Major Owens

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the need to share the current wealth and prosperity of America with working families. In 1989, the value of the stock market was $3 trillion. Ten years later, today in 1999, the value of the stocks in all the exchanges is $13 trillion. From $3 trillion to $13 trillion, that is what the increased value of the stock market has been. That is quite an overwhelming increase in wealth. Madam Speaker, we enjoy unprecedented prosperity today, so I would like to talk about how this prosperity and wealth should be shared with workers. Instead of attacking working families, we need to find ways to reward working families and to share this wealth. There are many ways to share the wealth and prosperity of the Nation at this point. Certainly I do not propose that we do what the Roman Empire did. At one point the Roman Empire was so wealthy as a result of its conquests, its taxation policies on its oppressed victims, defeated nations around it, that it had so much money that it decreed that every Roman citizen would be paid each year a certain amount of money out of the Treasury. That was real sharing. I do not think it succeeded for very long because once the word got out that every Roman citizen could share in the booty and they would pay them part of the accumulated wealth of the Nation, all the people in the surrounding countryside moved into Rome. In large numbers, they filled up Rome, and that policy was brought down by the sheer weight of numbers. Madam Speaker, I do not think we should ever try to repeat anything of that kind; however, I think that we can share the wealth of the Nation with working families by improving health care and making certain that every American citizen has decent health care. I think we can share the prosperity and the wealth of the Nation by making certain that education is available for every American citizen. The children of working families, for example, are the children who go to public schools. They have no alternative. So our public system of education which, by the way, has 54 million enrolled pupils, that system should be given as much help as possible by all sectors of our economy, governmental and private as well. So education, health care, I think if you improve those things, it would be two ways to share the wealth with working families. There is another very concrete and direct way to share the wealth with working families, and that is to share the dollars. The best way to help somebody who is poor is to give them money directly. Dollars in the hands of the poor are the most efficient and effective way to deal with poverty. So, instead of attacking the working families, as some of our present Republican legislation is seeking to do, let us have a bipartisan coalition on helping working families by raising the minimum wage. Let us raise the minimum wage and put some dollars in the pockets of working families, and they can put food on the table, better clothes, better housing and take care of themselves. We do not have that spirit here in this Congress. I appreciate the fact that we do not have a situation similar to the one that existed just a little more than 2 years ago in the 105th Congress. The 105th Congress started out with a set of direct assaults on working families. We had direct assaults, and we came on with the very first bill of the year. The very first bill in the 105th Congress was H.R. 1, which was designed to take away the cash overtime payments from working families. Madam Speaker, that may seem like ancient history now, but it was on a roller coaster in the first debates of the 105th Congress. It was on a roller coaster because it had support from the White House, it had support from the majority of the Democrats, a bill which said we will not pay workers any more in cash overtime, we will force them to take comp time, and the comp time has to be taken at the discretion of the employer. I pointed out, in fact, that what the workers needed was the cash, extra cash that the overtime provided, more than anything else. An argument was offered that, well, there are a lot of professionals and middle-class people who would like to have the option of having time off instead of more cash. I pointed out at that time that we in no way, the Fair Labor Standards Act does not really interfere with people having time off instead of cash. There are ways to deal with that if people prefer that voluntarily. But what they were doing by mandating that the Fair Labor Standards Act be changed was mandating that every worker had to accept the situation where time off would be at the discretion of the employer and no cash. I pointed out at that time that two-thirds of the people in America who worked for a living, wage earners, two-thirds made less than $10 an hour, less than $10 an hour, and I said: Let those two- thirds who make less than $10 an hour be exempted from your proposed legislation which would mandate time off instead of overtime. And it did get a few votes on the floor, my amendment, but it did not pass. However, thank God, the forces of common sense were at work all the time, and what seemed like a steamrolling proposition in the early days of the 105th Congress petered out. The labor unions got moving, the common sense of the average worker out there got moving, public opinion became involved, and the whole concept of forcing a change in the Fair Labor Standards Act to require comp time instead of overtime and cash just disappeared. I am very appreciative of the fact that we do not hear any more about it. There are some other frontal attacks on working families that we do not hear about this year, and I am glad we do not hear them any more. There were frontal attacks on OSHA to merely wipe out the agency, reduce the budget by two-thirds. OSHA takes care of the health and safety of workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is there to take care of providing safe workplaces. There were attacks which said that OSHA was threatening American industry, that business could not survive if OSHA continued to exist. These attacks persisted despite the fact that many of us pointed out the fact that OSHA staff had been so reduced that in my lifetime it was not likely that a business would be visited. It takes a cycle of more than 100 years for the inspectors to get around to visiting those businesses out there to examine the conditions to see if they meet OSHA standards. So OSHA was not a gestapo like agency with numerous staff members to come down on business. That was not true. That frontal attack has ceased, and we are grateful for that. There was also an attack on the unions and their ability to use their funds for any political purposes. It was called the Paycheck Protection Act. The Paycheck Protection Act was really going for the jugular vein. Wipe out the ability of unions to speak for their members, cut it off completely and if it could not be won at the Federal level there were also movements in the States fomented and encouraged by the leadership of the Republican majority here in the House. The Paycheck Protection Act is no longer being discussed this year. We are grateful that working families do not have to worry about losing their voice in the political arena. That is no longer a problem. Then there were the attacks on Davis-Bacon that came loud and frequently. Davis-Bacon was being attacked relentlessly, although as I often point out Davis and Bacon were two Republicans who devised a system for protecting workers in situations where large Federal contracts were involved. They did not want the wages of the local areas to be eroded by having these large contractors come in and bring outside workers in to do the work at lower wages. So it was common sense built in all the way from the beginning. These frontal assaults, the constant unrelenting attempt to batter down the protections for working families, are not happening here in the 106th Congress. I serve as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee for Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I know that at the committee level and the subcommittee level we are getting a guerilla attack. Guerilla ambushes have replaced the frontal assault. Not the same amount of noise is being made. They do not rush these items to the floor and expect immediate endorsements and passage, but there is a slow chipping away at the protections for working families. Working families are still in danger in this Republican controlled Congress. Working families still have to fear a bush whacking, a quiet assault, an ambush, in a number of areas. I say that I want to call on this 106th Congress, where all of us, most of us, subscribe to the notion that we are more civil and would like to have a bipartisan approach to certain issues, let us have a bipartisan approach to rewarding working families. Working families make up the majority of America out there. Working families need better health care. They need decent education. They need more help from the Federal Government for education. First of all, working families need dollars in their pockets, and we can do that by increasing the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage is what I want to talk most about. It is all integrally interwoven. We need to increase the minimum wage and the minimum wage is where there are entry level workers who are now making $5.15 an hour. We have proposed to raise that by fifty cents in one year. That is the President's proposal, fifty cents in one year and then another fifty cents another year, which means a dollar increase over a 2-year period. It will not make anybody rich. People who are making $10,000 a year would be making a little more than $12,000 a year after we raise the minimum wage. A lot of people have a lot of questions about whether the minimum wage really is important because, after all, most Americans are not making minimum wage. I am going to show some statistics, recent statistics, in a few minutes, to let everyone know that quite a number of Americans still make minimum wage and there are a lot who make below minimum wage, that are working every day for wages below minimum wage because minimum wage is not mandated for the smallest business. There are a number of situations where minimum wage does not impact. So instead of attacks on working families, I propose that we move forward in a bipartisan effort to reward working families by increasing the minimum wage. At a town meeting that I had just last night, where there were quite a number of people who came out, people are very concerned about a number of items, a number of Federal actions that are being taken. At the top of the list, of course, is Kosovo and what is going to happen with Kosovo and the intervention of our American forces along with NATO; will we send in ground troops or will they appropriate more money for the effort and in the process of appropriating more money for the war effort will we downgrade the efforts to improve Medicare by having something added to Medicare which will cover prescription drugs; will we downgrade our efforts to improve the education system and say that we have no money because this war effort is going to absorb all the resources? Those are very important questions and people are very concerned about that. By the way, I asked for a show of hands in an audience of about 200 people as to was there support for the present actions in Kosovo, the bombing of Kosovo, to stop the dictator Milosevic, Slobodan Milosevic, which I call a sovereign predator, responsible for unspeakable horrors in that area of the country, was there support for the present action that the United States was taking along with its NATO allies. Practically every hand in the house went up supporting it. The overwhelming majority, 95 percent of the people, supported taking action. However, I might point out that when I asked how many would support escalating the combat effort, escalating