Major Owens

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 438, the ``Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003.'' The bill increases from $5,000 to $17,500 the maximum amount in which student loans can be forgiven for math, science and special education teachers in Title I schools. While the bill is clearly a step in the right direction, the Republican majority has failed once again to fully fund key education programs. Prior to the enactment of the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' (NCLB) President Bush and the Republican leadership promised to provide funding to place a ``highly qualified'' teacher in every classroom. Tomorrow the House will vote on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill which freezes funding for the Teacher Quality State Grant programs for FY04. Several weeks ago the Republican leadership forced through a monstrous tax cut with the promise that vital domestic programs would not be cut. However, the bill which was reported out of the Appropriations Committee freezes funding for Teacher Quality State Grants at $2.9 billion in FY04, the bill falls far short of the $3.175 billion promised in the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' funding schedule. Overall, the Republican leadership is more than $8 billion below the amount authorized for the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' for FY04. The $24.3 billion authorized for FY04 is consistent with the Republican leadership's attack on domestic programs. The 1.6 percent increase over FY03 continues a downward trend for key education programs. Instead of rewarding ``corporate fat cats'' the Republican party should rescind the tax cut and support increased funding for key education programs.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, l join with all of my colleagues, with the family and with all Americans in mourning the passage of a great political leader and a personal friend, Mayor Maynard Jackson. I rise to salute the outstanding achievements of the former Mayor of Atlanta who was also a national political leader and a major asset of the Democratic Party. But before I sound the loud trumpets which are appropriate for the highlighting of Mayor Jackson's public life, I would like to pause and note my fond personal memories of Maynard. In the Morehouse College class of 1956 he was my classmate. But even more intimate than that space were the roles we shared as part of an experimental program sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Maynard and I were two of 30 college freshmen who had been admitted without completing the last 2 years of high school. Most of the so called ``Ford Boys'' were 16 years old. Maynard was the youngest at age 14. Maynard was a native of Atlanta, the location of Morehouse College. He was a member of one of the oldest African American leadership families. Maynard even at that early age had a strong sense of mission and personal responsibility. Despite his youth he became the host for our group of 30 special students. We were from very different worlds. My father was a factory worker who had never earned more than the minimum wage. But during that freshman year Maynard's father who was the minister of one of Atlanta's most prestigious churches, died suddenly. My mother also died in the Spring of that year. Few understand better than I did the sudden escalated maturation of the 14 year old Maynard. It was probably the first great crisis of his life but he rallied his personal resources and he overcame that great emotional obstacle. It was a challenge which set a pattern for the rest of his life and career. My classmate, Mayor Maynard Jackson leaves a clear and shining legacy for all to see and for African American leaders to utilize as a guiding beacon. Mayor Maynard sought power and through a very creative strategy and set of tactics he won power. But the truly distinguishing achievement of Mayor Maynard Jackson was his bold and uncompromising use of his power to further empower the African American community of Atlanta. In very concrete dollar and cents terms he confronted the business elite of Atlanta and forced the opening of new doors of significant business opportunities for minorities. Under Mayor Jackson's early leadership as Mayor, Atlanta City contracts soared from less than 1 per cent in 1973 to 39 per cent within 5 years. Many of these contracts were related to the construction of the expanded world class Atlanta airport. It is believed that several dozen new black millionaires were created via Maynard's mandated joint venture models. It is important to note that the airport expansion was still completed ahead of time and under budget. For African Americans unprecedented new opportunities were opened up as a result of the Mayor's confrontation with the white business establishment. Maynard Jackson could never be called an ``empty suit'' concerned only with the ceremony and symbolism of being the first Black Mayor of Atlanta. The legacy he leaves is a lesson for all African American leaders: power is acquired for the purpose of empowering those who lacked power before. Martin Luther King's movement and the Voting Rights Act were constructed, not to install peacocks with their limited agendas for personal wealth and fame; instead the assumption of public office is a method of extending the struggle. Let it be noted and fully understood that Maynard Jackson had to pay a price for his courage and his boldness on behalf of the continuing struggle. When he left office as Mayor, the white establishment attempted to lynch him economically by denying him an appropriate berth in the private sector. Fortunately, it was one more hurdle which Maynard overcame. More of the story of the battle of Atlanta must be told in order for the legacy to be understood clearly. Mayor Maynard Jackson was more than just a successful politician. He was a trailblazer, a hero who set high standards that all African American public officials must measure up to in performance.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, most of us returning to our districts have had an inordinate amount of inquiries and complaints, I am sure, from constituents about local developments and problems. Local hardships are the first things on the minds of my constituents, and I am sure many of my colleagues have experienced the same problem. People are concerned about the budget cuts at the city and State level, they are concerned about layoffs of people, they are concerned about the fact that there are property tax increases as a result of trying to make up for shortfalls in the budget of a State or of a city. So local hardships are on folks' minds. I try to get them to understand that, okay, let us talk about it. You have your city councilman, you have your State officials. I certainly am concerned about the local hardships also. But I think it is important for them to understand that it is all interwoven. All politics inextricably are interwoven, and what is happening down here in Washington has an impact on what is happening at the local level, and the sooner we understand that, the better. What we do in Washington generates a lot of local hardships and suffering. National and international blunders create pain and suffering in our neighborhoods. That is where the troops come from. That is where the soldiers who are on the frontline come from. They come out of our neighborhoods, and those blunders and things that we do, like the war in Iraq, which I consider a blunder, and the fact that the combat was successful has not made me a believer that that war was necessary. It is a blunder. Every life that was lost was lost unnecessarily, in my opinion. It will suck vitally-needed resources from the war against terrorism. We are in for a much more serious situation developing in Iraq, which I will talk about later. The poor will bear the burden of the war in Iraq. They will bear the burden. They have already borne the burden of the combat. A study by the New York Times showed that the people who are the soldiers in our military forces now are folks from the neighborhood. Members of working families make up more than 90 percent of the forces. We are proud of them. When there is a war that is really necessary, we are proud of the fact that they are there to fight the war. We do not want their lives to be lost unnecessarily. We do not want them to find themselves sitting in Iraq for the next 5 years. We do not want the terrible conditions to be foisted upon those who happen to be there, and there is no rotation out because we do not have troops to replace them with. There are a number of problems which place the burden of the war on Iraq on the backs of the poor. Those are my constituents, and those of many of my colleagues. We want them to understand we are concerned and are working to relieve those burdens here in Washington. There is a scenario shaping up for bloody guerilla warfare in Iraq. I am not a military expert, I am not on the committee, but I think there is some sophomoric knowledge, some examples of immediate history, not too far in the past, Vietnam, Chechnya, the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, the suicide bombers in Israel. There are a number of items there which should lead us to understand that we are in for serious trouble as things are developing in Iraq, and, if we do not do something quickly in Iraq more decisively, we are going to have many more unnecessary lives lost, we are going to have to spend a tremendous amount of resources. Dollars that ought to be going to make up these budget gaps in the cities and the States, those dollars will be going to fight a guerilla war in Iraq. There is a way out of this. I was not for the war, but I certainly would like to see a successful occupation. We are there now, and we should pull out all stops and make certain we bring justice to the ordinary people of Iraq. That is the way to avoid guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare will never succeed unless it has a base in the population which is going to help hide it and nurture it and make it difficult for an occupying force to deal with. We did not have guerilla warfare to any great extent in Germany after the Second World War. We did not have it to a great extent in Japan. Yes, there was some guerilla warfare, and it is not talked about much, some holdouts, et cetera, but their efforts were quickly undercut by the way the population of Germany and Japan was treated by the occupying forces. The same thing is true here, and we are in the process of failing in our slowness in responding to the needs of the general population in Iraq. There is a formula for success, and I would like to see that formula carried out, because I do not want more of my constituents stuck in Iraq as an occupying power. It destroys their mental capacity after being there under such tremendous strain for a long time. The weather is 140 degrees. All kinds of things are taking place that impact on a human being, and I do not want a situation where we are stuck there with the poorest of the poor in the Armed Services having to carry out unnecessary duties. Let us go now into a situation which will correct the situation properly and lead us to a point where we can declare success in Iraq and leave. The Marshall Plan model is there, the Marshall Plan model we used in Europe. Why was it possible to overcome all the difficulties in Europe? Why did the Soviet Union, who at that time was given an opportunity to participate in the Marshall Plan, why did they refuse? It was because they knew that the general population would benefit in a way which would undercut their communist schemes and their own schemes for world domination, and they did not want the population to be satisfied in any way, a part of a partnership for progress and a partnership which took care of meeting the needs of ordinary people. So the Marshall Plan model to spend money, to use our resources, our technical know-how, to improve the state of the lives of the people there, is very much necessary. We could rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq in one year. It may cost a great deal, but it will cost far less to go in to rebuild the infrastructure of the water systems and the electricity systems than it will cost us if the population becomes alienated and supportive of guerilla warfare. We have what it takes to do it. I will come back and talk about the formula for success in the occupation of Iraq in greater detail. There is a formula for success to relieve the suffering and the hardships in our States and our cities also, but it is all interwoven with the kinds of resources we put into places like Iraq. We do not have the money. We voted to appropriate $79 billion for the war in Iraq and related matters, and there is no money to deal with the problem of economic recession here at home. So we have to stop the blunders internationally in order to be able to deal with our problems closer to home. All politics are inextricably interwoven. We must understand that clearly ourselves, and we should also make sure that our constituents understand. In New York, I hear repeatedly complaints about, Congressman, why do you not do something about the fact that we just got an 18 percent property tax increase, an 18 percent property tax increase? On top of that, there is a ticket blitz. The cops are being encouraged to write tickets for everything. You drop a gum wrapper on the sidewalk, a candy wrapper, and they rush to write a ticket because they need the money. The citizens become the victims of the government to raise revenue. Some of that is happening right here in Washington, D.C. also and some other big cities. The citizens are the targets for the people who are governing them in order to raise more revenue. It is not funny at all. I had a lady come into my office crying because she was in an intersection and happened to be caught in the intersection when the light changed, and the policeman pulled her over and gave her a ticket for a moving violation. Under normal circumstances, that would not happen. Layoffs are taking place in New York City and New York State, certainly New York City. People who get laid off are the last hired, so they get laid off, and inevitably they are the poorest people. They laid off 1,200 paraprofessionals in the schools, the people who are in the classrooms with the teachers and who help to monitor the hallways and the lunchrooms. They are the people living in the neighborhood, they are the people that know the families, they are the people that know the children best. How are we going forward in our education reform and education improvement if we are going to take away that vital part as a result of budget cuts? Budget cuts are reversing the progress that we were making in education reform. ``No Child Left Behind'' is just an empty slogan now because of the fact that the Federal Government is not following through on its promises. Even worse, what we had going at the State and local level is being cut. You cannot talk about improving education if the budget cuts force you to lay off teachers. Therefore, the ratio of children to each teacher in the classroom inevitably gets higher. One of the clear principles of reform that we have established is in the lower grades, you need fewer children per teacher. That reform goes out the window because of the fact you have no money to hire teachers, quality teachers. There is an acceptance of teachers who are not certified and hiring teachers who are substitute teachers, because in many cases they are cheaper. The budget can take them, but it cannot pay for quality teachers. Quality teachers in some instances are being encouraged to retire because they are at the end of the scale in terms of salary payments and they drain more of the budget. Never mind the fact they are the ones who know how to teach the children, that they must mentor new teachers coming in, they are the ones that hold the system together. No, let us get them out, because we want to lower the cost of personnel. So, these local hardships and cutbacks and raids on education progress doom any forward motion. We can forget about it. Then promises, of course, are being broken for education here in Washington. Local level problems are, in some ways, insoluble in terms of the financing. At the local level, the State level, there are constitutions, State constitutions, city charters, which say you cannot spend more money than you anticipate taking in, in revenue. They are bound by that and must operate within that stricture. The Federal Government does not have to operate within that stricture. In fact, several speakers today, and one in particular tonight, pointed out the fact we are borrowing money on a wholesale basis. We may be borrowing about $1 trillion over the next few months. We are not bound by the revenue coming in. We are borrowing money, we are using Social Security funds. The things that are important to the powers, the majority powers in Washington, the Republican majority, the things that are important to them are being funded. They are funding the tax cut, they are funding the war in Iraq, they are funding farm subsidies, which are far too high and unjust, they are funding the things that are important, and education happens to be one of the things not important enough. I suppose most of our colleagues are like me. They were anticipating that if we follow the usual pattern, the Health and Human Services markup would be taking place after we come back from the July 4th recess and, in some cases, it would be one of the last of the markups. But to my surprise and shock, I have received information which states that we had the markup today, that the Health and Human Services markup has taken place, and it is over, and the education portion of the budget has been gutted in terms of promises made that are not being kept. There has been a broken promise in terms of overall education funding. The majority party Republicans loudly proclaimed that they would provide a $3 billion increase from the previous year, over the previous year for the Department of Education. That $3 billion was cut down to $2.3 billion, or a 4.3 percent increase in education, which is the smallest dollar increase in 5 years and the smallest percentage increase of money for education in 8 years. Let us just stop for a moment and think about the fact that education started way behind as a Federal expenditure, and over the last 8 years we have had steady increases, as the American people have made it quite clear to all of us. In every district I think it has been made clear by the constituents that they want the Federal Government to do more for education, even when ideologically, the majority of Republicans, the Republican majority did not care for the Department of Education and they tried to dismantle it, and they had to retreat. Not only did they retreat on the effort to dismantle the Department of Education, but they began to appropriate large amounts of funds for education in response to their own constituency. Everybody sees the commonsense wisdom of more support for education. To go back to the war in Iraq for a moment, since the President declared victory in Iraq, we have lost more than 50 lives. I think 14 of those lives have been lost as a result of hostile activities, but the others have been lost as a result of accidents. What are accidents? Why are accidents killing so many of our soldiers? What is the problem? The problem is, I think, that we have a high-tech operation with respect to our military, and too few of our soldiers really know how to operate all of the equipment and the weaponry that we have. Helicopters in particular need to be investigated because a large number of accidents happen there. But just the rapid movement of vehicles and collisions on the ground seem to be a major problem. So education in our military to produce a better-equipped military is as important as education anywhere else. Returning to our education appropriations process, the No Child Left Behind Act, which had great fanfare when the President signed it, he promised America's school would now be on a path of reform and a new path of results. Our schools now would have greater resources to meet those goals. That is what the President promised. He stated that we have accountability from all 50 States now. But the problem is, where are the resources? This bill provides, the markup today provides an increase of only $381 million, or 1.6 percent over the current funding level for the No Child Left Behind Act. That is a freeze in real terms. We can provide $1 trillion in tax cuts but, at the same time, this bill does not even come close to meeting the funding levels authorizing the No Child Left Behind Act, which would require another $8 billion in fiscal year 2004. In the case of special education, we have made promises and have a $1.2 billion shortfall. I think it is important for all of our colleagues to wake up to the fact that this is on the table right now, it has been done, decided in the markup in the Committee on Appropriations responsible for Health and Human Services; and we should move now if we are going to have any effective counterattack before this appropriations bill hits the floor. Title I funding, we have a shortfall there. We are $334 million short, since it provides only a $666 million increase requested by the President instead of the overall amount originally contemplated. College education, the increase there is another broken promise. In the agencies under the Health and Human Services appropriation subcommittee, the Institutes of Health have received a great decrease after having 15 percent annual increases over the last 5 years. We recognize the need to deal with the use of science, the best science in the world to come to grips with the more rapid-reaching of ways to contain diseases and to provide cures for the incurable items that are still on the agenda, but that 15 percent increase has now been cut to a mere 2.5 percent increase. The health care safety net is not taken care of. Bioterrorism, a concern that the Department of Homeland Security has talked about quite a bit; bioterrorism preparedness under the Republican bill received $94 million less than they received this year. The Department of Health and Human Services asked for $100 million to get the Nation better prepared for an influenza