the world does not see things our way. The use of the world's greatest military power in a preemptive strike against others is not a foreign policy of strength. It is a foreign policy of fear. I will always stand for protecting America and given the fact that we will soon begin spending more money on defense than the combined spending of the next 19 nations in the world, I am confident that our military power assures that any nation that attacked us would be defeated in battle. We were not attacked by any nation on 9/11. When it comes to protecting America from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, recent history shows that we can beat them as well, when we have the help and cooperation of others. A pre-emptive strike against Iraq will squander the opportunity to build on the existing cooperation we now enjoy and to create even greater levels of global cooperation on other issues of concern to the world--including issues which are the root causes of terrorism. We can take action and we should. We can work with others in the same way we are working with the world to combat Al Qaeda. We can demonstrate true leadership by exhausting all diplomatic means rather than by simply falling back on the use of force. I'm sure that this Administration and this Congress will always reserve the right to pursue a course of action to protect America's national security. However, we must realize that no matter how powerful our military is, our security is linked to the world's security. If this crisis is truly an issue of global peace, I urge America to work with the world to secure the peace for all.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I woke up this morning not knowing, really, where was the appropriate place for me to be. Being a New Yorker, I did not know whether I should be at Ground Zero this morning, whether I should be in my community with many of my constituents, or whether I should be here in Washington, D.C. I made the decision to try to do a little bit of both, so I spent this morning with my constituents in New York, but then felt that it was most important for me to come here to Washington as we reflect on what took place just a year ago today, as we memorialize the individuals who lost their lives a year ago today, as we sit with and hold hands with the family members of those who lost their lives. It is time for reflection; and as I reflect and think about just last Friday, as Members of the United States Congress came to New York for the first time since 1789 and went to the original Federal Hall, it struck me about this great thing that we know called democracy, and why we have to stand and fight and make sure that democracy prevails. For when I just think, in 1789, I as an African American may not have been able, or not ``may not,'' would not have been able to be part of that Congress. But democracy has prevailed, so that in 2002 I am a Member of this Congress; and we are here today where the Congressional Black Caucus is meeting. We must preserve that democracy. What happened on September 11 of last year threatens that democracy. We must let freedom ring. As I reflect and think, the words of Dr. King came back to me, where basically he was just talking about freedom. In 1965, we were talking about freedom basically just here on these shores. His words were, ``So let freedom ring from the prestigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi! From every mountainside, let freedom ring.'' I think we need to add now: Let freedom ring from Afghanistan. Let freedom ring from Pakistan. Let freedom ring in Israel and Palestine. Let freedom ring in China and India. Let freedom ring in Zimbabwe and Nigeria. Let freedom ring in every country on every continent, because when freedom rings, in the words of Dr. King, when we let it ring, we will let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every State and every city in every nation, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, Muslims and Buddhists, will be able to join hands and sing the words of the old Negro spiritual: ``Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'' God bless America.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding, who is the head of our delegation and who thought of this idea and who germinated and understood how important it would be to New York. He is a great leader, a great New Yorker, a great American who served his country in war and serves his country now in the House of Representatives. And I want to thank him for his vision to make sure that we revisit New York and understand what took place on September 11. Likewise, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for also coming and working together, for surely it is with their help and with their guidance that we are able to do this, and it reminds me of why I am so proud to be an American. It is September 11. No one can ever forget where he or she was on that day. It was an election day in New York City, a beautiful day in New York City, and I was late getting ready because I was in the gymnasium working out on a bicycle. And someone ran over to me and said a plane had just hit one of the towers. At that time, not thinking that it was any other attack but an accident, I got off the treadmill and began to look at the television set. And as I watched, another plane hit the next tower. Then everyone knew what was going on. But the first thing that I saw in that time of crisis, which renews one's spirit in its darkest hours, was that everybody in that gymnasium, every soul in that gymnasium, rallied around that television set, holding hands and coming together because we knew that we were in a dark hour. And as the World Trade Center towers fell, we saw everyone, and this is why this symbolic move on September 6 is important, Democrat, Republican, black, white, Asian, Puerto Rican, all coming together to feel the same, rich or poor, feeling and coming together to say we are going to stick together. And then as I heard days after, the families of the victims who lost their lives in the World Trade Center and how proud and erect they stood in the most darkest of their hours, and what it told me was that still