the effort to the use of ground troops, I had just the opposite reaction. Only about 5 percent raised their hands. I think that is very informative. To get back to today's subject, their primary concerns, or I might not say primary but equal to Kosovo were concerns about Social Security and concerns about Medicare and concerns about education. These are all things that are very important to working families. When we help to improve education, we are improving a lot of working families. The public school system that is being attacked by a lot of people in the majority, the Republican majority, they want to replace the public school system with a privatized system. They want vouchers to replace Federal aid to education. They want to give up on the public school system. As I said before, there are 54 million students in the public school system. Fifty-four million students are enrolled. Only a small percentage of our population of school-age students attend private schools today and if we were to make some kind of effort to greatly increase the funding for private schools, it would still be a very slow process of moving more and more of our youngsters into private schools. So just logistically and statistically, not much help is going to come in the near future from a private school effort or from giving vouchers and sending working family children off to find a private school. So any attacks on public education are also attacks on working families. One might want to know that the Federal Government does not do very much for these 54 million children out there in public schools. Our expenditure for elementary and secondary education presently is about $22 billion a year. The annual expenditure for elementary and secondary education is about $22 billion. Our current expenditure for highways and transportation is $51 billion, to let everyone see what the contrast is. We are spending only $22 billion for education but $51 billion for highways. I use that example because a lot of people continue to confront me with the issue of local control and say that it is not the Federal Government's business to worry about education. It is not the Federal Government's business to be involved in education. They ask, why would I want to saddle the Federal Government with responsibilities in the area of education? Well, let me ask this: Is it the Federal Government's responsibility to be involved in roads and highways? That was always a local responsibility. Highways and roads were for States and local governments to take care of. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the responsibility for maintaining the highways and the roads, but now we are at the point where we currently are spending $51 billion. Last year we had the biggest expenditure in history for highways and transportation approved. That expenditure will be about $218 billion over a 6-year period, $218 billion over a 6-year period. Contrast that with what the President is proposing to spend for school construction. Over a 5-year period he is proposing to spend $3.7 billion to pay the interest on $25 billion worth of loans that the local governments and the State governments will have to make for education. So the contrast is overwhelming. These are children of working families who go to the public schools. School construction would be an initiative to help working family children. People say that inner cities do not deserve to be given priority for education funding and we should take away the Title I money and put it into ed-flex and let the governors and the local decisionmakers spend the money for anything they want to related to education. Do not concentrate on the original purpose of Title I. The original purpose of the Federal Government's involvement in education was to help the poorer communities. Forget about that. They do not deserve that. There are Democrats who say that we should not have a construction bill, a school construction bill which gives first priority to the cities. Well, we give first priorities to the inner cities because that is where most of the children are. Most of the population of America lives in the big cities. When it comes time to fight wars, most of the people who go off to die are the young people from big cities. If one goes to the Vietnam Memorial wall they will find that the wall is full of people who come from the big cities and it is full of the children from working families. Children from working families went out to die in World War I and World War II and children from working families died in Vietnam. If we have a war in Kosovo that expands to a ground war, the majority of those who would die in combat will be from working families in big cities. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clearly label my discussion this evening with a topic. I want to call it ``Overwhelming Neglect: The Arithmetic of Federal Aid to Education.'' Overwhelming Neglect: The Arithmetic of Federal Aid to Education, and I am pleased that this special order has fallen in a period when there may be large numbers of school-going youngsters, students in high school and elementary school and junior high school, awake, and maybe a few will be listening. I want to address a large part of my remarks to those students, and I assure them that what I have to say will not be complicated. I am not going to talk in terms of complex and abstract ideas. I am going to talk about the simple arithmetic of Federal aid to education, no higher mathematics, no logarithms, no differential equations and calculus, nothing complicated, just simple arithmetic. I want the students of America out there attending school to join me in trying to educate my colleagues here in the House of Representatives and in the whole Washington decision-making arena. There is something wrong with decision-making in Washington at this point about education, something radically wrong. I think we need the children, the students, younger minds, to come to the aid of the decision-making circles here. We have some decision- making circles with closed minds. We are hemmed in and smothered by some conventional thinking and we need a breakthrough, and I am going to call on the children of America to help us make this breakthrough. There is some simple arithmetic we should start with. The arithmetic begins with an allocation of priorities here in terms of time and attention and money based on the priorities that are established by the American people. In other words, we live and die by opinion polls here in Washington. Public opinion polls are very important to the Republicans, they are important to the Democrats, they are important to the White House. Everybody is concerned about what the public thinks and we spend a lot of time and energy discussing public opinion polls. There are a large amount of resources committed to finding out what is it that the public thinks. The impact of public opinion polls, of course, can be tremendous on public policy. We saw the impact of public opinion on the impeachment proceedings which the Republican Party insisted on going ahead with despite the fact that common sense, as reflected by public opinion, the common sense of the American people dictated that it was a wasteful venture, kind of a silly venture and that is what it turned out to be. So public opinion can sometimes be ignored by powerful forces here that refuse to listen. Right now we have a war in Kosovo which public opinion, I think, will play a great role in determining what else do we do, where do we go in terms of United States policy. For good or ill, sometimes public opinion is not so desirable in terms of the results that I think we need. I did not agree with public opinion when we had a dictator, self-imposed Army dictator, in Haiti for 3 years. They got rid of the lawful government and they sat there and they would not move, and negotiations went on and on and on. I wanted to go in and restore the rightful president of Haiti, elected leader of Haiti, and if it took troops to do that, armed intervention, then I was in favor of that. Two-thirds of the American people said no. Two-thirds of the Congress said no. I am glad that the President did not listen to public opinion in that case. I am glad that he went ahead and took some decisive action and it all worked out in the interest of not only the people of Haiti but in the interest of democracy in this hemisphere. I am glad that Abraham Lincoln did not listen to the opinion of his cabinet when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. All the votes were against the Emancipation Proclamation which set the slaves free, but he went ahead and signed it anyhow. So there are times when public opinion, I admit, I may not agree with it but we do listen to it. We do listen to it. I want to call upon the decisionmakers in this Congress and in the whole Washington arena to listen to public opinion on the issue of education. Public opinion has been speaking not sporadically but consistently over a long period of time about the priority it assigns to education. The great majority of the American people say that government assistance to education ranks highest on their list of priorities, and it has been among the top priorities in the last 5 years. Education consistently, the American people say, needs help. We need government at every level to do more for education and certainly we need the Federal Government to do more because the Federal Government really does very little in terms of dollar value. The Federal Government is responsible for less than 8 percent of the total budget for education in general. That includes college education, where most of the money goes. So the Federal Government should do more. The public keeps saying that. Just to refresh everyone's memory, let me cite the polls generally. Whether taken by Republicans or Democrats, they are saying that education ranks number one. Seventy-four percent of the American people consider education as a number one priority. We might think it is Social Security because we hear more talk about saving Social Security. Among the elected officials and political leaders of both parties, Social Security is on everybody's lips. So Social Security is important. However, it is the second highest concern. Seventy-one percent rank Social Security as the highest priority. Crime reduction is the third. Health care reform is the fourth. Eliminating poverty is the fifth. Tax cuts are the sixth. Jobs, number seven; getting rid of the national debt, number eight; campaign finance reform, number nine. Here is a list of priorities with education at the very top. By the way, I have not mentioned defense. Defense expenditures and increases in government aid for defense does not even score. It is not on the chart. It is not on the chart. It is not ranked. So one would think that the priorities that we set here in Washington would have some relationship to the priorities which public opinion has set. One would think that there would be a correlation between what the American people say they want government to do and what we are actually proceeding to do here in Washington, in the Congress and in the White House. Is there a priority? Is there a correlation? Well, on the surface, it may seem so because on the surface we have a lot of talk about education. Both Republicans and Democrats have all seized the issue in terms of public relations and spin, in terms of getting out press releases, in terms of posturing. Everybody wants to make it appear that they are concerned with education. However, when we look at the budget, when we look at the arithmetic, we find that there is a very shallow commitment. When we look at the arithmetic, we will find that education is not a priority. The arithmetic of the budget, the allocation of resources, of dollars, it places education way down on the list of priorities. Defense, which is not even in the top ten, defense is the highest priority for both Democrats and