pandemic, and the bill provides only half of that amount. The nursing shortage is not dealt with properly and, of course, when it comes to unemployment insurance to deal with the most important factor in our recession, a the fact that people have no money to spend, that is underfunded too. Low-income heating assistance was greatly cut also. Promises have been broken. Why? Because when it comes to the domestic budget, we plead bankruptcy. We do not have the money. We have enough money in the domestic budget, of course, to provide the biggest tax cuts in history. We have enough money in the overall budget to provide a $79 billion special allocation for the war in Iraq and related matters. What we want to do, really, we can find the money for. So the local hardships and the immediate problems faced by education are not unrelated to our blunders at a national and international level. The tax cut is a national blunder. It is a great economic disaster that we are going to suffer for, not only nationally, but it is going to create pain and suffering in our neighborhoods. The war in Iraq is a blunder because it will suck a large number of vitally needed resources. Human life is sacred, and every human life lost in the war in Iraq is the first problem that I have, the first problem that anybody who believes in the sacredness of human life has. Soldiers have to die; military activities are necessary. But only when they are necessary should they be conducted, only when they are necessary. Only when they are necessary should we place the life of a soldier at risk. Only when it is necessary should soldiers have to die. I am not a pacifist. I was in favor of immediately going to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan and to extract from them al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They were immediate enemies. They made no effort to hide the fact that they were there in Afghanistan. So it is not a pacifist sentiment that drives me; it is a reverence for human life that only when it is necessary, as it was in that case, and as military action is in many other cases, should it happen. Was it necessary to lose lives in Iraq? And we have lost relatively few, and we like to boast about that; but there will be more lives lost, I assure my colleagues, in Iraq. And it is not necessary. A lot of focus has been turned in the direction of the weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction are thoroughly being analyzed, and the case for that, whether they exist or whether we deliberately oversold the existence of weapons of mass destruction or not, all that is being very well aired in the press. I think in many cases the media got in bed with the war; and ``embeddedness'' had really a double meaning. The media that got in bed with the war and praised it and covered up certain kinds of things are feeling guilty now, and they are going to extremes to examine the whole question of weapons of mass destruction. When did we know what we know, who exaggerated, how incompetent is our military intelligence? Was it the incompetence of our military intelligence, or was it the White House insisting that the facts be twisted? I am confident that we are going to come out with some real answers there, but we are focusing so much on that, we are losing sight of the fact that there is a situation developing in Iraq which is dangerous and will engulf us in a war that is going to take a lot more lives, a lot more resources. The war in Iraq already has pinned down, we say 150,000, of our troops; but we never give the correct figure. I am sure we have at least 200,000 there already, but we are going to need more. We cannot occupy a country of 24 million people with 150,000 or 200,000 troops if that population is hostile. We are making that population more hostile because, of course, we are zeroing in now on the neighboring nation of Iran. Why is activity in Iran going to impact on what happens in Iraq? Because the majority of the people in Iraq are Shiite Muslims. Shiite Muslims are the predominant group in Iran. And one of the alliances that we expected to form was, with our liberating troops, was the Shiite population that had been exploited, oppressed under Saddam Hussein, because Saddam Hussein is Sunni. The Sunnis had oppressed the Shiites. Well, the Shiites, we say, did welcome us in places where there were large Shiite populations. We had the least amount of trouble in the heated combat and even now in the occupation. But if we are going to go into a situation now where a great deal of pressure is being brought on Iran, and it may be necessary, Iran may be the real problem, and we should not be in Iraq; if we are looking for nuclear weapons, it may be that Iran is far closer to building a nuclear weapon, buying parts maybe from North Korea than is acceptable. But the Shiite population in Iraq will not be an ally. So we are going to have to worry about the guerilla warfare problem even more if we lose the loyalty and the support of the Shiites. We are neglecting some other things, as I said before, while we pour our resources and our troops into Iraq. We are neglecting Pakistan. I have said many times that I know a little bit more about Pakistan than I do most of the Muslim nations because I have a Pakistan population in my congressional district. They are major allies of the United States. They were in the Cold War; they were in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Pakistan has always been with the U.S. But in my opinion, we have always given Pakistan very second-class, shabby treatment. The amount of aid presently going to Pakistan from the United States is less than $500 million at this point. Yet Pakistan is a major ally of ours. Pakistan, its government, put itself on the line from the very beginning in the war against terrorism. They allowed our troops in, they have cooperated in many ways, but we still are neglecting Pakistan. We are so preoccupied with focusing on Iraq that we are ignoring a major ally. What is the danger of this? The danger is that Pakistan's government is on our side, but Pakistan is still a Muslim nation. Pakistan is still the home of the Taliban. The Taliban were created in the religious schools of Pakistan before they marched into Afghanistan and united to take over that country. This is not a great secret. One does not need the CIA to tell us this; it is well-known. So the pressure on the Pakistan Government is enormous, and there were parts of the Pakistan military that helped to train the Taliban, the parts of the Pakistan military that is very sympathetic to al Qaeda and the final situation is Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and we know that. Everybody knows that. They are right there, available. If al Qaeda, the Taliban, the forces inside Pakistan were to pull a coup and take over the government of Pakistan, I think we would be forced to react militarily immediately. We would be forced into a situation which is very dangerous for a long, long time to come, with the bomb in the hands of terrorists for sure. No speculation. So why are we so reluctant to maximize our resources in Pakistan? If ever there was a nation that deserved to have a massive Marshall Plan model, it is Pakistan. We should go in to help the economy of Pakistan, to help the education structure of Pakistan. We should see that expenditure as being far more worthwhile and productive in the fight against terrorism than many of the expenditures we are making in Iraq. In Iraq, the poor will bear the burden of the war. As I said before, people from my district, the working families, produce the soldiers. The winds of war are blowing and we are ignoring them. We do not seem to talk very much about the fact that guerilla warfare is a possibility, because every day there are more incidents taking place of attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. More incidents take place every day. We have decided to have some counteroperations, to sweep through certain areas and intimidate certain folks, and even round up certain operatives who probably are getting ready to launch guerilla warfare, if they are not already involved. All of that is necessary, but I do not see any overall plan that says, look, we do not want to have guerilla warfare break out in Iraq; we do not want a guerilla warfare situation. And the worst element in a guerilla warfare situation is a population that is friendly to the guerrillas; the population that hates the liberators. That plan is not there. The understanding is not there. I think that it is not required that you have a great deal of military experience in order to understand what is going on. A group of sophomores huddled around a table at lunch time could see the unfolding of the situation, it seems to me, and understand where it is going. A group of sophomores could say, look at the situation that took place in Afghanistan, when the Soviets tried to occupy Afghanistan. They won the comeback, then they tried to occupy the territory, and their losses were so great until they finally just gave up and pulled out because the guerilla warfare was unbearable. Now, I mentioned to an expert 2 weeks ago, I said, do we not have to worry about the escalating guerilla activities? These incidents that are spontaneous right now, but they are probing and they are experimenting and they are finding out certain kinds of weaknesses. Do we not have to worry about something like a Tet offensive that took place in Vietnam in the City of Saigon? For those of you too long to remember the Vietnam War, the war in Vietnam was declared a success and was moving along at a jolly pace when suddenly there was a big offensive launched by the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong are a guerilla operation, of course. And this primarily took place in the City of Saigon. From the destruction that was wrought on the day of the Tet offensive, from that day on, we know now that our military understood that the war was lost. They would not give up. They would not admit certain things. But that Tet offensive of guerilla warfare sort of sent the signal of how powerful the forces were. I raised that issue with this expert at a meeting a couple of weeks ago and he said to me, well, the Vietnamese had jungles to hide in. The Iraqis do not have any jungles. It is wide open desert. So we do not have to worry about that kind of guerilla warfare. I did not press the point, but the Tet offensive took place mostly in the City of Saigon. In the city. And it is in the city, in urban warfare, where our high- tech weaponry and equipment has the least advantage. We are at a great disadvantage with high-tech warfare in urban warfare, in house-to-house warfare. You are so close to the enemy that blockbuster bombs do not do you any good because they will kill you as well as the enemy. We are in a situation where the enemy knows the terrain better than we do. We are in a situation where the enemy will have the support of the local population, unless we take steps to end that. So we ought to fear and we ought to be very worried about a massive, bloody war, a guerilla war, developing in the next 6 months in Iraq. And when that develops, great amounts of human lives are going to be lost. And to restore and get back to where we should be is going to be very costly. We ought to look at it now and look for solutions now. I believe in peace because I think human life is sacred, but I take off my hat and I salute our men and women in our Armed Forces. I think every soldier is a hero. I take exception to some people who would make these gradations and degrees. This veteran did not see combat, therefore he does not deserve the same benefits as the guy who saw combat. This veteran did not even go overseas or this veteran went overseas but he spent all his time behind the lines, he was in a unit that buried soldiers. Anybody who puts on a uniform is a hero, because once you put the uniform on and you take the oath, your life does not belong to you. You go where you are sent. And it is only by the grace of God or by accident or whatever that you do not end up in a place where your life is more at risk than another. Nobody chooses where they go once they become a soldier. So every soldier, every person in the military ought to be saluted as a hero from the time they put the uniform on. Let us not degrade them by saying, you did not see enough combat, or some guys saw a whole year of combat so they deserve more benefits than the guy who saw one week of combat. Everybody is a hero and ought to be treated that way. Certainly the people who see combat deserve to be treated as heroes. I like the model established by the Vietnam Memorial Wall. For the first time, the Vietnam Memorial Wall made us look at every soldier who got killed as a hero. Their names are on the wall. I think that is a great monument, one of the greatest war monuments ever created, and I think it is a peace monument. Because when you have to look at human beings individually, then you know the horror of war. I have gone to that wall with people looking for their relatives or friends. I went with my young brother, who not so long ago was a sergeant major in the Army, 20-some years. I went with him to look for a friend of his that he went to high school with. And I saw the tears in his eyes when he found the friend's name on the wall. Just a friend. Think of all the mothers and the fathers and the relatives who go to that wall and cry over lost loved ones, 58,000 now. But I think it is a monument that lets us know that war is hell, war is horrible, and not a single life should be put at risk and lost unnecessarily. They used to have tombs of unknown soldiers. They still have them. All over the world you will find these tombs of unknown soldiers. Well, I hope that there will be no new tombs of unknown soldiers. Soldiers should be known. The names of all the soldiers who died should be known. All the soldiers who put on a uniform and were available to die should be known. All human life is sacred, and until we recognize how sacred it is, we will not have the national policies or international policies which are worthy of the people who make up the Nation. The people who make up the Armed Forces, as I said before, 90 percent are from working families. Everybody should realize the importance of working families to America. If you did not realize it before, realize it now. It should have an impact on our policies. We should look at the minimum wage that is $5.15 an hour for the last 3 or 4 years. Working families are not given an opportunity to earn a decent living. We should look at OSHA, at health and safety requirements in the workplace. There are a number of programs for poor children that we should look at. We have been struggling this week in the Committee on Education and the Workforce with Head Start. Head Start is a successful program. They have not been able to malign Head Start or discredit Head Start. Despite the great success of Head Start, there are people who still only want to nickel and dime Head Start. They do not want to raise the amount of money we appropriate for Head Start so that Head Start can hire decent teachers and keep them. One of the biggest problems with Head Start is they cannot keep any teachers. Because the teachers are paid so poorly, they are always moving on to some other school or education arena. So we get only new teachers in Head Start, teachers who cannot teach anywhere else. Same thing is true in poor schools. We have had two bills in the last 10 days in the Committee on Education and the Workforce where we have tried to raise the amount of forgiveness on student loans so that people who teach in poor areas would have their loans forgiven if they teach for 5 years. We tried to raise the amount of loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers. We tried to have some Federal incentive and this would show that we have placed our priorities in the right place. But we lost. The only budging that we got, the only movement we got from the majority of Republicans was a forgiveness of the loans for math and science teachers, which is a victory still, but not nearly enough. Math and science teachers have their loans forgiven if they teach for a 5-year period, up to $17,500. That is in the bill that will be coming to the floor, and we would like to make another try to expand that so that at the very bottom in early childhood and Head Start so that we also try to encourage teachers with that kind of incentive. We do not have the money. Those are poor children. They need a good start in life. We forget that they are going to become the soldiers who go off to fight the wars. They are going to become the heroes whose names are listed on another Vietnam Memorial Wall, or whatever the next wall will be. I hope in the future, all our heroes are honored in a similar fashion; that somewhere their names are known. We have a scenario for a bloody warfare about to happen in Iraq. We ought to take a hard look at it. I am concerned because I do not want the members of my district telling me that I did not do what is necessary, all that I could do to protect their relatives, their children who are over there. Many went in the National Guard not expecting ever to see combat. National Guard units have been called. Many are in the regular service because they wanted to be all that they could be and come out and get an education using the benefits promised by the services, which is great for a young person who has reached a dead end, who cannot afford to go to college, who cannot afford to pay tuition. There are many motivations. But once they are in the situation, they certainly should be treated like the heroes that they are. We had a rotation system in Vietnam. It was not passed by Congress, it was a matter of common sense which was finally figured out by the military in Vietnam so that the system did not leave anybody in combat for more than a year. In the last 2 years of the Vietnam War, you did a year and you were out. There was a rotation. There is no such rotation that has been established in Iraq. So we have 140 degree temperatures over there. No beds for them to sleep in. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), went to visit, and she talked about the horrible situation that both men and women have to live in in Iraq. Those soldiers. And the most terrible thing is that once you have a hostile population, every time you step out on the street, you do not know when a sniper is going to be shooting at you or you will confront a group of people you do not know is friendly or might be a suicide bomber. Can you imagine how nerve-wracking that is, and how many nervous basket cases we have if people have to stay there and have no idea when they are going to be leaving because we have no rotation system? Why do we not have a rotation system? Because the administration is blundering again. They are determined not to admit we need more forces there. We need more troops there. We need more troops, period. We may have to go into a draft to get those troops. That is the last thing that the powers that be in Washington want to admit, that we are in a war now requiring large amounts of personnel, and they may have to draft people. It is better to admit it sooner and have less deaths than to wait until later and be forced into it. We have scenarios, as I said before. We know what happened in Vietnam. The Tet Offensive showed us how effective guerrilla warfare can be in the city, not just the jungle. And the Russian attempt to occupy Afghanistan is another obvious example of what guerrilla warfare is like and how difficult it is to handle it. Right now Chechnya, a relatively small province in Russia, will not be subdued. Hatred can reach a level, fanaticism can reach a level which makes it almost impossible to get back to peace. And the suicide bombers in Israel are another example of a level where it is difficult to get back to establishing peace. But what it says in those situations, great harm can be done and we are placing our personnel at great risk. We need to do whatever is necessary to establish some new security. First, the formula for success in the occupation of Iraq has to begin with the establishment of proper security. Proper security means if more troops are needed, we need to establish proper security. Before we can do anything else, we need to block the escalation toward guerrilla warfare with the support of the population. Do I sound like a war monger? No. I was against the war in Iraq. I want to save lives. I do not want one blunder to lead to the loss of more lives than the original blunder took. I would like to see us have more troops in Iraq to secure it. Once we secure it, let us institute a Marshall Plan. What is the element of the Marshall Plan that is the most important? Let us give people electricity. Let us give the populous water. They had electricity and water before; they do not have it now. Is it so difficult to get electricity and water? If the soldiers and the local population cannot do it, we should form a corps of plumbers and electricians. We may need to pay them double for leaving their families and traveling across the ocean and going into an area that is not secure, but pay them whatever is necessary. In less than a year, we could reestablish all of the electricity that existed before with a corps of plumbers and electricians. It is not a great undoable task. It requires money. Spend the money that way instead of spending it fighting guerrilla warfare that is going to be endless. It is a slow period for the sheet metal workers; let them form a corps. Let us let the iron workers, the people who tore down the wreckage at the World Trade Center, let them go, organize them, and do what has to be done to restore the infrastructure in Iraq and win the hearts and minds of the civilian population. Let the workers go to the aid of their fellow workers. We have the soldiers over there; let the working families send the additional heroes to restore electricity and restore water and other systems. The problem is the way this administration operates, they would spend a lot of time figuring who is going to get the contract, who is going to profit from it, how much knowledge can you get from your contributors, and a lot of other things that come into play. We need to do this and do it fast. I remember that the earthquake in Oakland devastated a