in all in the darkest of hours they realized and understood that the morning would come. So when faith would be questioned above and beyond anything they could imagine, and I went into my district that following Sunday, church after church, synagogue after synagogue was packed with people going in to pray to try to renew their faith as to making sure that there would be a better tomorrow and that there would be a tomorrow. And I saw people, and I talked to young people who lived on the Rockaway peninsula who at Beach Channel High School could look over the bay and see the World Trade Center, some of these kids who are poor and had never had the opportunity to visit Manhattan themselves come together and cling together as Americans. And it said to me that this great country in time of its darkest hours will renew its faith and stand together in time of crisis. And on September 6, by the people's House coming to New York City, what it is saying to the people of New York is yes, have faith, have confidence, keep the faith. We see what you are doing in New York. We know what you have had to overcome, and we are with you. We will stand with you. We are a great City, we are a great people, we are a great Nation. And I thank the Members of this House in its infinite wisdom to make sure that the New Yorkers who have fought so hard to keep their faith, who fought so hard to make sure that they are indeed a resilient city will see their representatives from all across this Nation come in a symbolic mood where the first Federal Congress met and share in what I see as the beginning again and the continuation of our great Nation.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to discuss an important issue in the Horn of Africa, a final and binding resolution of the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Horn of Africa is one of the poorest regions in the world but also one of the most strategic. It is a region plagued by years of war and conflict, some of which were caused by colonial legacies, the Cold War, and border disputes, but now with the help of the international community, the nations of Eritrea and Ethiopia sit at the cusp of permanently breaking a cycle of conflict. One of my top priorities when I came to this House was to help end conflict on the continent of Africa by serving as a member on the Subcommittee on Africa. There have been many wars in Africa. Some were just wars where African peoples fought to overthrow the yokes of colonialism and systems of racism. However, other wars in Africa fall into the category of unjust or senseless wars. In the category of senseless wars in Africa, very few would top the 2-year border war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, two former brothers-in- arms who once fought together for over 30 years against dictatorships and for the right to self-determination. The conflict that erupted in 1998 between the two countries was the result of a dispute over land in a barren, roadless area of shrubs and desert, and subsequent claims of military incursions. Two years of fighting left tens of thousands of people dead and more than a million refugees on both sides of the border displaced. What made this war even more destructive was that these nations, two of the poorest nations in the world and dependent upon foreign aid, were able to spend $3 billion to purchase weapons to wage this war. Mr. Speaker, during the war, I always kept my doors open to officials from both nations. The only side I ever chose during the conflict was to stand on the side of all Ethiopians and all Eritreans who were committed to peace and who opposed the voices of militarism on either side. On December 12, 2000, the two countries signed a United Nations- backed peace treaty, resulting in the end of hostilities and the creation of an independent commission to study and demarcate the disputed border area. According to the treaty, the border demarcation by the Hague Commission was to be final and binding. At the time, both countries stated their commitment to peace by vowing to fully implement the commission's ruling no matter what the outcome. Mr. Speaker, on April 13 of this year, the Hague Commission released its decision on the demarcation of the Eritrean and Ethiopian border. Their decision reiterated the senselessness of the war by leaving the border substantially unaltered. Hence, what was this war about? Why did thousands of Ethiopians and Eritrean men and women have to die to resolve a border dispute? Following the decision by the Hague Commission on May 13, 2002, the Ethiopian Government requested an interpretation of the commission's decision and order to implement the border demarcation process. While the original peace agreement gave no room for appeals by either party, the Hague Commission decided to accept the request by Ethiopia and pledged to provide a response within 30 days. This is why I wanted to speak on this issue today. On June 24, the Hague Commission released its clarification report in response to Ethiopia's request. While the commission reviewed each of the points in Ethiopia's clarification request, it concluded by saying, ``The Ethiopian request for clarification and interpretation appears to be founded on a misapprehension regarding the scope and effect of the Boundary Commission's Rules of Procedure. The commission does not find in any of the items that appear in section 2, 3 or 4 of the Ethiopian request anything that identifies an uncertainty in the commission's decision that could be resolved by interpretation at this time. Accordingly, the commission concludes that the Ethiopian request is inadmissible and no further action will be taken upon it.'' With this decision, it is high time for a newly created African Union, the United States, and the entire international community to emphasize the following points to the leaders of both Eritrea and Ethiopia: One, that the Hague Commission's decision and reply to Ethiopia's clarification request must be adopted by both parties as the final decision, once and for all; that both countries must abide by the Hague Commission's ruling, and the international community should offer support to both nations