Republicans, if we measure priorities according to the amount of money they are willing to appropriate. Now, defense we often say is the business of the national government; the Federal Government is defense, so it is natural that defense should be the very highest priority. But why a big increase in defense at a time like this? Why do we have to have a tremendous increase proposed for defense before the arms intervention in Kosovo? We have to pay separately for that. Most people do not know it, but the defense budget is for something else besides fighting wars. When we went into the Gulf War, we had to have a special appropriation for that. Any special armed intervention, any deployment of our forces in large measure, we have special appropriations. So we are going to have to have a special appropriation for Kosovo. We are already in Yugoslavia, to the tune of $8 billion. Our armed forces are in Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, and part of Croatia and carrying out a peace plan. So we have spent up to $8 billion already. All of that money is appropriated on top of the defense budget. So let us leave out Kosovo for a moment, although I think that Kosovo is certainly important to what I have to say today, and I am going to mention Kosovo because I think Kosovo is an example of how the military strength of the United States is very important in the present world. We are the last superpower and Kosovo certainly would not be possible if it were not for the participation of this American superpower in that intervention. What do I think of that intervention? I think it is very important that the American people support the intervention into Kosovo, just as I thought it was important to intervene in Haiti and to follow up a long list of various efforts that were made to resolve the problem peacefully. We negotiated and we negotiated and we negotiated but the predators in Haiti, the vicious, savage people who were killing people every day and killed nearly 5,000 of their own people, they were not about to back down just via negotiations. Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Serbia, is the same breed of character. He is a sovereign predator. He and his gang are in control of the tanks. They have control of the machine guns. They have control of the arms might of the Nation and they are not about to stop the genocidal destruction of Kosovo. They are not about to stop it via peaceful negotiations. I want to pause and comment on Kosovo because a strong nation must be strong across the board, and our military strength is very important for now and for the future. Even our military strength is weakened and jeopardized by the fact that we are blind to the need for a greater investment in education. We are blind to the need to make the investment now in order to guarantee that we will not have shortages in the future anywhere, shortages in our military personnel who are capable of running a high tech military operation or shortages in the civilian sector, in any area of the civilian sector, information technology, teachers. We have a lot of shortages that have been projected as a result of the fact that not enough people are being educated in this country. Not enough people are in the colleges now in various fields that are threatened with great numbers of vacancies. To be specific about the military, the aircraft carrier that we launched recently, the super aircraft carrier like none other in the world, was short of personnel. Almost 300 staff members that they needed for that aircraft carrier, they could not find them. They were short of personnel. They could not fully staff the last great aircraft carrier that was launched by the United States Navy. Why could they not staff it? We have a Nation of almost 260 million people. In a nation of 260 million people, we cannot find enough people to staff an aircraft carrier? It is because we are not talking about simple bodies. We do not need just a physical body, a man or a woman to stand there and staff the aircraft carrier. We need people who have some orientation, some orientation toward a computerized world and can be trained to run a high tech aircraft carrier. They need a certain kind of people. They still need certain kinds of people. There are other shortages. Already I mentioned in Kosovo, we have got shortages of fuel tank pilots, tanker pilots. One might have picked that up if they were listening to the news, because it came out in the regular news. One does not have to listen to C-SPAN to get serious things like that. I think I heard it twice. I think I heard it again on C-SPAN, but certainly I heard it on the regular news. Tanker pilots in shortage. They are going to find other shortages soon. In a high tech world where we cannot just take a body, an individual and throw them into an activity and expect them to perform, we need educated people. So it does not matter where we look. Economic security or military security, whatever, it is threatened by the fact that we are not measuring up to the economic challenge. Now, back to Kosovo, do I think we should be in Kosovo? Do I think that should be a challenge that the American superpower should take on, the so-called, what I like to call, in agreement with President Clinton, the indispensable Nation? We are the indispensable Nation in terms of certain kinds of activities in the world. In this particular instance, I do not think we would be in Kosovo if this indispensable Nation did not play an indispensable role. I was going to make a statement on the Floor earlier, but did not get a chance today, so I am going to make my statement on Kosovo right here, because I do think it relates to education. It relates to the need for the indispensable Nation to have the most educated population, not only military, but we need more diplomats, we need more people who are able to deal with the details. We need all kinds of specialists to take care of the various kinds of problems of the world which require people who have a great deal of technical competence. On Kosovo, I call Kosovo a campaign of compassion. It is a campaign of compassion, and this Nation should be proud of the fact that it has provided a leadership role in this campaign of compassion. The U.S.- NATO military intervention in Kosovo is not driven by any vested interests, any financial interests, or any strategic hidden agenda. That is not the case. There are some cynics who say, well, we would not be over there if it was not for something. Tell me, I would like to know. Are we in Kosovo because we are afraid that the price of oil or gasoline will go up? They used to say that about the Gulf War, that we had to protect our supply of oil, and we had a vested interest. But Kosovo does not have any oil. Yugoslavia does not have any oil or minerals of any great importance to us. Somebody said in a joke the other day that we are in Yugoslavia to lessen the competition to Ford and General Motors for the building of autos. They were making fun of the Yugoslavian automobile industry. The Yugoslavian automobiles have not caught on in the world. We have to search very hard to find some vested interest we could pinpoint of the United States in Yugoslavia. We would have to search pretty hard to find a vested interest we could pinpoint with respect to most of the NATO countries. We are not in this by ourselves. It is the NATO countries, including Great Britain and France. France has provided a great deal of moral leadership. I understand the people of France are clearly articulating the reason why they think this is an important intervention. The NATO nations, the United States and the other nations, are motivated by great moral interests and high standards which require that civilized people never again should tolerate any rationalization for genocide. I would like to repeat, these NATO nations and the United States are motivated by great moral interests and high standards which require that civilized people never again should tolerate any rationalization for genocide. Our Nation's generous commitment of resources and the large-scale risks of American lives, and they are already being risked, those pilots are risking their lives. With people over there in the fervor of just getting ready, just loading material and so forth, many people can die by accident in that kind of atmosphere. But certainly people who fly those missions are risking their lives. Even before we move to the level of ground troops, large numbers of lives are being risked. We are doing that already. The large-scale risk of American lives, not in the pursuit of the usual narrow vital interests, but to protect the sacred lives of human beings that we will never know personally, this action represents a laudable and noble national action. The Roman empire only dispatched its legions to achieve greater conquest. This American indispensable Nation has deployed its armies in an unprecedented campaign of compassion. This is a campaign of compassion. Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, the Hutu generals of Rwanda, Slobodan Milosevic, we can call the roll of sovereign predators who have used murderous ethnic scapegoating to seize, to hold, and to expand their powers. The oldest trick in the world is to scapegoat. Scapegoating even existed where there were no ethnic groups involved. Scapegoating, in fact, the whole description of it is an actual goat. The dead and dried carcass of a goat was used in some villages when there were plagues or hunger and famine, and people were so downtrodden and angry and bitter and hopeless that they would pull together the dead carcass of a goat and they would heap all of their rubbish and stuff, and the symbolism would be that all the evil and all the disease and everything in the town and in the village would be heaped on this thing, and it would be driven out of town or dragged out of town. Scapegoating was done even without having another ethnic group. But in the history of humankind, scapegoating has become a very convenient vehicle for demagogues. Demagogues throughout time find it easy to come to power. The easiest way to power is to brand somebody as the enemy, and to set yourself up as the savior of your group against that enemy. It has been done repeatedly, and any group that happens to find itself in a minority is likely to be victimized. It is not because the minority has something wrong with it. African Americans have often absorbed a whole lot of self-hate, and they think that there was something wrong with them, that they allowed themselves to be enslaved for so long, and that it is because of some curse in the Bible, it is because of some genetic inferiority. They believe the white folks who say that African-Americans are inferior. They have taken in a whole lot of guilt and inferiority feelings, and they said, this is the reason why we are persecuted. No, there have been minorities in history who have been superior, who have been acknowledged as being superior. It does not matter whether you are accused of being inferior or of being superior, but when they are ready, the demagogues are ready to take advantage of a situation and they need scapegoats, they will seize upon and utilize the weakest element of the population. Just being the minority guarantees that you are going to be in the line of victimization. The Jews in Germany, they were too rich, they were too educated, they were too accomplished in the arts, too accomplished in the sciences, they were despised because they had achieved too much. It did not matter, if it had been just the opposite they would use another kind of excuse. This is the process that demagogues use to come to power. The most recent demagogue, of course, that we are dealing with is Slobodan Milosevic. People say, well, they have been fighting in the Baltic for years and we cannot do anything about that, because they are going to do that. It is ancient hatreds. Well, there was a period of several decades