part of Oakland; and if the freeway and a number of things had been left that way for a year, it would have wrecked the economy of that area of California. We appropriated first $6 billion and later $8 billion, and they marshaled all of the technology, engineering skills, and in less than a year, the damage from that earthquake was restored and its impact on the economy was nil. It can be done. We do not need to have somebody come down from heaven and wave a magic wand. It is American know-how. Let us spend it up front to bring justice to Iraq instead of spending it in a bottomless pit, guerrilla warfare. Finally, alleviating hardships here in the States does not require heavenly intervention. I want to call Members' attention to an article that appeared in The New York Times, Tuesday, June 10, issue which is very revealing. I find it very inspiring. It is about a colleague of ours, Bob Riley, before he ran for governor in Alabama. As a Republican Congressman, he had a nearly perfect record of opposing any legislation supported by liberal Americans for democratic action, or anything else that was considered liberal. Why am I going to talk about Bob Riley? Because I think to relieve the hardships in our cities and States, to stop the budget cuts, to stop the cuts in education which force us to increase the size of classrooms, to stop the cuts which force us to push the best teachers into retirement, to stop all this, we need to marshal our revenue in a different way and change our priorities, and in order to do that you need a political base. One of the big problems with taxes and tax policies in America is that only the majority party, the Republican Party, has ever really showed great concern about tax policy. I mean, the kind of concern that it merits. I think the Democratic Party deserves to be chastised for not really thoroughly exploring what the meaning of tax policy is in the context of American politics. Bob Riley, forced in a situation where Alabama is starved for revenue, and he is now the governor, put aside any right wing ideology and has come out with common sense that we all should take a hard look at. Governor Riley has stunned many of his conservative supporters and enraged the State's powerful farm and lumber lobbies by pushing a tax reform plan through the Alabama legislature that shifts a significant amount of the State's tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and corporations. And Governor Riley has framed the issue in starkly moral terms arguing that the current Alabama tax system violates biblical teachings because Christians are prohibited from oppressing the poor. That is Governor Bob Riley who used to sit here in this Chamber on the other side. I salute Governor Bob Riley. If Governor Riley's tax plan becomes law, and it has to be ratified in September by the voters, it will be a major victory for the poor people of Alabama if it becomes law. But win or lose, Alabama's tax reform crusade is posing a pointed question to the Christian Coalition, focus on the family and other groups that seek to import Christian values into national policy. The question has been asked, if Jesus were active in politics today, would he be lobbying for the poor? This is from a New York Times article of Tuesday, June 10. Alabama's tax system has long been brutally weighted against the less fortunate. The State income tax kicks in for families that earn as little as $4,600. Even Mississippi does not tax income until it is over $19,000. Alabama also relies heavily on sales tax which runs as high as 11 percent, and their sales tax applies to groceries and infant formula as well as everything else. The upshot is wildly regressive Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in State and local taxes while those who made over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent. I would like to read that again: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in State and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 per year pay just 4.1 percent. A main reason Alabama's poor pay so much is that large timber companies and megafarms pay so little. The State allows big landowners to value their land using ``current use'' rules, which significantly low-ball its worth. Governor Riley's plan, which would bring in $1.2 billion in additional desperately needed revenue, takes aim at these inequalities. It would raise the income threshold at which families of four start paying taxes to more than $17,000. Instead of having to pay taxes, those who make $4,600, you would not have to pay State taxes until you get to $17,000. It would scrap the Federal income tax deduction and increase exemptions for dependent children. And it would sharply roll back the current-use exemption, a change that could cost companies in the timber industry a great deal of money. Alabamians are used to hearing their politicians make religious arguments, and Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system. Let us understand what is happening here. This Governor--he must be some kind of genius--has gotten this tax package through the legislature already, but in Alabama you have to ratify it. The ratification will take place in September, which means that the poor people of Alabama will have a chance to vote to support what this Governor is doing or not. In terms of votes, they certainly outnumber the rich. It is something to watch. Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system. I repeat: Governor Riley thinks that he can convince the voters that Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system. Quoting Governor Riley, ``I've spent a lot of time studying the New Testament and it has three philosophies: Love God, love each other, and take care of the least among you,'' he said. ``I don't think anyone can justify putting an income tax on someone who makes $4,600 a year.'' Religious groups could provide the margin of victory in September. Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama tax professor with a theological degree from an evangelical divinity school, caused a stir recently with a law review article called ``An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics'' which makes an evangelical case for making the tax system fairer. She plans to train speakers this summer to take the theological argument to the grassroots. Kimble Forrister, the State coordinator of Alabama Arise, a coalition that advocates for poor people, expects the 100 church groups that are part of his organization to hold church-basement workshops this summer to get the word out to their congregations. Many theologians argue that it is far easier to find support in the Bible for policies that help the poor than for any cut in the dividend taxes. If Governor Riley's crusade succeeds this summer, Alabama may offer the Nation a model for a new kind of tax system, one where the devil is not in the details. End of quote from the New York Times article. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the New York Times article of Tuesday, June 10, entitled ``What Would Jesus Do? Sock it to Alabama's Corporate Landowners'' for the Record in its entirety. [From the New York Times, June 10, 2003] What Would Jesus Do? Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners (By Adam Cohen) Montgomery, AL.--If the religious right had called up Central Casting last year to fill the part of governor, it could hardly have done better than the teetotaling, Bible- quoting businessman from rural central Alabama who now heads up the state. As a Republican congressman, Bob Riley had a nearly perfect record of opposing any legislation supported by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. But Governor Riley has stunned many of his conservative supporters, and enraged the state's powerful farm and timber lobbies, by pushing a tax reform plan through the Alabama Legislature that shifts a significant amount of the state's tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and corporations. And he has framed the issue in starkly moral terms, arguing that the current Alabama tax system violates biblical teachings because Christians are prohibited from oppressing the poor. If Governor Riley's tax plan becomes law--the voters still need to ratify it in September--it will be a major victory for poor people, a rare thing in the current political climate. But win or lose, Alabama's tax-reform crusade is posing a pointed question to the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other groups that seek to import Christian values into national policy: If Jesus were active in politics today, wouldn't he be lobbying for the poor? Alabama's tax system has long been brutally weighted against the least fortunate. The state income tax kicks in for families that earn as little as $4,600, when even Mississippi starts at over $19,000. Alabama also relies heavily on its sales tax, which runs as high as 11 percent and applies even to groceries and infant formula. The upshot is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent. A main reason Alabama's poor pay so much is that large timber companies and megafarms pay so little. The state allows big landowners to value their land using ``current use'' rules, which significantly low-ball its worth. Individuals are allowed to fully deduct the federal income taxes they pay from their state taxes, something few states allow, a boon for those in the top brackets. Governor Riley's plan, which would bring in $1.2 billion in desperately needed revenue, takes aim at these inequalities. It would raise the income threshold at which families of four start paying taxes to more than $17,000. It would scrap the federal income tax deduction and increase exemptions for dependent children. And it would sharply roll back the current-use exemption, a change that could cost companies like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade, which own hundreds of thousands of acres, millions in taxes. Governor Riley says that money is too tight to lift the sales tax on groceries this time, but that he intends to work for that later. Church and state are not as separate in Alabama as they are in most places. (The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was in federal court last week defending his decision to install a 2.5-ton rendering of the Ten Commandments in the state's main judicial building.) Alabamians are used to hearing their politicians make religious arguments, and Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system. ``I've spent a lot of time studying the New Testament, and it has three philosophies: love God, love each other, and take care of the least among you,'' he said. ``I don't think anyone can justify putting an income tax on someone who makes $4,600 a year.'' The state's progressive voters, including many in the sizable African-American community, have backed tax-law changes like these for years. And reform-minded business leaders, who see such tax changes and improved schools as crucial to the state's economic development, have promised to spend millions of dollars on television ads in support of the September referendum. But religious groups could provide the margin of victory. Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama tax professor with a theological degree from an evangelical divinity school, caused a stir with a law review article called ``An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo- Christian Ethics,'' which makes an evangelical case for making the tax system fairer. She plans to train speakers this summer to take the theological argument to the grass roots. Kimble Forrister, the state coordinator of Alabama Arise, a coalition that advocates for poor people, expects the 100 church groups that are part of his organization to hold church-basement workshops this summer to get the word out to their congregations. The Christian Coalition of Alabama has not yet taken a position on the September vote, but it has been speaking out against the plan's tax increases. In an interview yesterday, John Giles, the group's president, had trouble pointing to a biblical passage that directly supported his opposition to new taxes, but he referred to Jesus' statement about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The key question, he argued, is, ``How much is Caesar's?'' As the Bush administration and the religious right fight to put theology more squarely into public policy discussions, they are going to have to be ready for arguments like the ones coming out of Alabama. Many theologians argue that it is far easier to find support in the Bible for policies that help the poor than for, say, a cut in the dividend tax. If Governor Riley's crusade succeeds this summer, Alabama may offer the nation a model for a new kind of tax system: one where the Devil is not in the details. Why have I started my closing remarks with that article? Because I think if ever there was a formula for success in relieving suffering and hardships in the States and cities, it is an adoption of a simple Christian ethic that those who have the least deserve the least amount of taxes and the most amount of help from their government. I have two pieces of legislation that I have introduced: One is called the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804. I have discussed that previously on the floor. That calls for a situation which would relieve the pressure on the domestic budget by forcing the consideration of all future military actions, like the war in Iraq, to be paid for by corporations. We once had a surcharge. During the war in Vietnam, during World War I, World War II, the Korean War, we had a surcharge on corporate profits to help pay for the war. We should go back to that so that the payment for the war is taken out of the budget as a competing factor for domestic programs like education, health care, a prescription drug benefit, et cetera. I have a second bill, H.R. 2335, which is called the Emergency Revenue Sharing Act. The money we save should be spent in relieving the burdens that the cities and the States are now forced to deal with during this recession period. If we took the $79 billion, or an equivalent amount of the amount that we appropriated for the war in Iraq and related matters, and sent it to the States and the cities, we would end the layoffs of school teachers and personnel in the schools, we would end the pressure on our civil servants, and we would end the kind of oppression of our taxpayers that has taken place through property tax increases and ticket blitzes. All politics are inextricably interwoven. What happens at the local level is inseparable from what happens down here. What we do here is inseparable from the hardships that are created at the local level.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on a suspension vote we reauthorized the current Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF) legislation leaving in place a very hard hearted and contemptuous piece of the so-called safety net. Farm subsidies may go as high as 200,000 dollars per recipient with few qualifying provisions attached; however, welfare recipients with a family of four receive between 4,000 and 6,000 dollars per year. On the day before the reauthorization there was yet another nasty Republican slur at the poor and at families on welfare: ``These people want a welfare check, not a child care tax credit.'' This demonization of the poor has escalated among Republicans despite the fact that it has clearly been established that on the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Baltic states and elsewhere more than ninety per cent of our troops are from poor and working class families. Because most of them were draftees it is probable that more than two- thirds of the heroes whose names are carved on the Viet Nam Memorial Wall came from families eligible for welfare and other social services. Washington decision-makers should try to imagine the emotions of welfare mothers who search for the names of their sons at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall. To prime the imagination of those who will soon be deciding how many more American sons and daughters are going to be sent to Iraq I offer the following RAP meditation: Welfare Mother at the VietNam Wall O so long I saved For the Greyhound bus fare To travel to this great wall Just to sit and stare. From across the park They all look the same But take it slow I find each separate name. Girls names you can play with-- Towana Shoshana Sojourner; But all my boys I gave Names from the holy bible-- Joshua, Joseph and Paul Now they decorate this great American Wall. Officers respected my boys And found them strong, They used to get rough But they did no wrong. Angry snakes inside me Keep coiling, Maybe I shouldn't be bitter But nobody asked When they drafted my litter. O God! Stop my streaming blood From boiling, All my days Are filled with toiling; Never owned a dress of silk But my breasts Filled up rich with milk. Nobody ever said thanks When my babies Climbed into their tanks; Never had accounts in banks Only crumbs for welfare ranks, Butt of jokes and office pranks, Pride they always made me smother-- Despised begging welfare mother. Welfare clerks take up So many hours of my time Shuffling me round from line to line. Clerk questions and forms Nearly choked me to death, Governors and Mayors held me down Till I almost ran out of breath. Worked in many stores Scrubbed a whole lot of floors, Once was tempted to hang out With a ring of cheap whores; At home always heavy chores, Too tired to keep a job, Then my welfare clerk attacked With poison arrow eyes; In front of her something in me dies, Acts like its her money Used to ask if I had a honey, Charges me with lies, Envies what was once Between my thighs. Be nice if I still had a man, I miss hugging and stuff But men are like babies And six kids was enough. They all had the same daddy But my husband died too soon, Strangled by escaping gas With no mask In the factory back room. All my kids I found some way to feed-- They grown now And your molasses pity Don't none of them need. I let my daughters-in-law Keep all the war insurance money; They take good care of their kids As far as I can see; Don't want my grandsons Still standing In the soup kitchen line with me. Its me alone now-- My social security Covers most of the rent But then its all spent; For food each month I survive on Whatever crumbs God has sent. My struggle goes on With MedicAid Madams Demanding my birth certificate Again and again They keep on trying to break me in. Let them shove their questions and forms-- Don't push on me no more I done come through too many storms. Why go back to the welfare folks? Maybe I'll just die Right here and my boys Will bear my body home. Soldiers hear your mama call! Break from the ranks And leave the wall! From each of your flags A little bit of cloth To quilt me a coffin cover; Maybe somebody will blow a horn To let the world know I'm your mother. No, God forgive me! I am a mighty American mother! It wouldn't be right To die here and spoil this place, I got a duty to uphold our dignity, We are a proud and loyal race. My bus return ticket is here, I'll face that MedicAid Madam And swallow my fear; My heroes would be ashamed If I ever shed another tear. O God! Stop my steaming blood from boiling; Angry snakes inside me keep coiling. I'll tell the snob To take her fancy form and shove it, Her trashy mind can't spoil me I'll fly high way up above it. Witch look down on me no more I'm ready to settle the score; Tell me face to face Before I crawl-- How many of your sons Have their names Carved up on the Vietnam Memorial Wall?

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall vote No. 192. If present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Rumsfeld's announcement a few months ago that the war in Iraq would be won by the application of ``shock and awe'' was not the revelation of a new and innovative weapon. Shock and awe has always been the dominant feature of war. Indeed war itself is inevitably traumatic; when there is death and killing there is automatic and excruciating shock and awe. Part of the power of the early witch doctors was derived from the grotesque mask they wore. Roman armor was designed not merely to protect soldiers but also to frighten the enemy. Viking ships had monstrous images carved on their masts to terrify their victims before attacking. Hitler's Luftwaffe planes from the air with bombs slaughtered the Polish cavalry charging forward on their obsolete white horses. The Russians employed a monster tank that made even the cold blooded Nazis cringe with fear. And, of course, nuclear war is the ultimate shock and awe. When we announce shock and awe as a great accomplishment there is a danger that we will grossly mislead our youth. There is nothing glorious and splendid about shock and awe. War is at best a necessary evil. The war against Iraq is an unnecessary evil. The following Rap poem seeks to expose the horror of Shock and Awe: Shock and Awe See the devil's claw-- Thunder lightning death! American Satan certified, Fiery werewolf's paw, Welcome the witch's law. Shock and Awe! God gave Lucifer The outrage sign-- No more floods, Generals in charge this time. Military hi-tech games Smoke and flames Tomahawks never error Now the screech of terror! O say can you hear Like hysterical chickens Enemy families scrambling With their foreign fear. Target with the drone Then melt the ancient stone; Ignore the pope Burn infant hope. Apologize for the human stew: Brains fried Glands crisp dried Ears toasted Thighs roasted Blood and skin For savage sausage; Barbecue ageing sages Too old to flee, Dracula's banquet served free. America stands by what it said-- Every Iraqui orphan will be fed; Salute the red white and blue-- Liberation will surely come true. With Shock and Awe We decree new orders-- We reserve the right To draw new borders. Bagdad is burning, For Damascus We are yearning, On the table Tehran too, Salute almighty red white and blue. Color the sky red Pray for the collateral dead, Ingest civilization raw, Taste unpolluted steaming Shock and Awe! Entice priests away from popes, Humiliate polyglot UN dopes; Shove Paris onto the track, Watch Moscow at our back; Ambitious Shiites should cross no border; Shock and Awe Is the new world order! See the devil's claw Fiery werewolf's paw Welcome the witch's law. Shock and Awe! Shock and Awe!