to fully implement the decision. Two, both societies should learn the lessons of the history of this war so that its causes are not repeated in the future. Conflicts over boundaries using extreme forms of nationalism or ethnic exaggerations are senseless struggles. Finally, I would like to urge the leaders of both nations to have the courage to place the will of their citizens over the interests of their power and outdated ideas about security. Neither society won anything from the war and both sides lost. Previous progress was set back and both Ethiopia and Eritrea wasted human and financial resources. The only winners in unjust wars, are international arms sellers and traders. I am confident that the peoples of both nations are tired of war. It is up to the leadership of both nations to serve the will of their citizens and demonstrate the vision to chart an irreversible course towards a permanent peace. I would like to challenge the leaders of both nations to understand that real power comes from leading a strong and prosperous society in a nation that is respected and able to assume its rightful place and responsibilities in the global community. More importantly, real security and sustainable processes of peace are not attainable simply by having defined borders and territorial integrity. In this era of globalization, well defined borders and territorial integrity do not and can not always guarantee security. Yes borders and territorial integrity are important, but they can't prevent instability and insecurity in any nation whose citizens face poverty, health crises and other forms of violence. Real security for any nation or society in the 21st century is linked to the degree of the political, social and economic conditions, rights, and opportunities of its citizens. So I say to the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea: Accept the principle contained in OAU's framework for peace agreement which calls for both sides to: ``Reject the use of force as a means of proposing solutions to disputes.'' Recognize that it is in your national security interests to accept the ruling as final and binding. Recognize that it is in your national strategic interests to put a senseless war behind you once and for all, because you have real wars to wage. A war against poverty and HIV-AIDS which demand that both governments shift the focus of your energies and your scarce resources to not only to rebuild your economies to help those hurt most by the war, your citizens. But to also face the challenges of transforming the public and private institutions and structures in the economy for the development of your societies in the 21st century. These are the wars which must be waged if the vision of a strong and vibrant African Union is going be realized. An African Union which needs the Horn of Africa to be stable. I will work in this Congress to support new forms of broad based US engagement with both nations, as long as both nations demonstrate their commitment to fighting for peace, development, health care, education and democracy.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor tonight to voice my utter disgust for what we as Members of Congress, representatives of our great nation, have to do here tonight. We as representatives of our constituencies must voice that we will not stand by idly and let a few destroy everything America's workers have diligently worked for all their lives. Though we may not win this battle, which is rumored not to end until early in the morning, know that we, those who truly represent working Americans, will not stop fighting this legislative battle. Over the last 15 months, we have experienced the worst fiscal reversal in our nation's history--with $5 trillion in projected surpluses over the next 10 years having disappeared. Last year, it was projected that publicly-held national debt would be completely paid off by 2008. And yet now, due largely to the economic plans put in place last year by the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans, the publicly-held national debt is going up and not down. As a result, the country is now hitting the current statutory debt limit of $5.95 trillion. But some of us, those who continue to fight for American workers, children, and seniors saw this coming. In face of a deteriorating economic picture, Democrats pleaded for Republicans to join us at an economic summit so we could put our country back on the path to long- term economic growth and opportunity. Instead of working towards this goal, our attempts were dismissed and now we have experienced a dramatic reversal of continued prosperity, a dramatic reversal of a growing hope to increase education spending, a dramatic reversal of saving seniors from loosing the money they put into social security, and a dramatic reversal of a decreased percentage of unemployed workers to a steadily increasing number of unemployed workers facing more hardships by the dozen. Today, I stand here fighting a battle with my colleagues. A battle that calls for us to think twice about what we as a governing body will do if this legislation is passed. If the debt ceiling is raised we can no longer envision our plan to leave no child behind. We can no longer envision our plan to continuously provide social security to all of our seniors. We can no longer envision our plan to level off the current unemployment rates. The bottom line is that so much of what America stands for and yearns to become can be washed away with final passage of this supplemental appropriations bill that provides much more than what we can afford. We thought the tax cuts passed by the majority would slowly chip away at the American dream of so many, but we were in for such a surprise. Yes, there was much more in store. What was in store was this supplemental. Think about it. Think about the chipping away of our nation's future. Think about denying Americans what they deserve and have worked for all their lives. Think hard. Think if you want to take the blame for what will surely come. Once every Member in this governing body truly does this, each will know that we should not, cannot, and must not pass this legislation.