where Kosovo was given its autonomy, and the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians lived together in peace. In fact, all of Yugoslavia has been falling apart for the last 15 years, but all of Yugoslavia was united under one banner for several decades. The answer to that, they say is Tito. Tito was a Communist. He made them do it. I do not pretend to know how it all happened. I am not a historian. I am not a sociologist. I think there ought to be a study made of how did they hold it all together. Even under communism, there are no magic formulas. But nevertheless, these people, they say, cannot live together in the Balkans. They are always going to fight each other. But they did live together. In Kosovo there was a solution. Slobodan Milosevic wrecked the solution. He took away the autonomy. He started the problem. We have been negotiating with him for 8 years. How long do you negotiate before you realize that there is no profit to this so-called peaceful negotiation? Slobodan Milosevic is a sovereign predator. He is in the vein of Hitler, Stalin, the Hutu generals, Hutu leaders of Rwanda who massacred the Tutsis. They needed to come to power fast, and they just used the hatred of people to scapegoat and come to power. From ancient Egypt to Kosovo, the demagogues repeatedly have used the same methods and found a willing mass of supporters. The United States- led resistence to genocide in Kosovo shows that finally we have not only learned a vital lesson in history, but now that knowledge has also provided us with an imperative for painful but effective action. We are not just looking back at what happened when Hitler killed 6 million Jews and the world stood by and did nothing. We are not just regretting that that happened, but in this particular instance we have been forced to come to grips with a decision. As a Nation, I am proud of the fact that public opinion in this case is behind the President, who has made a very difficult political decision and moved forward on this venture that becomes more complex and violent every day. The U.S.-led resistance to genocide in Kosovo shows that finally we have not only learned a vital lesson of history, but now that knowledge also provides an imperative for painful but effective action. Slobodan Milosevic should have been declared a war criminal 8 years ago. Diplomatic patience has been cleverly manipulated by this sovereign predator. Better late than never, however. We must now declare Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal, and send a clear message to all of his confused civilian followers, now mobilizing in their neighborhoods under misplaced banners of nationalism and patriotism. For more than 8 years the citizens of Serbia and Yugoslavia have failed to marshal internal sovereign resistance to the genocidal policies of their dictator. Their popular will, majority complicity with evil, is the true cause of the present conflagration in the Balkans. It is not the designs of NATO, it is not the vested interests of the United States, it is not some kind of outside desire to humiliate the people of Yugoslavia and Serbia. It is the majority complicity with evil that has allowed Slobodan Milosevic to stay in power that has led to this conflagration in the Balkans at present. War is hell, and we extend our prayers to innocent victims on all sides. War is hell. We need to pray for all those people who have been caught up in this. Most people are innocent, because only a handful control the power, the tanks, the machine guns. But the refusal to watch the repeat of Hitler's death pageant is our duty. It is our duty to refuse to watch a repeat of Hitler's death pageant. There are some who say that because we cannot stop genocide everywhere, we should refuse to stand against genocide anywhere. People are saying, well, you are not doing anything about Tibet, you were not doing anything about genocide against the Kurds in Iraq, you did not do anything to help the Tutsis in Rwanda, so why are you in Kosovo? Because we cannot stop genocide everywhere, we should refuse to stand against genocide anywhere. That is the logic they have. We reject that logic. We cannot save them all. We could not save the Tutsis in Rwanda. We cannot save the Kurds in Iraq at this point, the Tibetans in China. But the world can take united action now in Kosovo. In this clear and present instance, a portion of the civilized world has both the capability and the will to stop genocide. I am certain that the angels in heaven are applauding these bold and brave actions. Since the civilian electorate of Serb-Yugoslavia has not been willing or not been able to save itself from totalitarian disease, and because a minority of military monsters with tanks and machine guns can hold the majority of a Nation hostage, outside intervention is sometimes the only antidote to a spreading poison. Decades of autonomy was the peaceful solution that Milosevic eradicated. Let the Kosovo campaign of compassion send a message to sovereign predators everywhere. Sovereign predators will not be allowed to savagely devour human rights. Diplomatic condemnation of genocide will always be a certainty, and sometimes military confrontation will also be possible. I appeal to progressive thinkers everywhere to lay aside their fuzzy- minded analyses and remember the Hitler syndrome. Remember the Hitler syndrome. ``Never again'' must not be an abstract slogan. Each one of us has a duty to take a forceful position. We should all be proud of the fact that this indispensable Nation has both the will and the power to reinforce the foundation of a compassionate civilization. I make this statement in the midst of my discussion of education because I think that, as the indispensable Nation, the last remaining superpower assuming great responsibilities in the world, our citizenry, the people out there, including the students who are still awake and attending high school and grammar school and listening, they certainly ought to understand and know or be stimulated by my remarks to go and do more research, if you wish. We need to move on all fronts. We need a peace academy in this country that is as big as West Point. We have a peace academy, by the way. Look it up on the Internet, or do some research on the peace academy. We have a budget for a peace academy, a very tiny budget. I know, because it was under the jurisdiction of one of the subcommittees that I served on at one time. The peace academy is very important, and understanding how to make peace, how to negotiate. What shall we do about the world court at the Hague, which is responsible for trying war criminals, or how significant should that be? It should be given a greater role in the present situation and in our present modern day society. As we go toward the future, we need to have as much energy and effort put into studying how to make peace as we have in the process of making war. Education. The Peace Academy would have a big education budget, not as big as West Point maybe, but it needs a big education budget. So back to my major topic, overwhelming neglect, the arithmetic of federal aid for education. What I am trying to say tonight is we are on the verge of making a great mistake in America. We can act with great nobility and great bravery and courage in emergency situations, and we have done that. In the case of Kosovo, it is an emergency which the machinery of our government, starting at the White House with the leadership of President Clinton, the machinery of our government has gone into motion to provide support for the foundations of a compassionate civilization. This is a great compassionate crusade to stop genocide in Kosovo. So while I am applauding the expression of the American people, which is what such an action is, I would also like to caution us and warn our Nation at this point. The way we are responding to the education crisis, there is a crisis, we are not educating the kinds of people, the numbers that we need for the future. We are not educating at a quality level to deal with a complex future. I think we are going toward a cyber civilization, a cyber civilization, which is very complex. We need not fear it because it has already created miracles. It will continue to create miracles. There is a future out there which is possible where some of the most difficult problems and burdens that mankind faces will be able to be resolved because of the nature of this cyber civilization that we are going into. So, as we prepare for that, we have to understand that an investment in education is the one thing we must do. We do not know all of the pitfalls. We cannot project and predict everything that is going to happen. But one thing is clear, we need the most educated population possible, and we need more people educated. We need better education. Right now we are failing to do that, to respond to the need for that kind of investment. We are failing to respond to the clear clarion call of our own people. The common sense of America is amazing sometimes, the common sense of American people. They sense, they understand, they feel that education is very important. Across this country, most people have never graduated from college. But in this Congress, 99 percent of the people have graduated from college. In Washington, all of the decision makers and the bureaucracies, the White House, everyone, they are all graduates from college. They have all benefited from our great education system. Yet they are blind, they are blind to the need to follow the lead of the American people and make education our number one priority. There are some of my colleagues listening to me who would say, what are we talking about? It is our number one priority. We talked about it in the Democratic Caucus all the time. We talk about it in the Republican Caucus all the time. We have made great statements to our party about how important education is. It is all a bit strange when this talk adds up to peanuts in the budget. The arithmetic of the budget does not show that we understand that education is important. Let me give my colleagues a little of that arithmetic. As I said before, it does not take a genius to figure these figures out. The billions and the millions might confuse us sometimes, but this is simple arithmetic. Defense is not on the list of the American priorities. Highways and transportation are not on the list of American priorities. Remember that as I talk. Right now the budget for public schools, elementary and secondary schools in America, this Federal Government is giving $22.6 billion in assistance. This is probably less than 5 percent of the total budget for elementary and secondary education assistance because the States and the localities provide most of the money for the education. The Constitution does not require the Federal Government to assume the responsibility for education. People are always repeating that. Since the Constitution does not require the federal government to assume the responsibility for education, why should we make a great investment at the Federal level in education? Well, the Constitution does not require the Federal Government to assume responsibility for highways and roads. That really has always been traditionally a State and local function. But we are spending $22.6 billion for public schools, elementary and secondary education, $22.6 billion right now. The budget for highways and transportation, most of which is highways, is $51.3 billion. Where did we take on the responsibility of roads and highways from the local and State governments? Somewhere down the line, because it was important. I think it is important. Last year we passed a bill which authorized $218 billion over a 6- year period for highways and transportation, mostly highways again, $218 billion in 6 years. What we are proposing in terms of school construction, however, is $3.7 billion over 5 years. Listen. Make the comparisons. $22.6 billion is our total education