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, there was a historic leadership summit held yesterday. Today is May 15. Yesterday, on May 14, there was a historic African American leadership conference held here in Washington. I want to salute the sponsors. It turns out that most of the sponsors, practically all the sponsors, are Republican. Every year the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation sponsors a legislative weekend where people in the African American community, certainly leaders from all over the Nation, assemble here in Washington; but they are nonpartisan. Republicans come, corporate heads, the labor people. It is wide open as a nonpartisan event. Everybody discusses common problems. It is very interesting that this African American leadership conference, which is very new, I suppose I want to say at the outset, is certainly welcome. The attention African Americans are getting from Republicans is welcome. We have no problem with that. The myths that arise as a result of past Republican Party behavior, we would like to see put to rest. There is a myth that Republicans do not care at all for the concerns of the African American community, and, therefore, they are left to the Democrats who take them for granted because they are sensing or knowing that the Republicans do not care to be bored with the concerns of the African American community; the Democrats take us for granted, and they do not exercise themselves too much either over our concerns. Those myths, neither one probably is true. Republicans are showing that they do care. They recognize simple arithmetic, that even if they got 15 percent of the African American vote, which would be unusual, it would be 15 percent taken away from the Democrats certainly in a national election, and it would go a long way toward guaranteeing victory. If they got 25 percent, of course, they would be unstoppable. So the arithmetic is understood by the Republicans as well as Democrats. If they did not understand it before, they understand it now. Democrats have never ignored taking African Americans for granted. The history of legislation, of positions and actions in the Democratic Party, when you look at them quickly, make it quite clear that they are very much concerned about African American concerns. Democrats are concerned with things that benefit most Americans. What is good for most Americans is good for African Americans and vice versa. What is good for African Americans is good for all Americans. Attention paid by the Republican majority to African Americans will not only redound to the benefit of African Americans, but I expect it will help a lot of other Americans out there at the same time, because African Americans are on the cutting edge when it comes to suffering, when it comes to being at the bottom of the pile and receiving resources, when it comes to being at the top of the pile when it is time to lay off people and fire people. They are barometers. We know what is coming with the larger community when we look at what takes place in the African American community. This is something that we have said for a long time. We had problems with diseases. The drug problem when it first arose was primarily in the African American slum communities where it could breed because people had all kinds of problems and the rackets could flourish; but it got so powerful, the rackets flourishing in those communities, that they were able to branch out and swept all over America like an octopus that leaves no community untouched, the drug trade and all of the kinds of addictions and diseases that are spawned by the drug trade. And so it is with any other problem. The health care problem is deepest and most egregious in the African American community. New figures have shown that instead of 40 million Americans not being covered by insurance, we are now at a point where it is more like 60 million Americans are not covered by any insurance. Among those not covered percentage-wise, within the whole African American community, a greater percentage of African Americans are uncovered, and they have been that way for a long time in terms of health insurance. So our cry for universal health care, health insurance for all is certainly good for the African American community, but it is good for all of America. Therefore, I welcome the African American leadership summit. I am taking the time now to just tell my colleagues here who did not know about it that it did take place. It started Tuesday with a welcome reception in the Russell Caucus Room. Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison gave welcoming remarks at that session. And none other than Senate majority leader Bill Frist opened it up as a guest speaker, the keynote speaker. You cannot beat that in terms of the importance, the elevation of it in the priority scale of the Senate. You had the top leadership there. Then they had a continental breakfast on Wednesday. You had Senators Hutchison and Santorum again, I guess they are the primary sponsors here, opening up. The African American leadership summit was addressed by U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige. That is quite a coup, because as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus education brain trust, I have been trying for 2 years to get Secretary Paige to come to our annual fall legislative conference, and both times I have gotten no response. He is the Secretary of Education. We wanted to hear from him and invited him just as we invited all previous secretaries of education, and he has never responded. So this leadership summit for the African Americans yesterday pulled a coup. Secretary Paige was there. Of course he was part of a process which involved a panel of distinguished people: Ed Dorn, the dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas; Dr. Ernest Holloway, the president of Langston University; and the great Robert Woodson, Sr., founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, which usually focuses on problems related to African American housing. Then they had a health care forum after that and a luncheon with a keynote address delivered by none other than the chief of staff of the President, Mr. Andrew Card. Then they had an economic empowerment panel after lunch with the Honorable Johnny Ford, Alabama State House of Representatives; Kay Coles James, the director of U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Karen Johnson Street, Office of Entrepreneurial Development; and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans. Then later on they had an affirmative action discussion, ``Expanding Opportunity and Diversity,'' it was called, with HUD deputy Secretary Alphonso Jackson; Veterans Affairs deputy Secretary Leo Mackay; and Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. I have taken time to run through this schedule quickly because so many of my colleagues knew nothing about it. Many of them would have welcomed the opportunity to participate in a nonpartisan way, but let us salute the Republican majority for taking this initiative. There were a few other ceremonies, I understand, in addition to that, with the Speaker involved at the Frederick Douglass House. There was a ceremony at the White House, also. It is just important to note. I would like to take that as my starting point by saying what is good for the African American community is good for America as a whole. If it is good for Americans as a whole, it is good for the African American community. Let us go back to the fact that Secretary Paige was there and they were addressing matters relating to education. Because I am alarmed, I am upset, I am angry about what is happening to education all across America. We have done a 180-degree turn in terms of the progress that was being made. After all the hype and the high pitch of success that we decreed after passing the No Child Left Behind legislation, we are now in worse shape than ever before, not only with respect to the Federal Government's support for education but also, in general, local and State support. In this year, 2003, we have numerous States and local governments, local education agencies facing the situation where they are not sure they have the money to get through the school year. They are not sure they can pay their teachers and administrators and all the other costs. At a time when we expect education reform, education improvement to be going forward at a more rapid rate to meet needs that are definitely there in our society, we are going backwards. The Federal Government's refusal to live up to its promises, this administration's refusal to live up to its promises is complicating things. We are not just not improving the situation; we are making it worse. We have mandates out there, requirements out there that require resources, dollars, to fulfill. In the absence of those dollars and those resources, we are putting an extra burden on the school systems. We have increased the bitterness and the cynicism. It comes down in very concrete terms in a system like New York City's large school system, where they are projecting the layoff of 1,000 or more teachers, at a time when we have worked hard to get more teachers and smaller classes, at a time when No Child Left Behind says that we require that every teacher be certified, that they meet certain standards. It is imperative that the teachers really know what they are doing, especially those in the early grades who have generally been neglected when it came to certification and standards. We are in the situation now where we are laying off teachers. In the process, we increase the class sizes. In the process we make the job of teaching more difficult and we lose many talented people, who were interested in teaching, under this set of conditions. There is no relief being offered in any way for the problems that plague schools in terms of facilities. No teacher relishes the idea of getting a bachelor's degree or a master's degree and going to work in a building which has safety and health conditions worse than the average factory. So many of our schools are more hazardous than the average factory. In fact, we would fine some factories if they had the kind of conditions that have existed in some of our schools. The buildings get older every year. In big cities, especially like New York where many buildings are more than 100 years old and many more than that over 75 years old, there is almost no turning back renovations, and various attempts to maintain these buildings is a losing proposition. But there are no new buildings on the horizon for most of these communities. Many of those that were on the horizon, in a building program, now are forced to step back because the funds are not there. What does all this have to do with the Federal Government and the budget-making process here? What does it have to do with the African American leadership summit? The African American leadership summit, the people there ought to know that of all the communities that are suffering most from the dearth in resources in respect to education, the minority communities are suffering the worst situation. As we strive to improve the Federal performance in the area of helping African American schools, schools where most of the students are predominantly African American in the inner cities, some rural areas, we will also raise the level of assistance for other schools. Title I was primarily designed to help youth, children who are poor. The proportion of children in the African American community who are poor is greater than the proportion in the population as a whole. African American children and Hispanic children make up the bulk of the children who are eligible for title I funds. Title I funds were supposed to be increased, doubled, over a 5-year period. That is what the administration promised. They backed away. In the first year, instead of getting $6 billion of an increase, we are getting $3 billion of an increase. There are definite concrete dollars-and-cents reasons why the suffering that is setting in out there taking place, definite reasons why principals and teachers and education officials are feeling bitter, are feeling more overwhelmed, are feeling more cynical about the commitment of their Nation and their government and the leaders to education. If we are not committed to education, what are we committed to? We are committed, very much so, to the expansion of our military might. We voted overwhelmingly for a $79 billion budget for the war in Iraq and the effort related to the war in Iraq. I am not going to discuss in great detail how much of that is going to be wasted, how it is going to be counterproductive, but the point I want to make is that if we can go further into deficit, and we do not have the money, it is going to be borrowed as part of the deficit financing, if we can go $79 billion into deficit related to the war in Iraq and related activities like bribing our coalition partners and making certain that they support us and numerous other activities that are not specified, if we can do that, we certainly could use deficit financing to come to the aid of the cities and the local education agencies and the States that now are faced with the prospect of not being able to finance the education system through the whole year. Why not have a revenue-sharing bill which helps to close the gaps that the States and the cities and the education agencies are fielding? Why not go further? Let us take $79 billion and divide it over a 3-year period and phone it into the States and the cities for specific expenditures related to education, maybe half of it to go to education- related expenditures and the other half to go to municipal and State functions that are suffering as a result of the layoffs. It is getting worse every day. New York State, New York City, has a huge budget gap between revenues and expenditures. At the same time they have a constitution, a charter, which does not allow them to go beyond the revenue collected. They have to have a balanced budget. Most States in the country are in the same position. They have to have a balanced budget. The United States Government does not have to have a balanced budget. We are able to do deficit financing, and we have embarked on a course of deficit financing that is unprecedented under the Bush administration, the present administration. There was a time when Mr. Gingrich was the head of the majority here that the great emphasis was on balancing the budget. We heard nothing from one end of the year to the other except the ideology of the need to balance the budget. Suddenly nobody talks about balancing the budget anymore, and I do not want to raise the issue. At this point balancing the budget is not half as important as coming to the aid of our cities and our local education agencies with Federal dollars. Where else will the dollars come from? So I want to say to the African American leaders who gathered at summit that it is important for them to make a case with Secretary Paige and with the other hosts for the summit that there is an education emergency in the United States right now, and the worst part of the emergency is unfolding in the African American community. A very interesting event occurred and was written up in the New York Times last week. The teacher of the year for 2001 was a black teacher from South Carolina, a young lady who was selected because of her outstanding performance in the classroom as teacher of the year, and she was given a $25,000 prize, given a fancy car by one of the automobile manufacturers to drive for a little while, lent to her, and showered with all kinds of accolades, et cetera. This year she is facing unemployment. This same teacher, the best we had in 2001, the system cannot find a place for her in South Carolina. When she came back from that 1-year hiatus she had, she was put to work training teachers because the model teacher, outstanding teacher, that is the best use for her, to train teachers, and she had a job that was very useful. She enjoyed it. They have eliminated the position now, and they are not sure they have a place for her, but they probably will find some teaching position somewhere for this exceptional teacher who has shown great leadership ability and the ability to train other people. Is this going forward, or is it going backwards? That is going backwards in an obvious way. But the school system in South Carolina that she worked for is laying off quite a number of people. They have to balance their budget. We are giving the American people the impression that America is almost bankrupt, that they should tighten their belts and go with it because what else can we do? Where if my colleagues would just open their eyes and our constituents would just open their eyes, what could we do? We could borrow money for education and for municipal services just the way we borrowed money for the war in Iraq or any other defense expenditure we want to make. We have already busted the budget. We are already into deficit financing during this period of recession, which everybody assumes is a temporary period of recession, and it probably will be. We do not foresee the collapse of the American capitalistic economy. We are going to come back, but this is a period of crisis. Why not in this period of crises come to the aid of our citizen States? African American leaders should tell Secretary Paige that we are dying. A generation cannot wait until the recession blows over. We need to have the education there now. We need educated people everywhere more than ever before. Even in our military there is a gross problem of education. In the first days of the war in Iraq, we were losing people to friendly fire and human error at a faster rate than we were losing them as a result of enemy fire, because we have a high-tech military. We have a high- tech apparatus that requires some very outstanding minds to operate. Even under on the ground at lower levels, there is a lot of need for a more educated population. That is going to get worse in terms of the need. I should say get better. There is nothing wrong with needing more educated people, but the society must rise up to the challenge and guarantee that educated people are there. Most of the people in our Armed Forces, everybody concedes, more than 90 percent are people, men and women, from working class families, working families. They are from families that need public education. They cannot go to private schools. They are from families that need help from government in various ways, including housing. Too many of our military personnel are forced to utilize food stamps, and a small percentage are forced to go on welfare in order to maintain their families. That is a disgrace. That is not just. One of the criteria for success in the war on Iraq and the surrounding occupation of Iraq and the creation of a democracy in Iraq is the degree to which we bring justice to Iraq. We will succeed or fail. And this war has not been won. The war has just gone through phase one. Phase two is can we occupy Iraq and really create a democracy as a result of our efforts there, or will we be consumed by something that gets totally out of control and we end up in a violent malaise with the people of Iraq in urban guerrilla warfare where all of our advantages of high-tech warfare go out the window because it is on the ground, man to man, bayonets, rifles, block-by-block fighting. I hope we are not consumed in that kind of quagmire. But even if we do not go into that kind of quagmire, the question is will we be able to really convince the people of Iraq to go forward and establish a just and democratic society? The degree to which we succeed there will depend on the degree to which we bring justice to Iraq. One of the problems with our bringing justice to the people of Iraq is we do not know much about justice at home if we do not find ourselves able to create a healthcare system here that covers everybody. If we cannot find the money for a public education system that educates our children adequately, how are we going to bring justice to Iraq and provide those kinds of benefits? Justice in Iraq right away means do we care about whether they have running water? Do we care about whether they have electricity? Simple matters like that are evidences of whether the occupying power cares about justice. We secured every oil field. We boasted of that. It has been repeated over and over. Every oil installation in Iraq was immediately secured. We got the military to guard it, no looting, no abuse, no stealing of equipment and machinery, and we also got technicians in there right away as a part of Halliburton's $7 billion contract, technicians and people there on the ground to make sure that a speedy effort goes forward to get them running. In many cases they never stopped running. We want to maximize the output of every oil well. We care about oil wells, and we have let the whole population of Iraq know we care about oil wells because that is what we focussed on. We left the museums unguarded. They got looted, trashed. We left the schools. We left the hospitals unguarded. So the looters went in there and looted hospitals and looted whatever was unguarded because the occupying power showed those things were less important. The New York Times had in the front page the day before yesterday a front picture of an insane asylum in Baghdad, a maximum security insane asylum which was set up to hold the most worst and the most violent people who were insane, and the story that the director told was very heartbreaking. The insane asylum was secure until the marines came with battering rams and knocked down the walls, and some of them were screaming, ``We are here to liberate you.'' I guess they did not know where they were, and they liberated all of the insane prisoners, insane inmates, and they are gone. They left the place unguarded, of course, and some of the patients there, particularly women patients, were greatly abused. They raped the women patients, and it is a nightmare, on the front pages of the New York Times. We sent a message about justice that is the wrong message. We do not care about sick people. Hospital beds are still begging for security. They want somebody to come and guard the hospitals because they have rampant lawlessness in a nation of 24 million people that we expect to occupy on a shoestring. We say we have 150,000 to 160,000 troops there, but the military certainly never tells what it has. I am sure we have more than that. But even if we have 200,000 troops there, it is a nation of 24 million people, 24 million people. It is going to take more than 200,000 troops to establish order, for technicians and other kinds of people to get the electricity running again, to get the water system running. All these things are doable. There is no magic needed to make the electricity flow again. We have the technicians and the people to make it happen, but we have to assign priority to it. Justice for the average Iraqi family is do we care enough to get their electricity back on? Do we care enough to have decent drinking water for their kids? Those are the first signs of justice. Iraq sits on an oil pool that is second only to Saudi Arabia. So Iraq eventually will pump enough oil for whatever it needs. From beneath the soil of Iraq, with the more efficient, effective systems of modern oil pumping and production, they will be a rich nation on paper. All they need is there. The question is are we going to be just and make certain that the oil revenues that come from the soil of Iraq, the first priority is to go to people of Iraq? They do not have to have aid from the United States. They do not have to raid our Treasury to pay for their education system or their healthcare system or anything else if we would just let them use the oil revenue from their own soil. Justice means directing the resources of Iraq to help the Iraqi people. We are off to a bad start if we will not give them electricity, we will not give them water. There is great fear that the oil barons of the world would descend on Iraq with contracts and various schemes, are going to carve up the oil resources of Iraq, and the money flowing out of the oil wells will flow out of Iraq into the hands of others. That is a great challenge. I hope we meet it. I hope we do not make the error of assuming that we can use the resources of Iraq and expect the people to believe in democracy and capitalism as being a good system for them. We are going to have to have justice, or we are off to a bad start because we have not cared about electricity, water, food, basics. So, I say all this to say that African Americans who went to the leadership summit who have the ear of this administration now, great, it is wonderful they are listening. Tell them that we need examples of justice here at home. There are too many hungry African American children. There are too many situations where African American children go to schools that are more dangerous than their homes in terms of health hazards, because of the still existing problem of lead paint, of various erosions in the buildings, of situations in the wintertime where kids have to sit huddled in their coats and all winter long, are racked with colds, with situations that have a lack of appropriate ventilation, and asthma is exacerbated, and on and on it goes. We need justice for the children of America. I heard a speech by the President early in the war where he said, do not worry, we will guarantee that every Iraqi child has a good education, that every Iraqi child will have a textbook. Well, I hope so. But I would believe it if we had guaranteed, first of all, that every American child, African American and others, had the textbooks they need. So justice at home here has to be practiced before we can really believe that it is going to happen abroad. We are going to fail in Iraq, we are going to have a monumental failure, if we do not bring justice to that foreign land. With all of its various problems, its violent history, its different religions, all the things that are there, they cry out for the maximum effort being made by the occupying power to convince people that we are indeed a just society. MacArthur did it in Japan, the Marshall Plan did it in Europe, in Germany. It is not undoable, it is not impossible, but it has to have leadership that understands and is committed to justice. It is very interesting, at the end of World War II, the people who were able to succeed so marvelously in occupying Japan and Hitler's Germany, what was left of it, were all people who favored Social Security here; people who created Social Security, people who created social programs here; people who led the government into an unprecedented commitment on safety nets; people who created the first farm subsidies. The administrations of those people were in power when we occupied Japan and Germany. So it was not by accident that they were able to bring a sense of justice and move on from justice to create a democracy that the people themselves in Japan and Germany could take over. I say to the African Americans who have the ear of the administration, please send this message: We have an education crisis. We also have a health care crisis. There are individuals out there dying who should not be dying, because we have the modern science, the modern pharmaceutical tools, we have everything it takes to keep those people alive. But they are dying because they are poor. It just comes down to that. You may have countries in the world with far less wealth than the United States of America who are providing decent health care systems. I hope that on economic empowerment, there was a special panel for the African American Leadership Council there, I hope they understand economic empowerment means, first of all, creating jobs for people on the bottom. Henry Ford was not a great lover of poor people necessarily. He was not a great lover of his workers. He fought them tooth and nail in their attempts to unionize his plants. He looked out there and said, if I pay these guys a better wage, they can buy my cars. He had common sense. There is nothing sounder in economic theory than the simple Henry Ford theory. If I pay these guys a better wage, they can afford to buy my cars. The American consumer has become the engine of the economy because we pay them well, because we fought to get decent wages, we fought to have leverage implemented, executed, by our labor unions. We have a situation where people are making a decent wage. They can buy the products, and, boom, we took off. Nothing in the history of the world has existed like the American economy. At the heart of the economy is the consumers. The heart of the recession is the consumers have run out of money, and it is now snowballing because of the increasing automation, because of high-tech production. You can produce products without human beings. You can produce products by using foreigners. We even have listening complaint setups in the health care systems now, where you are an HMO in New York or New Jersey, and if someone calls to complain, if the person calling has a problem to be resolved, the person who answers the phone sounds like they are from Brooklyn, New York, or New Jersey, but it is an Indian young woman. The Indians speak English, and they study very carefully the accents in America, and we have contracts with groups in India answering our telephones. The cost of high-tech transmission from the U.S. to India is so low that you can let young ladies from cities in India take over the job. They get paid in 1 year what the same American operator on the telephone would get paid in 1 month. That is the kind of undercutting of the economy that is taking place. You are wiping out the consumers. The Indians will be paid less, but they will spend their money in India. They will not spend it in the economy of the United States. On and on it goes with examples of that kind. So, African American leaders who were at the Economic Empowerment Panel, creating jobs and wealth, will you please try to get the ear of the Republican host and make them understand that a stimulus package advocated by the Democrats, advocated by the Congressional Black Caucus, advocated by the Congressional Progressive Caucus still is a package that puts people to work by establishing public works projects, by creating revenue-sharing. That stimulus package would revive the economy at a far faster rate than a tax cut of billions of people for people who already have plenty of money. If you give them more money, they are not going to spend it in this economy in the way the people at the bottom will, the consumers who are forced to, who have needs and have to meet the needs. The suffering can be brought to a halt with simple, time-honored measures. We have had public works projects in the past. We have had revenue-sharing in the past. Nothing proposed by the Democratic minority or the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Progressive Caucus is radical and new. We have had it before. So, Mr. Speaker, I submit this draft timeline of the African American Leadership Summit for the record. It is an historic document, and it ought to be part of the Record. African American Leadership Summit tuesday, may 13, 2003 3:30-5:30 p.m.: Early Bird Registration--Hyatt Regency. 5:30-7:00 p.m.: Welcome Reception--Russell Caucus Room, 325 Russell Senate Building. 5:40 p.m.: U.S. Sens. Rick Santorum and Kay Bailey Hutchison welcome remarks. 6:15 p.m.: Guest Speaker: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. wednesday, may 14, 2003 8:00-8:20 a.m.: Continental Breakfast. 8:20-9:15 a.m.: Opening Briefing: Sens. Hutchison and Santorum (15 mins each w/25 mins Q&A). 9:15-10:30 a.m.: Education: Raising American Achievement. 9:15-9:55 a.m.: U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige (15 mins w/25 minutes Q&A). 9:55-10:30 a.m.: Panel: (5 mins each w/20 mins Q&A). Ed Dorn, Dean, LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas; Dr. Ernest Holloway, President, Langston University; President's HBCU Board of Advisors; Robert Woodson, Sr., Founder and President, National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. 10:30-11:35 a.m.: Health Care: Ensuring Affordable Access and Quality. 10:30-10:45 a.m.: Panel: 4 mins. each w/15 mins Q&A after Dr. Carmona speaks). Harry Alford, President, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Renee Amoore, Founder and President, The Amoore Group; Dr. Natalie Carroll, President, National Medical Association. 10:45-11:20 a.m.: U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona, M.D., (15 mins w/20 mins Q&A). 11:20-11:35 a.m.: Balance of Panel Discussion (Alford, Amoore, Dr. Carroll). 11:35-11:45 a.m.: Transition to Lunch in another room. 11:45-1:00 p.m.: Luncheon with Keynote Address. 11:45-12:15 p.m.: Lunch. 12:15-1:00 p.m.: Keynote Speaker: Chief of Staff to the President of the United States Andrew Card. 1:00-1:15 p.m.: Transition back to General Session room. 1:15-2:30 p.m.: Economic Empowerment: Creating Jobs and Wealth. 1:15-1:50 p.m.: Panel: (5 mins each w/20 mins Q&A). Hon. Johnny Ford, Alabama State House of Representatives, 82nd District; Kay Coles James, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Kaaren Johnson Street, SBA, Office of Entrepreneurial Development. 1:50-2:30 p.m. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans (15 mins w/25 mins Q&A). 2:30-3:45 p.m.: Affirmative Access: Expanding Opportunity and Diversity. 2:30-3:45 p.m.: Panel (7 mins each w/45 mins Q&A). HUD Deputy Secretary Alphonso Jackson; Veterans Affairs Deputy Secretary Leo Mackay; Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. 3:45-4:00 p.m.: Summit Wrap-Up/Adjournment. Sens. Hutchison and Santorum. Mr. Speaker, I want to just continue for a moment by saying that there are solutions. We went from an April unemployment rate of 5.8 percent to 6 percent. It is going up. Things are not getting better as a result of the first tax cut that we have given, and are not likely to get better at this point when we are talking about more tax cuts. And, even if we achieve them, it is not likely to get better. The reality is that we are in a recession that will exist until jobs are created. So I want everybody, my colleagues and everybody, the African American Leadership Summit folks, to understand that the simple matter of creating wealth through providing means to earn high income has to be on our agenda first. Just one final note on the African American Leadership Summit. I wonder if they discussed the fact that a recent report of the Federal Reserve showed that in the African American community, the median family wealth was at $17,000 per family, versus the median family wealth for white families being at $120,000; $120,000 versus $17,000. There is a great gap there that I hope the African American Leadership Summit people will suggest to their Republican hosts as rapidly as possible. One solution I would propose for the immediate situation is an old, time-honored solution. I have introduced a bill which I would call on my colleagues to think very seriously about, because it is an old- fashioned remedy to the problem. I am introducing this bill, and another one next week, a companion piece, called the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804. I welcome all of my colleagues to join me in getting on H.R. 1804. H.R. 1804 is legislation that will raise revenue and reduce increasing budget deficits which are due to the cost of the war in Iraq. Beyond the $79 billion we have already authorized, increased defense spending for the Iraqi war and occupation and rebuilding of the country will grow rapidly and uncontrollably. Nobody should be fooled by the fact that $79 billion has been appropriated. That is not going to be the cost. It will be far greater than that. Collected revenues will continue to be substantially less in this country than projected Federal expenditures, placing strains on the budget appropriations process. Vital federally funded programs are already facing devastating financial assistance cuts. Education, public housing, Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, these are only a few of these programs. Currently the proposed budget cuts over a 10-year period, Medicaid will be cut by about $93 billion, Medicare has no protection, $28.3 billion in veterans' health care benefits, $38.5 billion from education, training and Social Service programs. All these cuts are leaving the American family behind at a time when 90 percent of our troops in the field are from working families. Historically a special tax placed on the profits of the Nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S. war effort. I repeat, historically a special tax placed on the profits of the Nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S. war effort. The Domestic Budget Protection Act follows in these historic steps, and it offers a solution to increased assistance to domestic programs by placing a surcharge on corporations with assets greater than $10 million. This special revenue will be used to fund the war and the occupation, and because it will be used to fund the war and occupation, it will free up revenue to fund domestic programs. In the last 25 years, corporations have borne less and less of the overall tax burden. Their share, while dropping as low as 6 percent within the last 20 years, is currently 8 percent of overall tax burden. Corporations are paying only 8 percent of the overall tax burden. On the other hand, individual income taxes as a share of the overall burden has risen from 13.6 percent in 1940 to the present level of 46.3 percent. So individuals and families who can afford to pay income tax the least are paying more, and corporations that are very rich, you look at the Fortune 500 list, you know corporations are not suffering at all, they are paying less and less income taxes. On the back of my ``Dear Colleague,'' I have some excerpts from my Domestic Budget Protection Act, and I quote: ``The Congress finds that there is an established precedent for the long-term financing of a U.S. war effort. A special tax on the profits of the Nation's largest corporations would be in accordance with previous precedents, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. ``The Congress finds that in the last 25 years corporations have borne less and less of the overall tax burden, and, therefore, the corporate share of tax burden has dropped, while the individual's has gone up. ``The Congress finds it is necessary to suspend further reductions in assistance to domestic programs, and it is also imperative that any increases in revenue be utilized for assistance to these vital domestic programs.'' In other words, if we take away the competition of the military budget for Iraq and have the corporations finance that through a surcharge on their profits, we would be able to have the vital domestic programs funded at a higher level, minus all of the cuts that are taking place at this point. The profits of some of our corporations are mind-boggling. If you look at the Fortune 500 report, or the Forbes 500 report, corporations like Wal-Mart, $8 billion in profits last year; Exxon Mobile, $11 billion in profits; General Electric, $14 billion-plus; Citigroup, $15 billion-plus. On and on it goes. Microsoft, $7 billion- plus. So long before you get to those little corporations down there who have assets of $10 million, you would be able to fulfill the need to fund the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record at this point in its entirety my letter to my colleagues, which is entitled, ``You Are Invited to Cosponsor the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804.'' Invitation To Cosponsor the Domestic Budget Protection Act--H.R. 1804 While the Congress has allocated 79 billion dollars for the Iraq War and occupation, unprecedented hardship devastates state, local, and education agencies. Thousands of teachers and government employees are threatened with layoffs. Since the Bush Administration offers no revenue sharing relief, taxes are being increased in states and localities across the nation. During past wars a surcharge on corporate profits has lessened the competition of the military budget with domestic budget priorities. Dear Colleague: I am writing to ask for your support in cosponsoring H.R. 1804, legislation that will raise revenue and reduce increasing budget deficits due to the cost of war in Iraq. Beyond the 79 Billion already authorized, increased Defense funding for the Iraqi War, occupation, and rebuilding the country of Iraq will grow rapidly and uncontrollably. Collected revenues will continue to be substantially less than projected Federal expenditures placing strains on the Budget/Appropriations process. Vital federally funded programs are already facing devastating financial assistance cuts. Education, Public Housing, Medicaid, Medicare and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) are only a few of these programs. Currently, the proposed budget cuts over a period of ten years; Medicaid by $93 billion; no protection for Medicare; $28.3 billion in Veterans' health care and benefits; $38.5 billion in education, training and social service programs. We are leaving the American Family behind at a time when 90 percent of our troops in the field are from working families. Historically, a special tax placed on the profits of the nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S. War effort. (See findings on back) The Domestic Budget Protection Act follows in these historic steps and offers a solution to increase assistance to domestic programs by placing a surcharge on corporations with assets greater than 10 million dollars. This special revenue will be used to fund the war and occupation and thus free up revenue to fund domestic programs. In the last 25 years corporations have borne less and less of the overall tax burden. Their share, while dropping as low as 6 percent within the last 20 years, is currently 8 percent. On the other hand, individual income taxes as a share of the overall burden has risen from 13.6 percent in 1940 to the present level of 46.3 percent. Cosponsoring H.R. 1804 sends a clear message to American Families as well as their relatives on the front lines. We continue to support them here at home. Please join me by supporting the Families who need vital domestic programs. To co-sponsor H.R. 1804, ``The Domestic Budget Protection Act of 2003'' please contact Mary S. Anderson at 225-6321. Sincerely yours, Major R. Owens, Member of Congress. Excerpts From Findings of the Domestic Budget Protection Act The Congress finds that there is an established precedent for the long-term financing of a U.S. War effort. A special tax on the profits of the nation's largest corporations would be in accordance with previous precedents: World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. The Congress finds that in the last 25 years corporations have steadily borne less and less of the overall tax burden. The corporate share of the tax burden has dropped from a high of 35 percent in 1945 to a level of 8 percent in the year 2002. At the same time the individual income share of the tax burden has grown from 13 percent in 1940 to 46 percent in 2002. The Congress finds that it is necessary to suspend further reductions in assistance to domestic programs. It is also imperative that any increases in basic revenue be utilized to increase assistance to vital domestic programs.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the voodoo economics of the Republican 550 billion dollar tax package. I support the more practical and better targeted Democratic alternative legislation. We are taking action today; however, the quest for a meaningful tax policy for our nation must continue with the widest possible participation in the debate. One constructive component of a new and fairer tax policy must be a greater allocation of the tax burden to the corporate sector. We must have less pain for individual and family income tax payers and more responsibility shouldered by profit making corporations. This process should start now with a surcharge imposed on corporate profits to pay for the Iraq war and occupation. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804, which will eliminate the Iraqi War competition for federal funds and allow the Congress to resume the necessary funding for vital domestic programs. The following important facts must be considered: While the Congress has allocated 79 billion dollars for the Iraq War and occupation, unprecedented hardship devastates state, local, and education agencies-- Thousands of teachers and government employees are threatened with layoffs-- Since the Bush Administration offers no revenue sharing relief, taxes are being increased in states and localities across the nation-- During past wars a surcharge on corporate profits has lessened the competition of the military budget with domestic budget priorities-- In H.R. 1804, the following is cited: The Congress finds that there is an established precedent for the long-term financing of a U.S. War effort. A special tax on the profits of the nation's largest corporations would be in accordance with previous precedents: World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. The Congress finds that in the last 25 years corporations have steadily borne less and less of the overall tax burden. The corporate share of the tax burden has dropped from a high of 35 percent in 1945 to a level of 8 percent in the year 2002. At the same time the individual income tax share of the tax burden has grown from 13 percent in 1940 to 46 percent in 2002. The Congress finds that it is necessary to suspend further reductions in assistance to domestic programs. It is also imperative that any increases in basic revenue be utilized to increase assistance to vital domestic programs. Historically, a special tax placed on the profits of the nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S. War effort. The Domestic Budget Protection Act follows in these historic steps and offers a solution to increase assistance to domestic programs by placing a surcharge on corporations with assets greater than 10 million dollars. This special revenue will be used to fund the war and occupation and thus free up other revenue to fund domestic programs. In the last 25 years corporations have borne less and less of the overall tax burden. Their share, while dropping as low as 6 percent within the last 20 years, is currently 8 percent. On the other hand, individual income taxes as a share of the overall burden has risen from 13.6 percent in 1940 to the present level of 46.3 percent. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize the fact that the Republican Majority is determined to hide: America is the richest nation that ever existed on the face of the earth. We have the resources to do whatever we decide is important. Our greatest untapped pool of wealth is the pool of corporate profits which grow boundlessly as a result of the favorable economic, political, and militarily security environment maintained by the American people. We must have less pain for the family taxpayers and more revenue responsibility by corporations. Members should begin by supporting the Domestic Budget Protection Act--H.R. 1804.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is faced with a few simple facts that are awesome indeed. Unemployment has risen to a high of 6 percent nationally. In New York it is 9 percent. States throughout the Nation are faced with large deficits. States and cities are being forced to lay off government workers. Since the year 2000, more than 600,000 youths have lost their jobs. The economic downturn appears unlikely to end any time in the near future, according to the majority of the expert economists. Added to this is the fact that 90 percent of the troops on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan are members of working families. They come from working families. They are out there on the front lines. But nevertheless, here in America the Republican majority wages a relentless war against working families. I call on the Republican majority to call a truce. Stop your war against working families. You started this administration with a repeal of the ergonomics laws. That was a slap in the face of all working people. You have continued by ignoring the question of raising the minimum wage. You have launched a new assault on cash payments for overtime. You have launched a new assault against OSHA. Please, call a truce. These are working families who are as important in America as anybody, probably more important. Those are the people who supply the troops out there on the front lines. We are totally insensitive to the fact that the Nation is diminished by the way the workers are treated. We have very serious problems that are not being addressed by the Workforce Investment Act. More money should be invested in training the workforce needed to make homeland security more than a joke. There are lots and lots of types of expertise needed that we do not have that we ought to be training for. Let us, please, call a truce. Stop the war, stop the hostilities, against working families in America.