contribution from the Federal Government at this point. But $51.3 billion, more than twice the amount, goes for highways and transportation across the country. Why are we investing more in highways? I have no problem. Let us invest in highways. Let us understand how minuscule our investment is in education. The President, who is in the leadership on education, and I applaud the White House leadership on education, the White House has proposed to increase the education budget by $697 million this year. The annual increase is $697 million, which is more than the Republicans are proposing. They are proposing $500 million this year although both parties say that they are very concerned about education. The increases in the case of the Democrats or the President's budget is 5.1 percent. The increase in the case of the Republicans is 3.7 percent. The increase for the highway budget was 12 percent. The increase for the defense budget is staggering. They are proposing $110 billion at the White House, $110 billion or $112 billion, I forget, $120 billion, but no less than the $110 billion, it has sort of been fluctuating, $110 billion for defense when the American people did not say we need anything in terms of increase for defense. Remember, we have got to pay for Kosovo and any emergencies on the side with additional funding anyhow. Let us take a look at what we are getting per student. The number of enrolled public school students in America is 54.4 million students, 54.4 million students. That means that the Federal expenditure per enrolled student at this point is $415 in annual yearly expenditure for each student enrolled in public school across America is merely $415. If we take a look at the proposed increase this year on a per-student basis, the President has proposed to increase the budget by $12.80 per student. The Republicans are proposing to increase the budget by $9.20 per student. When one looks at the number of students we have in the schools out there and one looks at the amount of money being appropriated, one wonders where is the response to the American public opinion polls which said that education is a priority. Think about it. I have proposed an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act, title XI, I have proposed to increase the education budget just for construction, school construction, including modernization, repairs, and basic technology, wiring of the schools for the Internet, et cetera. I am proposing increasing it by $22 billion a year over the next 5 years. I want to get close to the defense budget, $110 billion over 5 years. Twenty-two billion dollars a year would be an appropriate response to the fact that education is in great need of Federal assistance. It would be an appropriate response to do it in construction because that is the simplest way for the Federal Government to help education. It would be an appropriate need because that is where we have a need for larger amounts of capital expenditures. It would be an appropriate place for the President and the Federal Government to intervene because it does not involve the Federal Government getting involved in running the schools on an operational basis. We do not have to get involved in determining what the curriculum should be. We do not have to interfere with the internal workings of the school that is basically the responsibility of the State and the local government. So to appropriate, and I do not propose doing it in any way except straight appropriation, a straight appropriation of $22 billion a year for the next 5 years would not bring schools equal to highways. Remember, I just said highways get $218 billion over 6 years. So school construction would not come anywhere near the capital outlays for highways. If we divide the 54.4 million students into the amount of money I propose to spend per year per student, we are talking about school construction expenditures by the Federal Government would be $416 per student. If there are young people listening, they are going to go to school tomorrow. Talk to your teacher about why is it that the Federal Government cannot spend $416 for each student going to elementary and secondary education schools. Why can we not spend $416 per student? Why do we say we care about education, that the federal government wants to help, while the Republicans are out peddling their education agenda, saying that they are all for education and want to do something great for education, while the Democrats out there are pushing hard, the President is certainly stressing education in his program, why do they do so little? The President is out way ahead of the Republicans. He is proposing $3.7 billion for construction. He is not proposing to do it the way I want to do it, that is a direct appropriation, put it in the budget and appropriate it, he is proposing to do it via a tax credit. The Committee on Ways and Means has to approve a tax credit for school construction. Over a 5-year period, he proposes to make $25 billion available; that is, he allows the States and the local governments to borrow $25 billion. They have to borrow that. In New York, we have to have a bond issue on the ballot. Voters would have to vote to borrow some money in order to qualify for that Federal program because it only provides the interest on the $25 billion. Over a 5-year period, he proposes to pay the interest on $25 billion worth of bonds that local governments and State governments would borrow. That comes out to $3.7 billion over 5 years, roughly, depending on what the interest rate is. And $3.7 billion over 5 years is the only commitment we have to the school construction, but we have $110 billion over 5 years committed to defense in increases I am talking about, increases. The defense budget is already $280 billion. We are going to increase it over a 5-year period by an additional $110 billion. Highways are going to be spending, over a 6-year period, $218 billion. Yet, we propose to spend only $3.7 billion for school construction over a 5-year period. So take out a pencil and paper and do the addition and the subtraction and the comparison. I am not really going to leave here with my colleagues believing that the President is not trying. He assumes this is all he can pass. I say we need to, from the White House, state the case more clearly and call for what is needed. The Republican proposed budget for school construction is zero. Zero. Nothing. They do not propose anything for school construction whatsoever over a 1-year period, over a 5-year period, nothing. If we look at the President's construction budget, the only one on the agenda, the only one on the table, nobody else has it, we must praise him for having a proposal on the table for school construction, but if we look at it closely and we divide the number of students in elementary, secondary education institutions, in schools, the President is proposing $68.50 over a 5-year period for school construction per student, $68.50 per student. The Republican construction per student of course is zero because if we start with zero, we end up with zero. I am sorry, that is per year, $68.50 per year, per student. My proposal is of course, as I said before, $415 per student, $416 per student when we look at all the students. My colleagues might say how are we going to evaluate those costs? Is that a lot of money, $416 per student times 54 million students, which comes to about $22 billion a year. Is that a lot of money? Well, $416 per student, compare that with the cost of one combat rifle. One modern rifle used in our Army costs how much? $835. Twice as much as we are willing to spend, as I propose to spend, per year per student on construction. I mean look at it closely. Look at this figure, also. The average annual cost per prison inmate in the United States. For each person we put in prison we are spending $24,000. The average is around $24,000 to keep a person in prison, and yet we cannot spend $416 per student for school construction. The average annual cost of a student in school, in terms of operating cost, is probably somewhere between $8,000 and $10,000. The annual cost per student in our schools, operating costs, ongoing costs, the average, when we take the rich and the poor districts, is between $8,000 and $10,000. I ask my colleagues to do the arithmetic and take a look at it. Is it in harmony with what we hear being said about the importance of education? The governors say education is very important. They have all kinds of nickel and dime experiments ongoing that they parade at conferences, and parade around about what they are doing about education, but they are not willing to spend the money. The governor of New York had a $2 billion surplus but he would not spend any money for school construction. The Mayor of New York had a $2 million surplus last year and he would not spend any money for construction in New York City, although New York City has a very serious situation. In New York City they have large numbers of schools that are overcrowded, where students have to eat lunch at 10 o'clock in the morning because they have three shifts of lunchroom sittings, but also it has 250 schools that are burning coal in their furnaces still, jeopardizing the immediate health of students with pollution, and yet they would not move. Why are all these people talking about education? One of the programs we hear a lot about is the 21st Century Learning Centers. Now, that is a worthy program. It is an after-school center program, and already we have $200 million committed to that and we are going to raise that over the next 5 years to $600 million. When we have it funded at $600 million, we will serve about 1.2 million students. 1.2 million students will be served by this program. It is a great program because it deals with the fact that we want to end social promotion and have students move on through school but we will not dump them. We will give them some kind of after-school help, tutorial programs, some summer help. Well, $600 million will only provide help for 1.2 million students at best. There are 54 million children in elementary and secondary education institutions. About a quarter of them, at least one-fourth of them need help in this area. How will we provide help for one-fourth of the students if all we are willing to appropriate is $600 million? It is a great program, but it is a very minuscule program. If we did 10 percent, one-tenth of the total students, the 54 million, can we help that many? Even one-tenth? I think my colleagues can understand the dilemma we are facing. We need to understand that we are the richest country in the history of the world, and at this moment in history we are probably more rich than we have ever been. The country is richer than it has ever been. The government itself has a surplus. The surplus can be used partially to invest in education. We do not have to submit to the stampede to put it all into Social Security. Again, they are playing the American intellect and the American common sense cheap. They are trying to take advantage of people's concern about Social Security, to whip us all into a frenzy and say that every penny we get in the surplus should go into Social Security. Well, the President proposed that we use 60 percent of the money we have in surplus for Social Security. That sounds reasonable to me. He proposed to use another part of it for Medicare. That sounds reasonable to me, because Medicare is health security for elderly people. But then we have some left over. We still have a percentage that they are proposing no use for at this point, but we know that most of it will go into defense expenditures if we do not say that we ought to have some for education. Education is the key to our future's defense. Our national security is all bound up in the educated populace we produce. Education is the key to Social Security. How? Because we want a populace that is working. We want young people who are working, and they