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 155, 156, 157, and 158. If present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 155, 156, and 157. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 158.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes No. 149, No. 150, No. 151, No. 152, No. 153 and No. 154. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call No. 150; I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes No. 149, No. 151, No. 152, No. 153 and No. 154.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the following brief statement speaks for itself with respect to my appreciation for the State of Israel. Israel is presently in the midst of an intense violent struggle which has led to the accumulation of many progressive critics. While I sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people, I am also convinced that they are primarily the victims of their own leaders--and the jihad fanatics around the world who insist on the use of savage violence to achieve their goals. Israel has no choice but to meet the fanatic violence with violence. Arafat and the Palestinian leadership have set the stage and made the rules for this ongoing destructive engagement. Even if you accept the assumption that the Palestinian people have some legitimate grievances, one can still not condone the method they have chosen to seek solutions. For any group confronted by an overwhelming governing power, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have shown the way. The use of nonviolence to petition for the redress of assumed grievances was and still is a choice for the constructive forces among the Palestinians. On the other hand it is a certainty that Israel will never negotiate any change while confronted with the savagery of suicide bombings. We would all like to see this kingpin conflict in the Middle East resolved. I am convinced that it can be resolved permanently and peacefully because Israel is not just another government held together by greed and military power. Israel is the democratic nation guided by a long history of suffering and inspiring human spirits that I describe in this speech at the AIPAC Capitol Club Dinner on March 30, 2003: I consider it an honor to have an opportunity to reaffirm my unconditional support for the State of Israel. On any major matter involving Israel my vote is always there. I believe firmly and fervently that the salvation of the kind of civilization I want my grandchildren to inherit and enjoy cannot be realized unless we establish many more truly democratic nations all over the globe. Those who believe that more democracy is the answer should also automatically be advocates for Israel. Starting with a constitution which is probably more thorough and more practical than even the United States Constitution, Israel is a model democracy. And woven into the tapestry that makes Israel a great nation are the spirits of Golda Meir, David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and other similar great sages. These spirits accomplish for Israel what the spirits of Jefferson, Lincoln, Truman and others contribute to the definition of America as a nation. We all agree that a nation is more than anyone administration or one set of policies and diplomacy postures. Founding principles and ideals interwoven with the great spirits permanently define a nation. Those who say that Israel is a Middle East outpost for the U.S. or that the enduring interests of Israel are inextricably interwoven with the interests of the U.S. may not be correct in a formal and legal sense, but the spirit of these positions should be welcomed and appreciated. From the ashes of any temporary crisis or stresses we expect Israel and the U.S. to emerge strongly, fighting together for the same long-term principles and ideals. Temporary disagreements about strategy and tactics must never be allowed to separate us. Based on our individual perceptions and interpretations some of us oppose the war in Iraq; and some others support it. This difference does not break out along any clear ethnic, racial or religious lines. What we must jointly never forget during this current crisis is that there are hostile enemies of democracy and that Israel must be kept strong in order to remain as a model on the front lines fighting to save the kind of government which Abraham Lincoln said should never perish from the earth.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes No. 109, No. 110, and No.111. If present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the shock of the hot war now raging in Iraq has traumatized many Americans who oppose this war and are ready to fight harder for peace. The dogs of war are growling louder as they seek to intimidate all peace seekers with charges of treason. The warmongers charge that those of us who oppose the war are abandoning our troops in the field. On the contrary those of us who oppose the war value all human life greatly including the life of each American soldier. We support the troops and we want to see them return home as soon as possible not in body bags but smiling on their own two feet. Although we are presently in the minority, the advocates for peace are the Americans with the correct vision and the right blueprint for the future. Despite the world outcry against it, the U.S. has launched the war in Iraq. Peace at this moment is not possible; nevertheless, the struggle to return to a state of peace as soon as possible must continue. Without a doubt, the U.S. military will overwhelm the Iraqi military and the long occupation will begin. The challenge for peace advocates is to make the occupation not a continuation of the evils of the war. A strong peace movement in America has the potential to turn the occupation of Iraq into a major component of a larger world peace blueprint. Instead of allowing the oil resources of Iraq to be plundered and divided among the oil barons of the world, peace advocates must build a multilateral alternative governing structure to confront the U.S. master plan for looting. In the long term war for a world peace Iraq will be only a starting point. There will be no rest for those who dare to stand up to the architects of a new world order which camouflages dominance by a new world elite of the greediest. Peace advocates must conjure up the same fervor and determination as our adversaries. We must plan, work and act with relentless vigilance. This is a call for an army of ``fanatics for peace''. The following Rap poem sets forth the credo of the Fanatics for Peace. We Are Fanatics for Peace We citizens volunteer to do our part-- Never mind the military purple heart, We are fanatics for peace! Our holy assault must never cease; Forward to the civil liberty lines, Blast the voting fraud mines, The constitution light still shines, Launch spit into the fascist face Our maneuvers will save the human race. Against warmongering lies A truth revolution will rise; Deep wells of anger Pump bitter tears into our eyes; Fervor for the future, Democratic civilization fanatics Wrestle with partisan acrobatics, Smothered in its star spangled bed Voter apathy is now real dead. We are fanatics for peace! For perpetual war Dig wide trenches deep Victims come fight with us Before you weep. Contempt is heaped upon the humble, Wise men merely sit and grumble, Only we thugs for freedom March to the never ending front lines. Pledge Allegiance To the human race, Military machines Are an obsolete disgrace. Commanders of abuses Must face the Nurenberg nooses. We are fanatics for peace! Pledge allegiance To the civilization Our children deserve, This is the cause We swear to serve. Victory without blood In Gandhi's name, Celebrate Mandela's fame, The spirit of Martin King, Again will reign, Resist a government Now gone insane. Commanders of abuses Must face the Nurenberg nooses. We are fanatics for peace! Run and broadcast the brave news, Divine mobilization we choose, Surrender we unconditionally refuse, Our vision will not decrease Our passion will never cease We are fanatics for peace!

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order. I think all Members should be listening and should get the kind of education we have just gotten from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). We have, the Congressional Black Caucus along with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, produced a budget, an alternative budget, to guide our people into understanding what the priorities should be. This is a budget which we call Leave No Family Behind because it addresses the needs of working families. The New York Times just this past Sunday said that the military, the people who are fighting in Iraq right now, mirrors a working-class America. New York Times, Sunday, March 30, 2003. I urge all Members to get it and read it. It goes into an analysis of who is in the military in great detail. It is working families, representatives of working families. Those are the people who are fighting for America. It is our country as much as it is anybody else's country, and certainly the budget that the Republican majority has put forward starting with the president does not mirror a concern for working families. The concern is not there. We have heard from my colleagues quite a number of examples of items that are being cut. I will not go through all of that again, but the fact that food stamps for low-income families are being cut drastically, temporary assistance to needy families is being cut. The members of these families are out there fighting. Student loans are being cut. Schools are going to have to close early in some States because the States are running out of money, and they should be the beneficiaries of revenue sharing which is proposed in our budget. The Federal Government would give the States money to help them make up some of the gap in their budgets. We need a budget which reflects a concern for the working families, members who are out there fighting in Iraq for our country. We need to let them know that this country cares about them and appreciates them and the benefits of the Federal Government certainly are going to be there for them when they come home. That is not true in the President's budget proposed by the Republican majority. We need to make certain that between now and the time we pass the appropriations, we correct this great injustice, this great gap between what is needed for working families and what is there.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of statistics which show how grave the problem is. Last fall, I had a town meeting of veterans in my district, and those were some of the angriest people I have ever seen. These are members of our society who have been betrayed, and who are continuously betrayed. Those who are fortunate enough to come back, there are 58,000 who died in Vietnam, 300,000 were wounded, and some of the wounded were in that audience, and on and on it goes with the insults they have to endure, like the long waiting lists. It is important for us to note that those of us who are against war are not against soldiers or veterans. Anybody who places his life at risk, whether as a volunteer or drafted, deserves to have the medal of greatness placed upon them. Out of the nearly 300 million people in our population, those few people become great people. There is no such thing as a greatest generation just because they fought World War II. All veterans, Vietnam, Korea, whoever was able to come back, deserves the maximum that we can do in terms of housing, education and certainly medical benefits. It is a commentary, which I think has been pointed to several times here, on the heartlessness of this administration that at a time like this they would dare have a $28 billion cut in the benefits for veterans over a 10-year period. Veterans deserve all we can give them. They are all part of a great generation no matter which war they have fought in.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first congratulate the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus for the agreement to produce this joint budget. Our troops are in the field now, and we are going to support those troops. The best way we can support our troops is to try to bring them home by policy changes, not in body bags, but bring them home smiling on their feet. We also would like to support their families. This is a budget which we call ``Leave No Families Behind.'' Mr. Chairman, 35 percent of the members of the Army are African American. Two-thirds of the fighting force in Iraq, on the borders of Iraq, are members of working families. We want to take care of the families of the people who fight for America, and that is the gist of this budget. It is a budget for working families. We have stayed within the requirements of the majority. Our current budget is $1.836 trillion. We have begun by adopting the Rangel shared sacrifice freeze on tax cuts, and this generated a revenue base of $1.5 trillion. This has allowed the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to offer our current budget of $1.8 trillion. Our budget projections reached a low deficit of $72.9 billion in the year 2011, and we offer a surplus of $87.7 billion in the years 2012 and $127.7 billion in 2013. It is the strong and overriding belief of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus that the budget and appropriations processes are the highest importance to our constituencies who make up the great majority of Americans. Budget priorities speak in a language of numbers and dollars that tell the people we represent how important their concerns and their welfare are to us. This budget was prepared against the backdrop of a recession at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is greater in the United States than in any other Nation. A recent report of the Federal Reserve states that the median net worth of white families went up 17 percent to $120,900, while the median net worth for minority families during the same 3-year period went down 4.5 percent to $17,000. The difference between $17,000 and $120,000 is a stark difference. Working families of all ethnic groups are included in this great gap between rich and poor, the white working families as well as minority working families. A key component of this budget is a stimulus package which addresses the needs of all working families with proposals for extended unemployment and health care benefits immediately, and also for creating jobs as rapidly as possible. This budget also continues to focus on certain unique needs of African American and minority communities. Mr. Chairman, I thank all Members and staff, especially Jacqueline Ellis of my staff, who worked so diligently on producing this alternative budget.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for presiding over this Special Order on Iraq. We cannot say too much at this point about America's preemptive strike on Iraq. We are the greatest Nation that ever existed in the history of the world. We are the richest; we are the most powerful. We are also the most democratic. Never have so many people enjoyed democracy and never have so many people had an opportunity to help make decisions. We should not throw away our opportunity to help make this decision. We should not assume that it is all over, that decisions have been made and we cannot stop the war at this point. Or if the war should occur in the next few hours or the next few days, we should not assume that we cannot shorten it, we cannot do the best for our soldiers. The best thing to do for our soldiers is to bring them home safely, to get them out of conflict's way. War is hell. War is hell. The question is, Do we have to plunge into hell in order to accomplish what we are seeking to accomplish? I want to go back to where I was last fall when we considered the President's resolution, the resolution authorizing the President to go to war. At that time I said that I still believe that every step we take toward a war with Iraq makes us less safe, not more safe. If we get involved and obsessed with Iraq, it is a bottomless pit that makes us very much more unsafe than we were before. I said at that time that there are other situations existing in the world which we should spend more time on and take care of before we plunge into any kind of long- range involvement with Iraq, and I still say the same is true. Most people have not bothered to observe the situation closely in Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be off the radar completely, off the agenda. Nobody talks about it. Pakistan is a nation of 180 million people. Most of them are Muslims. Officially they are a Muslim nation. They see themselves as a Muslim nation. Pakistan already has the nuclear bomb. They have nuclear weapons because we trained the Pakistani scientists in this country, and they now have nuclear weapons. They have nuclear weapons. A Muslim nation has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has always had a positive relationship with the United States, but it has always been a strained relationship. Pakistan has always supported us throughout the entire Cold War. Pakistan supported us against the Russians in Afghanistan. There is a long history of Pakistan's loyalty to the United States. Yet Pakistan has always been treated like a second-class partner. Pakistan has never been rewarded for its loyalty. When the Cold War was over, we just pulled out. The Afghanistan war, they were very much involved with, and after it was over, we just picked up and left. We have never given them the kind of aid economically that we should have provided. We have never offered them a Marshall Plan. We, at this point in history, even after al Qaeda, and Pakistan has now played a major role in al Qaeda, in the pursuit of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, they played a major role. But after all the negotiations of how we are going to go about doing this and what the alliance means, we have ended up giving Pakistan only $300 million in aid. Mr. Speaker, $300 million in aid to Pakistan, already fighting with us against Osama bin Laden, on the border of Afghanistan. On the border of Afghanistan, in great harm, harm's way, $300 million. Now we are discussing packages with Turkey for $6 billion, just to let our troops pass through to go to Iraq. What do we think the Pakistanis think when they look at that? Here is why I ask the question: What do you think the Pakistanis think? Because the other element in this is that this Pakistani Government, who has always been our friend, also teeters on the edge of dissolution. The Pakistani situation is very, very tenuous. They have a President who took over as a result of a military coup, but this same President was part of the military that helped us in Afghanistan. This same President presides over a Pakistani secret service intelligence agency. They are the ones who created the Taliban. They created the Taliban as a way of conquering Afghanistan. They are very close to the Taliban. So when we had the invasion of Afghanistan, there are elements of Pakistan's military and Pakistan's intelligence services who are very unhappy about it, and as Muslims also do not like the idea of Muslims fighting Muslims. The present government is very anxious. The President and the top officials go nowhere except with top security. They are very aware of the fact that they are in jeopardy. In other words, a coup could take place at any moment in Pakistan, and if a coup takes place and the right wing there, the people who are pro-Osama bin Laden, win, they have the nuclear bomb. Osama will have the nuclear bomb. It is just that dangerous. Why do I talk about a coup on the eve of attacking Iraq? Because there is a fanatical element involved here which will be triggered at the invasion of Iraq all over the Muslim world. There is a fanatical element which the Pakistani Government may just not be able to contend with. We are in danger of having a coup take place and the nuclear bomb is the worst thing that could happen, nuclear bombs put in position where Osama bin Laden could get them. I need not talk about the other critical situation in the world: North Korea. That is on the radar screen. People talk about that. We have in North Korea a dictator less known than Saddam Hussein. We do not even understand the machinations of this man's mind and the whole regime that he has managed to perpetuate all of these years. But people who have been there say that the population is fanatically behind him. This is a population extremely intelligent; they have mastered modern technology. They have some of the best rockets in the world, and they are going on to fashion their own nuclear industry. They already have, they say, a couple of bombs and they are going to start making more. At the same time, they cannot grow enough food to feed their people. What kinds of monsters are these, and what kind of situation do we have when they have the technological confidence that great, but they are not able to feed the people? The people in charge do not even care enough to feed the people, obviously. That is another problem. So we have those dangers in the world; and as we get obsessed with Iraq and involved with Iraq, which is a problem, Saddam Hussein is a monster. Saddam Hussein is a threat to world order. But Saddam Hussein is not an immediate threat to the United States and probably not an immediate threat to any country because he knows if he attacks anyone in surrounding Arab countries, he will have the whole world come down on him again. Saddam Hussein, I have no case to make for. The man finances suicide bombers in Palestine. The big question is why? Why did we let him continue to sell oil all over the world so that he could finance suicide bombers in Palestine and continue building his arms industry? Where does he get the money from to continue to build up his arms industry? We talk about weapons of mass destruction. He has a big army. He has a big army with conventional weapons. The money to buy those weapons and to keep that army going has continued to flow, despite the fact that we have sanctions imposed on Iraq. Why did we not enforce the sanctions? What oil barons did we bow to to let them make a profit by not enforcing the sanctions? Why did we not, if France was trafficking in oil and Russia was trafficking, why did we not come down on our partners and really make the sanctions stick? They have never stuck. He has continued to get money, as much as he wants, to do what he wants to do. People say, well, we are responsible for a lot of deaths of children in Iraq. No. That is ridiculous. He has the money. He does not spend it for the nutrition of children; he does not spend it for medicine. He spends it on building up his weapons and his power, and we let him do it. Why do we have to go all the way to a war, mobilizing 300,000 American troops, when we did not bother to do what we could have done on the seas? We control the sea lanes. We could have stopped the oil from being sold and transmitted all over the world, but we did not. So there are other solutions, is what I am saying. Why do we have to go into hell? War is hell. If we did not know it was hell, if our imaginations did not tell us that, reading the ``Iliad'' did not tell us, when I read the ``Iliad,'' I wondered why Homer went to such great lengths to talk about how the spear was plunged in mightily and the blood flowed like rivers, and he had four great descriptions of the horror of war. Well, in those days they did not have any movies. He did not have Spielberg to show him in ``Saving Private Ryan.'' If he did not read the ``Iliad,'' if he did not read any books and could not have his imagination telling him why war is hell, if he did not believe in Nikita Kruschev and the defense of Stalingrad, the facts of history, then we can see Steven Spielberg. It is right there on the screen in ``Saving Private Ryan.'' Our boys landed at Normandy under those conditions. It is not an exaggeration. War is hell. War was hell in a lot of other places too. War was hell at Gettysburg. The greatest number of American lives lost was lost in the Civil War; 600,000, at Gettysburg, thousands died, the largest number came from New York. But they died; they died for a noble cause at Gettysburg. They died for a noble cause at Normandy. They died for a noble cause in Korea. The North Koreans came brutally down on the South Koreans, and within days they wiped out the city of Seoul, a brutal onslaught. Millions of people died in the Korean War before the United States forces got involved. Our armed services and our military might can be put to good use. I like to think of myself as a follower of Martin Luther King. But I am not a pacifist in the sense that I think military force is necessary. There are times that military force is necessary. Thank God we have force. Our professional soldiers are the best in the world. My brother was a sergeant major in the Army for 20, 26 years. We have a very professional group of people now that run the military, and they are determined to do a good job for our Nation. We cannot fault them for the decisions that were made. The problem is at the top; and the White House and the decision- making here in Washington, it is all wrong and dangerously off course. We are at a pivotal moment in American history, and instead of going one way with our military might and our wealth and our power, and our influence, most people in the world love us. I do not believe Americans are hated by ordinary people anywhere in large numbers. They think we are as close to heaven as we are ever going to get here on Earth in terms of our way of life, including the political institutions, as well as the supermarkets and the joys of life and so forth. I would like to conclude with a little piece of poetry here. We have faced difficulties for a long time, since the beginning of the country, of various kinds. We have always overcome those difficulties. Thank God we had Thomas Jefferson to help us get off to a good start. Thank God we had Abraham Lincoln at a critical moment when our Nation was about to fall apart. There is no reason to believe that we will not overcome this time. All of the Members of Congress and all of our constituents should not throw up our hands in despair and give up. Let us keep talking. Let us keep trying to arouse the public to understand that this is a war we do not need. By going into preemptive war, using our wealth and military power in the wrong way, we are going to set history against us. Instead of guiding history and being the force and civilization which carries mankind to wonders never dreamed of before, we will become the enemy, with a lot of people sniping at our heels, and finally they will put together coalitions and bring down the great American empire. Rome fell because it was arrogant and thought that it could go on and on throwing its power around. We have at various times in history been delivered from this kind of arrogance and these kinds of mistakes. There was a man who wrote to Thomas Jefferson early in the history of the country who saw what happened when the Constitution was generated. It was always a miracle to him how these savage men, these people in the wilderness, could come together and put together a magnificent government. His neighbor wrote and said that there was an angel over America. There is an angel in the whirlwind taking care of us. I think we ought to remember that as we go into this difficult, very bloody war. War is bloody, it is not what Good Morning America has been showing us. War is hell. We would like the angels in the whirlwind to come out and deliver us. Some time ago, I think it was February 28, I do not remember what the occasion was, I wrote Angel in the Whirlwind, actually as a result of a quote that President Bush had made in his inaugural address. Angel in the Whirlwind, Tell us where you've been; Come steer us through the storm, Halt all this public sin. Angel in the Whirlwind Blow forth great truths; All men are born equal, Some men die great; Profiles in courage Never come too late. Lincoln in the whirlwind Blew powerful justice down; Emancipation Proclamation, Magnificent declaration, Plain ordinary sensation, Transformed to noble creation. Sailors in the whirlwind Forsake all ease, Typhoons still lurk near, Patriots must not fear. Angel in the whirlwind, Jefferson at your side, Ships ashore at Normandy, In every boat you ride, Protect our future fate, Martin King's posterity Is waiting at the gate. Angel in the whirlwind Wrestle with the terror; Tornado twisted greed; Volcanoes belching Ashes of indifference; Human kind's highest hope Strangling on a golden rope; Merciful empire That might've been, Critically infected now By the virus of public sin; Giant graves reserved for midget men. Merciful empire that might have been, or we could still be the merciful empire that saves civilization. Angel in the whirlwind Stay to save the brave and free, Bring back judicial integrity, Point us toward eternity, Come steer us through new storms Angel in the whirlwind.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, we are about to begin the process of passing a budget. There are other matters on the agenda here in Washington, of course. We have just heard one, the medical malpractice and the capping of awards to patients. That is important. There are not many important things that we have considered so far this year. There are a few, but nothing is more important than the budget. The budget is part of a bigger process. The budget and appropriations process are inseparable. They go together. It is as if the appropriations process, which is the final allocation of funds for functions of government, begins with the budget. The budget is going to set the parameters. The budget is going to outline where the appropriations process can go. It is important that as many of our Members as possible focus now on the preparation of the budget. The budget is a moral statement. It is a moral statement of what the values of a nation are at a particular time. There may be some nations which cannot make such a moral statement with their budget. If it is Bangladesh or Haiti or a number of very poor countries in the world, they may have high moral values, they may want to educate all of their primary school children and high school children, they may want to send all their children to college for free, but they do not have the resources, they do not have the funding, so the moral choice is not theirs. In the United States of America, the richest nation that ever existed on the face of the Earth, we make moral choices because we have the resources. We can do whatever we want to do with our resources, but we choose to do in some cases outrageous things with our resources and neglect very important matters, such as education, such as health care. You cannot separate the budget from the discussions of war and peace either. We are slowly proceeding at an escalating pace toward a war with Iraq. The war with Iraq cannot be dealt with and discussed and value judgements cannot be made about that war without also considering the budget and appropriations process. It is the budget. How much will the war cost? Can we afford the war at the same time we provide for the needs of our own people in a reasonable manner? How much will war and peace affect the decisions that are made by the Members of Congress from here until we end the final appropriations process? It is very interesting that the President, who starts the budget process by submitting his recommended budget to the Congress, has chosen not to include in the budget figures any recommended budget for the war in Iraq. Everybody knows that we are preparing for war. We have nearly 200,000 troops already in the area of Iraq, more specifically in Kuwait just across the border from Iraq. It is pretty clear that the policy of our administration wants to move us toward war, despite the fact that the rest of the civilized world, or large parts of the civilized world are raising their voices in protest. We are moving in that direction, but it is not in the budget. What kind of moral statement is it that we do not even bother to mention the war in the budget? Is that a statement that it should be a secret document, that whatever the budget for the war in Iraq might be it is going to be too outrageous to discuss in public? That will be a bit un-American. There is no way you can appropriate large amounts of funds without coming here to this floor through the Congress. So eventually we are going to have a budget for the war in Iraq on top of the present budget. The present budget already is a budget that has gone into deficit. We are going to expend more money, if we follow the President's recommendation, than we take in. So war and peace considerations will have to be a part of this process of deliberation about the budget. I do not want to spend the time today discussing the war. I want to talk about the budget. But I must say that an activity which will drain such a great amount of money from the coffers of the American people, an activity which will put a strain on the budget-making process for all other functions, must be dealt with to some degree here. I am against going to war with Iraq. I think that we are less secure. Every day we move toward a war with Iraq makes us less secure, not more secure. I think we are as a people more in danger every day we move toward the war with Iraq. I made that statement back in the fall when we had on the floor consideration of whether or not to give the President the approval to go to war, knowing that the consideration was war in Iraq. I made that statement. I said that North Korea and Pakistan are two priorities that we should look at before we consider war in Iraq. Most people do not know that there is a great danger lurking in Pakistan along the borders and in the whole country. There is a danger that a nation that already has nuclear weapons, that is our ally, that that government may be overthrown. That government teeters on the edge of disaster because there are a tremendous number of people in high places in the military establishment, in the intelligence apparatus, who are pro-al Qaeda. There are a tremendous number of people who are pro-the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban that we just defeated in Afghanistan was created in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani military. There are tensions seething, there is fanaticism there with respect to the battle between India and Pakistan over Kashmir that warps the reasoning of lots of people. And it is possible that fanatics, assisted by professional military people and the fervor of the al Qaeda movement, could overthrow the government of Pakistan, our ally, our biggest Muslim ally in the world. Pakistan has always been our ally. Throughout the Cold War it was our ally. It is our ally now at a time when it is very dangerous for the Pakistani government to be our ally. But they are there. They have the courage, they are supporting the effort, the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and in that region, and it appears they may support the President in his quest to make war on Iraq. But this ally is in danger. I think that I am one of the few people who would put them first on the list of dangerous situations that confront America. They have nuclear weapons already. They have nuclear weapons. They are a Muslim nation. Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization will have nuclear weapons if they capture the government or take over the government of Pakistan. Moving beyond Pakistan, of course, everybody is aware now--they were not aware last fall to the extent they are now--that North Korea poses a threat and every day we move toward Iraq, obsessed with attacking Iraq, we are ignoring the danger in North Korea. North Korea is a mystery. The leaders there are unpredictable, unknown. This is a nation that defies reason in that they have the technical know-how, they have a very educated population, a population that is able to produce high technology. They have some of the most efficient rockets in the world. They are in the position now to create nuclear weapons. In fact, it is predicted soon and they may have two or three nuclear bombs already. They have that kind of technology, they have that kind of capability, they have that kind of know-how. At the same time, they cannot feed themselves. The government cannot run a country which will provide food for the population, and the population is like captives to a government that cannot provide enough food for them. This is a situation probably unprecedented in history, and unpredictable; and we should pay much more attention to it. We should be watching it much more closely. We should have our resources poised to deal with the unknown, the dangerous unknown, that exists in North Korea. As far as Iraq is concerned, Saddam Hussein certainly is a person that should be dealt with. I think the fate of Milosevic, who is now on trial in the world court, indicted as a war criminal, that is the fate that should await Saddam Hussein; and we should push in every way possible to get that accomplished. But going to war with the people of Iraq in the manner we are proposing will not accomplish that task in a way which leaves us covered in dangerous spots elsewhere in the world. It also alienates. Because of the fact that we are about to wage a full scale attack on a whole nation, it alienates large numbers of allies that we may think we do not need; but we do need those allies. So war and peace considerations are as much a part of the budget considerations as any others, because we are already in a situation now where a new Department has been created, Homeland Security, and the Homeland Security budget is a new strain on the total nondefense budget. We will find in the President's budget a number of cuts in a number of proposals and propositions that move in a way which will place the burden of this war on the backs of the poorest people. We have proposals under way now which are outrageous with respect to robbing the poor to pay for our government. We have a recession. We have the impact of September 11. There are a number of forces in motion that keep the recession going, and it is getting worse. I am not in a position where I have the expertise to explain why the recession is moving the way it is totally, but we know some of the factors. I just mentioned two of them. We have serious problems with respect to budgeting for every State and every city across the country. Certainly in my home State of New York, we are deep in a situation where the expenditures loom high over the expected revenue in New York State. In New York City, there is still a $2 billion to $3 billion gap in the budget. It is very serious across the Nation, of course, as I said before. There are many cities and States in the same position. There are cities where the local education agency within the city is projecting cutting the number of days that children will be allowed to go to school. There are other cities that are projecting deep cuts in education and health care. There are cities where health care cuts are already taking place in large amounts. In my City of New York, the mayor was criticized by the establishment press for allowing the Medicaid costs to increase. The mayor has merely done his moral duty and allowed the agencies responsible for providing Medicaid to give Medicaid to those who are eligible for Medicaid. Our previous mayor had gone to great lengths to knock people off the welfare rolls who really had a right to be there. They were eligible. But in addition to knocking them off the rolls, our previous mayor would not counsel and pressured the departments responsible for administering Medicaid and food stamps, to the point where they would not tell people who were knocked off the welfare rolls that they still had a right to Medicaid or still had a right to food stamps. So at this point, half of the people eligible for food stamps in New York City are not receiving food stamps, on the one hand. On the other hand, the food pantries and the soup kitchens have long lines of people who need food, many of whom are eligible for food stamps, and they do not know it because of the oppressive policies of the previous administration. The administration in power now says we should do the right thing. People who qualify for Medicaid should get Medicaid. They are under attack for raising the cost of city government. By raising Medicaid and dealing with people's health care, we are threatening the budget; and that is a reason the press considers it a legitimate reason to criticize the mayor. ``Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' is not just a loose statement made somewhere by the Founding Fathers. Life comes first, before liberty, before the pursuit of happiness. Life is related to health care. You have to be healthy; you have to stay alive. We are last among the industrialized nations. I understand that has to be translated into the provision of the best possible health care for every citizen. If Canada can afford a plan which takes care of all the citizens of Canada, surely the United States can afford such a plan also. If Germany, France, if all the industrialized nations can afford to provide health care for all, surely the rich and powerful United States could also provide health care for all. In this budget process that we are about to undertake, proposals are being made by the White House that Medicaid will be treated the way we have treated welfare reform. We are going to use Medicaid dollars to bribe the States. We are going to use Medicaid dollars in the same way that welfare reform dollars were used. How were they used? In the Welfare Reform Act we offered every State funding at a certain level for their program for the poor people. At the same time, we gave them the leeway to keep all the funds that they were able to garner as a result of people who were taken off the welfare rolls. If you drive down the welfare rolls in whatever way, it was assumed it would be legitimate, that you would really check the eligibility of people, that the welfare rolls would go down, because we had programs that would help poor people, help them to get jobs, help them to find other means to sustain themselves. But in most States there was a reckless move to knock off as many as possible. So many people were knocked off the rolls in New York City that we had to go to court and get a court order to force the city under the previous administration of Rudy Giuliani, force him to allow people to have a fair hearing. At one point the requirement that before you were pushed off the rolls a family had a right to a fair hearing, that was just pushed aside; and we had to get the courts to order that the fair hearing would be reinstated. The city dragged its feet and did as few fair hearings as possible. Welfare rolls went way down. It benefited the State and city, and it was a way to fill the petty cash drawers of the city and the State on the backs of the poor. They did that most successfully in the State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is the home of the present Secretary of health and welfare. Wisconsin was one of the worst in forcing the welfare costs down and transferring the funds that were supposed to be used for the poor into other functions. For that, the Governor of Wisconsin was rewarded and brought to Washington. So now the Governor of Wisconsin presides over a new proposal to take Medicaid and conduct the same kind of swindle with Medicaid that was conducted with welfare reform dollars. It is Robin Hood in reverse, robbing the poor to take care of the well-off or to take care of the governments of the States and the localities. But the amount of money involved in the Medicaid swindle is so much greater than the amount of money involved with the welfare reform; so that bribe, that carrot held out there, is quite tempting for Governors who are now suffering with tremendous budget problems. I say, in our budget, why do we not follow the Democratic stimulus package? The Democratic stimulus package says let us give money back to the States in an honest revenue sharing program. In that revenue sharing program, our Democratic Caucus did not do it to the degree I wanted, but you would target some areas. I would target education, I would target Medicaid, and say we are giving you the money back. It is your money. Really all money comes from localities and States. The Federal Government does not generate any money. It is the money that comes out of taxpayers that live in States and local areas. So we are giving back the money, a certain amount of money, to help with the budget problems that you have at the State and local level; but a certain percentage must be spent on education, and a certain percentage must be spent for health care also. But that is honest revenue sharing, with controls and monitoring; and it is up front. What we are saying instead is we will give you your Medicaid money at the level that you have now, and that is it. Once we give it to you at that level, it will never go up; but you can use the money appropriated, for the next 5 years at least, you can use that money that you do not need for people who are on Medicaid. If you drive down the Medicaid rolls, deny care to people that need it, all that you save can be utilized in some other way. This is called block grants, and there are other names for it. But that is the Republican majority's way of dealing with a major crisis in the country in terms of States and local governments and their budgets. There is also a proposal that section 8 housing, housing programs for the poor, shall also be block-granted in the same manner. So you can take something from the pot for the poor people by taking from welfare reform, you can take some from the pot that is generated by Medicaid, you can take some from section 8, and on and on it will go, because obviously the Republican majority's philosophy of States' rights is being distorted to mean the States' rights to Federal dollars that are really intended for poor people. So we are here considering the budget, and these are the kinds of overriding considerations that are taking place. I have been appointed by the Congressional Black Caucus to coordinate an alternative budget. An alternative budget is an alternative to the Republican majority budget that is going to be presented here. It is also an alternative to what the President has presented. Nobody knows exactly how much the Republican majority budget that will come to the floor of the House will look like the President's budget, but we assume that it will be very close to the President's budget. I am not certain that this Republican majority will allow alternative budgets on the floor yet. I do not know whether that decision has been made or not. But I hope the decision is made to allow us to present alternative budgets on the floor. Nothing is more important, as I said before, than the budget process, the budget process which opens up the appropriations process, the process that is the most important thing that government can engage in. And we need time to debate it; we need time to discuss it. We among ourselves are overwhelmed by the complexities of our government, even before 9-11, even before the mobilization for the war on Iraq. This is a complicated era. We live in complicated times of governments. The functions of governments as big as the United States of America need deliberation. We need deliberations about function, we need debate, we need as much consideration as possible. So we should not rush through the process of the approval of a budget. I think there are certain