must be able to qualify for the high-tech jobs being created every day more and more. And if we do not have workers, young people who can qualify for those jobs, they will not come out and take the jobs. What we will do is contract with overseas corporations. We will send the work overseas and companies will do the work overseas who do not pay into the Social Security System. The best way to rob the Social Security System is to deny the work force the opportunity to earn the money and pay into the Social Security fund. There are some other ways we can save Social Security, too, but the present time-honored way we fund Social Security is through the wages of working people. If we have fewer people working, and they have already projected that, we cannot avoid the demographics, we are going to have fewer people working. But how few? Can we avoid wiping out the whole work force because they cannot qualify for high-tech jobs? So many will not be able to qualify for high-tech jobs. We have a real dilemma here. The kind of greatness and the kind of vision and courage being shown in Kosovo by our national leaders now we need to apply in the sector of education, looking down the road. If we do not do it, we will have a great deficit in major areas. This great indispensable Nation is going to stumble and fall if we do not have as many people educated as possible. Every person that can be educated must be educated. It is likely that our posterity will pity us. They may even spit on us in the future as they evaluate and analyze our great lack of vision at this critical moment when we have maximum opportunity to go forward in the revision of our education system. We are in danger of becoming the victim of midget minds and tiny spirits. Too much of the planning at the Department of Education is being undertaken by midget minds and tiny spirits. Too many tiny spirits are guiding our caucuses, both the Republican and the Democratic Caucus. We are not willing to take hold of where we are in modern America and deal with education the way we dealt with the GI bill after World War II. We understood the implications of the need for a more educated population and we had a massive education program in the GI bill. A Congressman named Morrill, many years ago in the 1800s, around the time of the Civil War, had the vision to see that every State in America needed a land grant university. We dealt with it. A big mind and a big spirit seized the problem. Thomas Jefferson, who created the first State university, the University of Virginia, had a vision. The model he established inspired Morrill to go on to create land grant colleges and universities all across the country. The vision of a transcontinental railroad, the Federal Government financed the transcontinental railroad. We had the people in Congress who had the vision to take hold and to do things in a big way. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bud Shuster) is my hero here in Congress. He is a Republican, but he had the vision to take hold of the highway problem, the transportation infrastructure problem, and with a lot of criticism. He was called a big spender, and still called a big spender, but he had the initiative and he used the available power that he had to pass a highway transportation infrastructure bill that is meaningful. We need it. We need it. We need it far more than we need some of the weapon systems that are being proposed. We need it far more than we need some of the other wasteful expenditures taking place presently. We are in danger of becoming, as I said before, the victims of midget minds and tiny spirits. We seem to possess the cerebral alertness, the statistical understanding that a crisis looms ahead if we do not meet the education emergency at the moment. We understand the trends, the projections, the inevitability of continued inadequacy in our school systems. We comprehend with our heads, but we seem incapable of engaging with our backbones and moving forward with our decision-making feet. In the education arena we need giant minds and great spirits. We need to end the overwhelming neglect of education. In the minds of our citizens, the concerns related to national defense do not compete with the overwhelming mandate to improve our schools. Nothing in the minds of our citizens, the American electorate, the people who have common sense out there, nothing in their minds competes with education. It is number one. ``It is education, stupid.'' It is education. Look at the polls, but do not look at the polls and let your eyes blink. Here in Washington, in the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, we need to act on appropriating and vesting real dollars in an education system which will take us into a cyber civilization in the future where everybody needs to be educated. The dollars that we are willing to appropriate in response to the American people's stated concern about education are minuscule. We are throwing pennies at a problem which requires billions of dollars. We must change our minds. If the American people are listening, they might help open the eyes and the ears of their own Congressman or Congresswoman. Have them make a survey. Even in the richest districts there are often schools that need help. I challenge every Member of Congress to make a survey and select a few schools in their districts and go take a look at what they need. There are some places where they need money for wiring for the Internet; there are other places where they need money to fix the roof; there are some places where they need money to tear down old buildings and construct new schools. All over New York City we have schools that need money to put in a new furnace and get rid of the pollution and the asthma-generating coal-burning furnaces. We need to address these issues in our Education Task Force and the Democratic Caucus, as well as the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce were on the floor before, and I want to applaud what they had to say. They understand the problem, but I do not think that the solutions that are being proposed have yet come to grips with the magnitude of the need. We need to spend many billions on school construction. School construction is just at the center of the problem, but that is a place to start. If we do not meet the need for adequate buildings, safe buildings, across America, the Congressional Budget Office says we need about $147 billion to just stay even, if we do not meet that need or begin to step forward to move toward meeting that need, then everything else we propose to do in Washington at any level is fraudulent, everything else we propose to do about education. We are feeding the people a spin on the problem without coming to grips with the reality and the substance. We must go forward and invest in education in order to prepare our education system to take us forward into a new cyber civilization.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the US/NATO military intervention in Kosovo is not driven by any vested interests, financial or strategic hidden agenda. These nations are motivated by great moral interests and high standards which require that civilized people never again should tolerate any rationalization for genocide. Our nation's generous commitment of resources and the large-scale risk of American lives, not in pursuit of the usual narrow vital interests, but to protect the sacred lives of human beings that we will never know personally, represents a laudable and noble national action. The Roman Empire only dispatched its legions to achieve greater conquests. This American ``indispensable nation'' has deployed its armies in an unprecedented campaign of compassion. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Sadam Hussein, Ede Amin, the Hutu Generals of Rwanda; Slobodan Milosevic; call the roll of sovereign predators who have used murderous ethnic scapegoating to seize, hold and expand their powers. From ancient Egypt to Kosovo the demagogues repeatedly have used the same methods and found a willing mass of supporters. The U.S.-led resistance to genocide in Kosovo shows that finally we have not only learned a vital lesson of history, but now that knowledge also provides an imperative for painful but effective action. Slobodan Milosevic should have been declared a war criminal eight years ago. Diplomatic patience has been cleverly manipulated by this sovereign predator. Better late than never, we must now declare Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal and send a clear message to all of his confused civilian followers now mobilizing in their neighborhoods under misplaced banners of nationalism and patriotism. For more than eight years the citizens of Serbia/Yugoslavia have failed to marshal internal sovereign resistance to the genocidal policies of their dictator. Their popular will majority's complicity with evil is the true cause of the present conflagration in the Balkans. War is hell and we extend our prayers to innocent victims on all sides. But the refusal to watch the repeat of Hitler's death pageant is our duty. There are some who say that because we cannot stop genocide everywhere, we should refuse to stand against genocide anywhere. We can not save them all: Tutsis in Rwanda; Kurds in Iraq; Tibetans in China; but the world can take united action now. In this clear and present instance a portion of the civilized world has both the capability and the will to stop genocide. I am certain that the angels in heaven are applauding these bold and brave actions. Since the civilian electorate of Serbia/Yugoslavia has not been willing or able to save itself from totalitarian disease; and because a minority of military monsters with tanks and machine guns can hold the majority of a nation hostage; outside intervention is sometimes the only antidote to a spreading poison. Decades of autonomy was the peaceful solution that Milosevic eradicated. Let the Kosovo campaign of compassion send a message to sovereign predators everywhere. Sovereign predators will not be allowed to savagely devour human rights. Diplomatic condemnation of genocide will always be a certainty--and sometimes military confrontation will also be possible. I appeal to progressive thinkers everywhere to lay aside any fuzzyminded analyses and remember the Hitler syndrome. ``Never Again'' must not be an abstract slogan. Each one of us has a duty to take a forceful position. We should all be proud of the fact that this ``indispensable nation'' has both the will and the power to reinforce the foundations of a compassionate civilization.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, in Yugoslavia, the popular belief strong cold-blooded leaders are best for the social order has again brought many innocent citizens to the hell of war. The question is why do civilized, educated people allow sovereign predators like Slobodan Milosevic to lead them into catastrophe and destruction? There are no easy answers to this question--and Serbia is far away and mysterious to most of us. But closer to home, in too many governors and mayors in America we see the glorification of the strong, cold-blooded leader. Elected executives who recklessly cut families from the welfare rolls, deny food stamps and obscure the right to medicaid exhibit the same temperament as national dictators. Across the nation elected officials are refusing to utilize the special health care program for children (Child Plus); they are also refusing to spend available funds for day care and job training programs. No one in American public life would use the phrase ``ethnic cleansing'', but a member of the New York Times editorial board once proudly sanctioned the concept of ``planted shrinkage''. Governments are for people. Cities exist to make life more enjoyable for the residents. Police are hired to protect the populace, not to serve as occupying armies. These should be self-evident truths, however there are governors and mayors who have forgotten the reason for state governments and the purpose of cities. Anthem Of The Strong Mayor O say can you see Perfection beckons me Power Mayors show no pity Traffic is the purpose of a City Parks are not for dogs Kids are worst than hogs Playgrounds breed infant crime Welfare mothers are a menace Keep seniors off the street Incontinence is never neat Short skirts are a sin Cops bring holy violence in O say can you see Order is sweet rhapsody Great revenues we bring With the parking ticket sting We fill your days With quota tow-aways Auto bahs big and trains on time Progress with efficiency rhymes Traffic is the purpose of a City Power Mayors show no pity O say can you see Perfection beckons me.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I would like to address a number of issues that I think are very much related to the problem of racism, of deadly differences, and diversity problems that have broken out all over the world and we are part of trying to resolve. A lot of them occur right here at home. In my own city of New York, a poll was taken that showed, and the New York Times announced today, that one-fourth of all New Yorkers, white and black New Yorkers, believe that the police of New York City behave quite differently with people of color, with minority groups, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, they behave quite differently with them than they do with whites. Whites as well as blacks have come to this conclusion. One- fourth of all the citizens of New York believe that this is the case. So we have a serious problem right at home with a very crucial body of people, the police, who are so vital to the law and order of the city for everybody, everybody's protection. Then we have far-ranging problems like those that are taking place in Kosovo and Yugoslavia where this government is spending large amounts of money, we have spent about $9 billion, to try to work through situations in Yugoslavia which evolve out of racial and ethnic and religious differences. Whereas I was all in favor, of course, of extending the resources of this country into that situation, I think that the Yugoslavia situation is totally out of hand. And $9 billion, more than $9 billion is enough to invest. Our Nation is an indispensable Nation available, and I think that is important to help with trouble spots anywhere in the world. But we should not let ourselves get sucked into any trouble spot for so long that it absorbs an inordinate amount of resources and takes away the possibility of helping with other problems. I think it was right that we went into Haiti to help liberate Haiti from people who had taken over from a duly elected democratic government. I think it was important that we went into Somalia. I think it is important that the President has shown great concern, and there are some resources now deployed in Rwanda. All of these situations, Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Northern Ireland. Our President did not dispense large amounts of military aid in Northern Ireland, but his own personal commitment there and the use of American diplomatic skills have helped to abate that situation. But all over the country, all over the world, we have these conflicts based on differences and diversity. They are probably going to go on for a long, long time. We have to learn how to live with them and to try to abate them and try to lessen them. Hopefully over the long period, decades and centuries, we can eliminate some of them. First we have to understand how difficult it is and how deeply entrenched it is and how it is important that governmental resources be invested in the effort to lessen the amount of racism, hate crimes, ethnic rivalries that exist and might explode at any moment. It is important. It is important that we understand the need to deal, first of all, with those that are closest to us. One of the closest conflicts and ongoing problems in America is racism related to the long history of African Americans who were held in slavery for 232 years. We do not like to think that 232 years of slavery had any consequences or that there is anything special about this particular group and their relationship with the rest of the Americans, just as we do not like to think there is any special relationship between the Native Americans and the rest of the American people, that there should be any special consideration. But surely there ought to be some special consideration about the relationship between the descendents of the Native Americans and the rest of the Americans in view of the fact that history was quite brutal with respect to the Native Americans. History was quite brutal with respect to African Americans who are a group of people in this country, in this hemisphere, only because they were transported to this hemisphere against their will. So I want to talk about all of these things. In the news today, there was also an account of a new effort to try to fight slavery in the Sudan and slavery in Mauritania. We have some groups that are American based that are actually raising money to buy slaves from the Sudanese. The Sudanese are practicing slavery in a very cruel and inhuman way even to this day. They say it is all part of the Civil War. Only the women and children of the enemy are captured, and they have a right to take them and use them for bounty and whatever. Whatever the reason given, it is still slavery. In 1999, in Sudan, which is a country of people who are of dark hue, one might say black, a lot of black people, whatever range of color they may have, there is slavery. There is slavery in Mauritania. Arabs and people of an Arab descent and African descent, all in Mauritania. But in Mauritania, there are some black people who are still enslaved in 1999. I thought that was interesting that that appeared on the news today. At the same time I heard on the news this morning, and I listen usually to National Public Radio, and there was some bad news about Northern Ireland. A civil rights lawyer in Northern Ireland, Catholic civil rights activist lawyer was assassinated with a fire bomb. A fire bomb blew up her car. So we have reminders of many kinds of how these ethnic tensions, religion. In the case of Ireland, it is religion that has divided people. It is very interesting how human beings seem to look for reasons for conflict. They want to accentuate differences. So we have people who are ethnically pretty much the same, racially the same in Northern Ireland, but the religious differences have set off a long time feud which is quite violent and bloody. In Somalia, we could not understand what the problem was in Somalia. They were all most of the same religion, same race. There were no deep tribal divisions. They all spoke the same language. Yet, in Somalia, the human beings there found ways to accentuate some differences. That was generally based on pure politics, people having power ambitions in one area and organizing their own gang; and over here, they would organize another gang. There were no tribes, but they created tribes out of interests that were really power interests. Of course here is the crux of the problem. Most of the time, these ethnic tensions, racial tensions and divisions are accelerated and exacerbated by people who do want power, demagogues who exploit the situation for power reasons. We have 232 years of slavery in this Nation because, for economic reasons, which also are power reasons, for economic reasons, it was beneficial to enslave a population and provide the free labor from one end of the country to the other. It was mostly in the south, the plantations. There was a long-term need for free labor and large amounts of labor there. But in New York, large amounts of slaves were used to build the original city. Slavery was just as cruel there as it was anywhere else. The third largest slave port of the country at one time was a New York slave port. So all of these things still have their long-term fallout on history. It would do well for us to pay more attention to history. I applaud President Clinton and his appointment of a commission on race relations to at least stimulate a set of discussions and dialogues among the American people about the issue of race and differences in relationships. Some people say it got out of hand and it was not very productive. It only had a year's life. For whatever the problems were, it was still a positive, constructive action. I hope the President will follow it up with further action. But more importantly, here is an area where I think foundations and philanthropists could make a contribution. There are a lot of controversies that are inevitably associated with anything related to race relations. The controversies could probably better be handled by the philanthropic sector. And the kind of controversies they are, they are not so much current but scholarly discussions and discussions of positions and attitudes, and I think they ought to be handled more with foundations and other philanthropic organizations financing those areas than the government. But the government should stimulate that discussion. President Clinton started the discussion, and I think we ought to, as a government, follow up on that. I think that the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tony Hall), that called for the government of America to apologize for slavery, which aroused so much controversy and ill feeling across the country, I think that is still a pertinent item of discussion. I think it is a lightning rod that we should really discuss. Why should the American government not apologize for slavery when we are seeing the governments of Japan and of Germany and various other governments that exist now that were not really there, the German government was not there when Hitler was there, but the present government has apologized in certain areas; as well as the government of Japan has apologized to the Korean women who were forced into prostitution and to some others; and other apologies are taking place. The Swiss government just apologized and set up a fund to the victims of greed the holocaust victims of greed, where they put the money in Swiss banks and the Swiss banks used various maneuvers to keep those people from getting money. So it is a discussion which carries civilization forward, and a discussion of an American apology for slavery would do a great deal in that direction. I think the South Africans set an example for civilized nations of today and the future that should not be ignored. The Government of South Africa today, the new Government of South Africa today, that took over just 4 years ago, insisted that it would not seek justice, it would seek reconciliation. That was a very important and unprecedented move by a national government. Here is a government made up of a new majority. The majority of the people, about 40 million black Africans in South Africa, had been oppressed for many decades by the white South Africans. The black majority took over in South Africa. The government was made up of a government elected by the people and most of the people in power were black. Instead of seeking justice, which would have resulted in large numbers of trials, executions, and a whole lot of revenge-seeking, the South African government that took power proclaimed that it wanted reconciliation. And no matter how horrible the crime was, no matter how horrible the political crime was related to the politics of the long years of oppression and the fight against apartheid, they would allow people to come forward and, if they would tell the truth, they would offer amnesty to those folks who told the truth. More important than the individuals who came forward and the testimonies that took place and the whole unprecedented kind of activity that they developed, is the spirit that that sent out throughout the whole country; that we are not going to look at the past, we are not going to live in the past to the point where