basic principles that we need to follow, and I set forth to my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus those principles. One is we stand for and would like to do everything possible to facilitate a smaller, streamlined, and efficient government. That should be the goal of all lawmakers. However, there must be enough revenue and resources to carry out the vital functions of our complex American society. It is absolutely necessary that we maintain an adequate investment in human development. The people who say that the policies of the Republican majority are fashioned in a way to squeeze, squeeze the dollars out of the Federal Government so that there will be no money, no funding available for social programs, they are correct. That is the way the Republican majority is proceeding, along with the help, of course, of a new administration. The Republicans, of course, control all of the apparatus of government now, and it will be more difficult than ever before to stop the march toward the movement of resources of the Federal Government out of the Federal Government and back to the States, to some degree, and the lessening, in the final analysis, to take away the safety nets, to take away the New Deal, to take away Lyndon Johnson's society; all of that is going to be reversed if these policies are allowed to endure in the name of making government more efficient. I believe in efficient government. I want every dollar saved to be used for some good use. Over and over I have attacked the insufficient farm subsidy program. The farm subsidy program is one of the most inefficient programs in the civilized world. Huge amounts of money are poured into a program that is not a safety net program, but it is still a handout. The American people are giving money to agricultural businesses. In addition to giving money to the businesses, we have a farm loan, all kinds of loan programs that have existed over the last 50 years, and billions of dollars have accumulated where the farmers, the so-called farmers, the agribusinesses have not bothered to pay back the funds. So there are areas of waste which certainly should be looked at very closely. There are large numbers of areas of waste. I am in favor of an efficient, streamlined, smaller government, but not at the expense of meeting the needs of all of the people of the United States, especially those who are poorest and need safety net legislation. A second general principle, a general priority that I would set forth, I have set forth for the preparation of our alternative budget, the alternative budget of the Congressional Black Caucus, is that Federal assistance for education, for health care, housing, child care, transportation, worker safety and protection, and business development is as vital as support for homeland security and defense. Now, here I want to make the case that inseparable, inseparable from the budget process is our security. Considerations of our security are inseparable from the budget process. Considerations of our prosperity, continued vibrant economy, are inseparable from the budget process. It is the budget, stupid. It is the budget. The budget, which is part of the beginning of the appropriations process, will determine whether we use our tremendous resources for the benefit of all of the American people, whether we make a pivotal decision and turn down the dark road of more and more to the people who already have the most and less and less for the folks at the bottom who need the most. That is what is at stake in this budget situation, and the fact that we must mobilize and finance a war only aggravates the situation much more. A third principle is that the ability of the government to provide for the Nation's security can be effectively implemented and sustained only if all of the vital investments in human development are assigned priority on a continuing basis. Our security can be effectively implemented and sustained only if all of the vital investments in human development are assigned priority on a continuing basis. In other words, the first thing a nation of the size of the United States colossus, we are a colossus; nothing ever existed in the world like the United States of America. This colossus cannot function without a lot of educated human beings. In fact, the total population, as many as possible, must be educated; otherwise, we are going to grind to a halt. We cannot keep pace with all of the kinds of situations that are there without a tremendously educated population. We are already suffering greatly because of the fact that we have not sufficiently educated enough people to cover all of the fronts that have been exposed as a result of the al Qaeda attack on September 11. One of the problems with the al Qaeda attack, and I have said it many times, is that despite the fact that we are very advanced technologically, we have satellite systems that cover the entire world, they can pick up telephone conversations anywhere in the world, any electronic mechanism can be picked up and recorded, and they did exactly that before September 11, and many of the messages that were picked up in Arabic were not translated in time to make the difference. I am not saying they could have totally prevented September 11, but it has already been admitted that some of the messages were picked up, but suffered from delayed translation, because we did not have enough Arab translators. We did not have enough Arab translators. Somebody in our government in high places failed in terms of his vision and his education to make certain that there was a comparability between the people who were able to translate messages and the volume of the messages coming in. Several months later, 2 or 3 months ago, a person was fired in the FBI apparatus because she blew the whistle and said we still do not have enough Arab translators. We still are not addressing the problem. Now, Arab translators are just the tip of the iceberg. We had a problem here on Capitol Hill with that unknown person who sent out the anthrax, sent anthrax to one of our Senators, and that office had to be closed and the whole building shut down for 4 months. For 4 months we had to wait for the handful of people who have expertise in how to clean up anthrax to deal with the problem. For 4 months, for 4 months here on Capitol Hill, because of the fact that we did not have enough expertise to spread around, right here in Washington. In the Post Office, they did not get the same amount of attention. The absence of that attention led to the death of the two casualties of anthrax in Washington. They were two postmen. The attention was triage, focused here on Capitol Hill. Some of our offices had to shut down for 3 weeks. Even now, the impact of the anthrax scare determines how fast we get our mail. We do not get it very fast because of the fact that it is screened. But the absence of expertise, the absence of people who knew how to do it was a problem. What if the anthrax fanatic had struck at 10 or 20 places at the same time? Where would we be at this point? We obviously need a lot of people who know how to clean up anthrax, just as we need people to know how to handle the response to chemical warfare, biological warfare. We are talking about that, but when we look at the cuts in education and the way education is treated, there seems to be no understanding of the obvious. It is obvious that one cannot get the people to do these things unless we have a pool, a pool of educated people to draw from, bigger than the pool we have now. Because the pool we have now to create lawyers and doctors and engineers and masses in MBAs, businessmen, that pool will be drawn upon to create the traditional replacements for those areas. We need more educated people to take on all of these other specialties and to make certain that we never, we never lose a war, we never lose a battle, and maybe never lose a life because we did not have the expertise needed. So the investment in human beings comes first. Why are we proposing these budget cuts in education? Why are we not maximizing the amount of money spent on education as part of our mobilization for a continuing war against terrorism? A war against terrorism is a serious war and there is a tendency to try to paint all of us who are against the war in Iraq as passivists, people who want to lay down their lives and let the fanatics trample over us, as people who are not smart enough to understand the nature of the enemy. I am against the war in Iraq, as I said before. I do not think we should be preparing for war in Iraq because it makes the world more dangerous for us. I am against that war, but I assure my colleagues, like many of my colleagues who voted against giving the President the power to go to war, my colleagues voted to give the President the power to make war on al Qaeda and the Taliban. We applauded, we applauded the immediate response to go after the people who perpetrated the September 11 attack. I want to say that nowadays there is a lot of talk back and forth among poets. I just heard, before I came to the floor, a McNeil/Lehrer presentation where they talked for a few minutes about how poets are getting involved in trying to stop the war on the one hand; on the other hand, how some poets are getting involved on the other side, criticizing the poets who want to stop the war. This poet was very much in favor of going to Afghanistan, of challenging the Taliban, of routing al Qaeda. I am not automatically a knee-jerk passivist; I do not run from the fact that there are fanatics in the world. On February 14 of last year, February 14, 2002, I made the following statement here on the floor in the form of a rap poem called ``Let's Roll, America.'' I am not going to read it all, but I am going to read some of it to make it known that when it is time to mobilize, when the enemy is real, we should go forward. ``LET'S ROLL AMERICA! Set the tracks of destiny straight, Don't look back But close the gate. Toast the past But change the cast. In every language of the earth To the country of all nations We have proudly given birth. At the Olympics of forever We will win all the races; We are Great Angels of tomorrow With magic mongrel faces.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleagues who worked on this legislation. I also thank my colleagues in general for appreciating the role of libraries and museums. I also would like to issue a new, repeated challenge to the Members of Congress to take a hard look at libraries and see that we have certainly shortchanged them or overlooked their importance as an institution that gives us the greatest bang for the buck. Our cost- benefits ratio with libraries is probably greater than any institution that we fund anywhere.

Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. Now that my objectivity has been established, I would like to say that we have been slow to recognize it, but I hope that this bill will help to concretize in our minds the value of libraries and museums to work together. I happen to live across the street from one of the greatest museums in America, the Brooklyn Museum of Art. I also live one block away from one of the greatest public libraries, the Central Library of the Brooklyn Public Library, where I worked for 8 years as a librarian. I got a master's degree from the Atlanta University School of Library Science, and was a librarian for 8 years before I went into another line of work that led to politics. But in the history of Federal funding of libraries, everything we have done for libraries, of all the years there has been some kind of Federal assistance it would not equal the price of one aircraft carrier. I think that is unfortunate, because we do get a great deal of cost-benefits ratio, a good cost-benefit ratio from libraries. I am particularly interested in the library service as the technology section of this bill. That section recognizes that libraries are moving with the mainstream in terms of digitalized and computerized learning, and that it is probably in the forefront. Long before other institutions were utilizing computers, we had a cataloging system that came out of Ohio where we could catalog any book in the Nation and put it through a computer system, and that one cataloging process could serve all the libraries throughout the Nation. Cooperation among libraries of various kinds has gone on for a long, long time. One of the reasons libraries were able to deliver so much with so little is that they have always had those networks where they cooperate among libraries in a given system, among libraries across State borders, among local libraries and the Library of Congress. They are models of cooperation and collaboration. We should also realize that in times of recession when we have difficult economic times, the libraries are used more than ever. This is a pattern that started certainly in the Great Depression. It has not changed. I understand from my colleagues now in library service positions, especially public libraries, the use of libraries has gone up as the recession has set in. People go for very practical purposes: They are looking for books that will deal with changes in their occupations, or for various reasons; it is not recreational reading they go for when times are hard. So we should bear that in mind also, that it is an instrument by which people are able to change their own lives. We also have had demonstrated over and over again, despite the fact that people who make budget decisions at the local level often cut libraries first, that surveys in several cities and localities have established the fact that if the public is given the choice, would you pay more taxes for a particular service, libraries are right at the top in terms of individuals are willing to pay more taxes in order to keep their libraries open and keep their libraries operating at a quality level. That has been proven again and again. So in our reluctance to fund libraries, we are running counter to the perception of the public in terms of an institution where we get our money's worth. Museums, of course, now serve so many different kinds of purposes. When we say ``museum,'' we are not necessarily talking about an art museum. There are museums of all kinds. I have three grandchildren, and my oldest grandson is 5 years old. He has dinosaur books, but when he went to a library and saw an exhibit, he came back and wanted to be a paleontologist. That big word certainly had meaning for him. I hope that in the future we would be more generous and would be willing to authorize higher sums for these institutions that have proven their worth over and over again.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I would like to thank the chairman of the caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for sponsoring this Special Order on AIDS. It is focused on AIDS help for Africa, but we cannot really separate AIDS in Africa from the pandemic that is sweeping over the whole world. We do not hear much talk about AIDS in India, but I assure the Members that it is a big problem there. It is a nation with a billion people and very densely populated, and in a few years their problem will be far greater than Africa's. We do not hear much about AIDS in China. They have kept it a secret, even from themselves, to the point it has gotten out of hand; and we are going to hear far more, again with a nation of more than a billion people. It is a pandemic sweeping the world. I stood up and applauded, along with the rest of my colleagues, when President Bush announced a special initiative on AIDS, $15 billion worth of resources behind that initiative, during his State of the Union address. We stood up and applauded. I would like to keep applauding. I would like to say to our colleagues, let us throw a positive spotlight on this and hope that by continuing to applaud and continuing to hold it up, it will be done and done right; that we will make some corrections on some of the problems we have heard enunciated tonight with the way in which it is being done, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, and a number of other things we have heard behind the scenes about certain people who do not agree with the President, and they are determined to sabotage it in the various agencies. We hope that will not happen. We hope this represents an example of the better angels in American foreign policy, the better angels of American leadership. Those angels have come forward time and time again, and they have always not only benefited the people that we helped, but they have benefited us. The better angels sometimes appear in terms of a military force. They went off to Europe to fight fascism, and the boys who died on the beachheads of Normandy and other places there were fighting first of all to get invaders out of a foreign land and to save Europe from fascism, but it certainly was also to save the rest of the world from fascism. During the aftermath of that war, World War II, we launched a Marshall Plan, a Marshall Plan which I think cost $20 billion in the currency of that time, $20 billion to help save the European countries from economic hardship and starvation, which would have led them into the bottomless pit of Communism. It was one of the best programs in terms of expenditures of money. We got more for our money through the Marshall Plan than from any other program that we had launched to contain Communism. We fought a war in Korea, we fought a war in Vietnam, always to stop the tide of Communism; but we paid billions and billions of dollars more, and we paid in lives. The Marshall Plan, which was a nonviolent plan, a plan using the economic might of America to go to the aid of people of Europe, was effective in stopping Communism in Europe. So we have reaped benefits from the better angels policies that we have put forward. Here is a chance to do it again. The pandemic is sweeping the world. We are helping to save ourselves. I speak as a Congressman from a district which is at the epicenter of the North American AIDS epidemic. The epidemic in North America, the epicenter is in Brooklyn; it is in Brooklyn in part of my district, an area called Brownsville and Fort Green, east New York, east Flatbush. There is a heavy Caribbean population in part of that area, and a large Haitian population in part of that area, so these things are not so foreign to us. Haiti is not that far away and the Caribbean is not that far away. We need to think in one other dimension, that is, that microbes are the most powerful force in the world, the most powerful living forces in the world. If Members have not read some of those books about microbes, how numerous they are and how they continue to multiply and change and mutate, then Members ought to become conversant with that. Microbes, the germs that create the AIDS problem, are constantly changing and mutating. If we do not move, as one of our speakers has said, if we continue the dribs and drabs and do not move in as rapid a way as possible with all the available resources that we can muster, we may have a situation where the microbes mutating will end us up with something far more dangerous than we have now. AIDS is very complicated. One has to have intimate contact with a person to get AIDS from a person. There is nothing to say that the mutations will not take place and we will have some creatures flying in the air. The process of the way microbes mutate and viruses develop and so forth is such that it is not inconceivable that we could have a much worse problem affecting, or with the capacity to impact, much larger numbers of people. So when we help the people of Africa and anywhere else struggling under this problem at this particular point, we are also helping ourselves. We need to understand that. We are helping ourselves when we use our resources in this way to guarantee some kind of better quality of life, some kind of opportunity for people to be able to cope with it. With the help of outside forces from the high-tech world and the modernized, industrialized nations, maybe they will have a chance to get a grip or handle on it and be able to cope. These same countries are the places where Osama bin Laden and all the other terrorist leaders of the world will be recruiting people as they sink deeper into despair, as we have more and more orphan children. We have wars raging right now in many parts of the world, and children soldiers. Children soldiers are the backbone of those wars. So we cannot separate out the effort to stamp out AIDS from the other problems of the world. We can help ourselves a great deal if we listen to the better angels of our nature. If we use our resources to help people, we will end up helping ourselves a great deal. I think that is to be remembered as we go forward. Let us support the President and urge him to make certain that the problems that have been identified here are ironed out as rapidly as possible. Let us make sure that our credibility is not questioned because of something we are proposing that we are not delivering. Let us get all of our colleagues on board to try to stamp out this scourge that affects the whole Earth and could easily come home and affect large numbers of our own people.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of what we call the Mink substitute. I miss the voice of Patsy Mink ringing in my ears. I used to be reminded when she talked of the quote from Shakespeare's King Lear, ``Fool me not to bear it tamely; touch me with noble anger.'' She was always full of anger about the great swindle of this welfare reform bill, about the denial of education opportunities, about the insistence that we pay the lowest rates and we allow the States to squirrel away whatever they save. There is a standard that compassionate America has already created. If we look at the amount of money received per child in the survivor's benefits program when a Social Security recipient dies and their children receive benefits, it averages out to a child receiving $558 a month. One child receives $558 a month, or $6,706 a year. In the welfare programs, we have pushed it down to that of the great model, which was Wisconsin, which was giving a family of three less than $500 a month. A family of three was receiving less than $500 a month. This, they say, is progress. We are taking the children, and it is for our children, and giving them the minimum. And I do not understand why we declare it such a great success. The food pantries, the soup kitchens in my district and in New York in general are overwhelmed with the number of people who are there now. Homelessness is greater than ever before. Half the people eligible for food stamps are not receiving them because of the hostility in the way the program was administered under Giuliani. In an attempt to save money they have thrown the whole thing out of kilter. And those who could qualify are not even bothering to try anymore. So here we are in a situation that, despite all this emphasis on not a welfare check, but get a job, it is a situation where the only subsidy the U.S. approves of are farm subsidies, where a farm or agriculture business is eligible for as much as $270,000 per year in subsidies, which is a handout. It is a handout. Yet we want to reduce the family of three down to less than $500 a month and then call that a success. And then we will not allow them to get an education in order to be able to fill the jobs that are available. There is a nursing shortage in America. If my colleagues have not heard about it, I do not know where they have been. There is a nursing shortage. Many of the women whose children are on welfare, if they had the opportunity to get the proper education, would qualify for those jobs. But we do not allow that. We do not allow them to go to junior college or college, and accept that as legitimate. It is an easy way, and anybody with common sense would realize, that the easiest way to move a person off welfare and into a decent job would be through the education system. But that is not allowed. Mrs. Mink said this is part of a great swindle. The governors are able to take the money they save and put it into a slush fund, in their petty cash drawers. We are swindling from the poor in order to take care of the local budget-balancing problems.