it becomes a noose around the throat of the future and the present. We are not going to seek justice to the point where it destroys the possibility for reconciliation and progress. So reconciliation. And this was a new idea to me, I never thought of it that way before Nelson Mandela and the Government of South Africa today put it forward. Reconciliation is more important than justice. Reconciliation is more important than justice. We hammered home this same theme when Jean Bertrand Aristide was restored to his rightful place in Haiti. The government of the United States insisted that he also follow the same policy. We made an official request that the Aristide government not seek justice but, instead, emphasize reconciliation. That whole approach, of course, is being carried out in Bosnia and Serbia and Croatia. We are paying billions for that, too much in my opinion, but we are leading the way to a process of reconciliation, which will provide for building for a future rather than justice. I do not say justice is not important, and I do not think human society can exist unless we have forms of punishment. People must be punished, and there must be an understanding that individuals will be held accountable for crimes. I do not think anybody would ever say that Hitler should have been treated the way some of the leaders of Haiti were treated. The United States Government actually paid the rent, leased the homes of the dictators in Haiti that they deposed. Cedras and the other two who were at the top of the official terror apparatus in Haiti were treated like princes and helped to get out of the place and given enough income to maintain themselves for a long time. They are still out there alive, and may come back. That is a danger. Instead of justice, it was important that they be moved from the scene peacefully in order to facilitate reconciliation. Now, I do not think the Nuremberg trials were wrong, I do not think the trials of the Japanese perpetrators of massive violence in Asia, the people who attacked Pearl Harbor, I do not think it was wrong to punish them. That is going quite far. But it is something to consider, this whole reconciliation process. And in the case of the nations now that participate in reconciliation, we are seeing a more positive result as a result of reconciliation being placed above justice. But the South Africans in the process of seeking reconciliation felt it was very important to have truth. Truth was a very important part of establishing reconciliation. I think in America we have missed that point with respect to race relations, and certainly relationships between the Native Americans and the rest of the American population, and certainly with relationship between the African Americans and the rest of the American population. We have never admitted, as a government, that great crimes were done to the African Americans who were enslaved, and that the consequences of 232 years of slavery need to be studied. The truth needs to be laid out, and we need to take steps to combat some of those consequences. A very interesting individual specific development is taking place which I think we ought to focus on as part of the way to get more truth thrown on the whole phenomenon of American slavery. There is a controversy which is made for America because it is very individual, it is very personal, and it involves a love story. It is the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Sally Hemings was a slave at Monticello under Thomas Jefferson. For many, many years there has been a controversy about whether or not there was a relationship between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson which produced some children, four or five children. The controversy is not about whether Thomas Jefferson might have had sex with Sally Hemings. Many slave owners had sex with their slaves, and there are millions of mulattos that resulted from those unions to provide concrete evidence that many slave owners had sexual relationships with their slaves. The problem with Jefferson is that it appears that he had a long-term relationship with Sally Hemings, that he treated her as if she was his common law wife. For 38 years, Sally Hemings was on the scene, starting from the time that she went to Paris as a nurse and maid for Jefferson's youngest daughter, to the time that Jefferson died. She was there all the time. She was there in Paris. She could have gone free; stayed in Paris and been a free person. She did not. She came back to Monticello. She was in Monticello during the whole time that Jefferson was President. And when he left the Presidency, she remained at Monticello, and she was there when he died. There was a big public scandal related to the relationship between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. A man named Callendar, who had been a so-called friend of Jefferson, Jefferson had gotten him out of prison when John Adams, with his alien and sedition laws put large numbers of people in prison who were accused of treason on the basis of what they wrote and the criticisms they made of the government, Callendar was imprisoned. And, of course, Jefferson was against the alien and sedition laws and against the federalist dictatorship that was being generated. Once Jefferson was elected as President, Callendar was set free. Callendar had written articles and done some things with Jefferson's party and Jefferson, and Callendar wanted to become a postmaster. When Jefferson would not make him a postmaster, Callendar turned on Jefferson and went to Monticello and got all the gossip together, and he was the one who accused Jefferson of having a mistress with children at Monticello. It became a big public scandal. It was in newspapers from one part of the country to the other. Jefferson was ridiculed. John Quincy Adams wrote a ballad making fun of him, et cetera, et cetera. Jefferson never admitted anything, of course. He never even commented. But the relationship was not ended. Sally Hemings was not sent away from Monticello. She remained there. She remained there during his Presidency, and then after he went back, she remained there, and until his death, as I have just said several times. So Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, the questions remained. A historian recently, not so recently, about 15 years ago, documented the fact that Jefferson was at Monticello every time that Sally Hemings conceived children. The period before the birth of her children, he was at Monticello at all those times. They had other various things that they documented in his notations in his farm books, et cetera, which indicated that Sally Hemings was very much a presence at Monticello. There are certain letters, of course, and other kinds of things that are missing from Jefferson's numerous writings that were also timed at a time when he had some kind of important relationship that might have had a record of some kind of relationship with Sally Hemings. Many of those letters are missing. No documentation. Sally Hemings is erased from history. We do not have any photographs of her or any descriptions of her, except the one or two from her son and from a man who had been a slave at Monticello, Isaac Jefferson. So I will talk about the controversy that has now mounted to the point where so much documentation existed which confirmed the fact that there was a relationship between Jefferson and Hemings that a DNA test was developed. A scientist who happened to be residing at Monticello carefully put together a DNA test. He secretly got permission from Jefferson offspring, known offspring of the Jefferson family, and he got permission and DNA from the offspring of Sally Hemings. And after putting it through a very rigorous set of tests, the confirmation is that it is very probable. The DNA tests bear out the other kinds of documentation that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' youngest child and, therefore, it makes all of the other evidence more credible. I am going to quote from an article that I wrote on this whole matter, and I think I will save some time and make the point that I am trying to make tonight better if I read from this article. It is entitled ``Kingpins for Truth and Reconciliation, Thomas and Sally''. ``DNA evidence confirming Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings could open the door for a more profound dialogue on slavery and race relations.'' If that strikes my colleagues as strange, let me read it again. ``DNA evidence confirming Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings could open the door for a more profound dialogue on slavery and race relations''. This portion of slavery that has never been discussed fully is related to the fact that there were intimate relations between the races. From a power point of view, it usually was the slave owners and the overseers and the people who had privileges and power who interacted with the female slaves. But out of that is a set of truths that come concerning myths about inferiority, myths about abilities to coexist, a number of things which not only are documented and reinforced by the new evidence of Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings, but there have been several books written lately which I think also fall into this same pattern. I am going to read first from my article to make things shorter. I will read some excerpts from it. ``Only a few months after the release of the report of the Advisory Board of the President's Initiative on Race, and that report is entitled `One America In The 21st Century: Forging a New Future,' a scientific report has confirmed the likelihood that President Thomas Jefferson was the father of the children of his slave and long-time companion, Sally Hemings. These two events can be constructively related.'' Let me repeat. ``Only a few months after the release of the report of the Advisory Board of the President's Initiative on Race, and the report is entitled `One America In The 21st Century, Forging a New Future,' a scientific report has confirmed the likelihood that President Thomas Jefferson was the father of the children of his slave and long-time companion Sally Hemings. These two events can be constructively related.'' And again, I want to point out that two new books have come out which talk about slave owners and their children by slaves. And I read only the review of this. I have not had a chance to read the book. The review appeared in the Washington Post. It is called ``The Hairstons, an American Family in Black and White,'' published by St. Martin's Press. And it talks about a family where slaves and slave owners and the personnel of the plantations were intermixed, and it singles out one tragic story of one slave owner who decided that he loved his slave wife, common-law wife. Some would call it a mistress or concubine. I do not think he thought of it that way. He loved her so much that he willed her daughter a large part of his property. And there was a big fight to take that property away, which succeeded of course, and she was left in slavery. But a very concrete tragedy there. Another book that recently came out is called ``Slaves in the Family.'' The author of that one is Edward Ball. ``Slaves in the Family'' by Edward Ball goes back and deals with a South Carolina based huge plantation and a large family over several generations and he shows how the intermarriage and the mixtures came down to the present. I think it is important, another book that also talks about this in more general terms and had the advantage of being part of a public television series is ``Africans in America.'' ``Africans in America'' brings out some very interesting facts that are little known about slavery and the freed men and the whole relationship with the general population, etcetera. So returning to my article, ``The new discussions of the life, philosophy, and politics of Thomas Jefferson might do more to facilitate an honest assessment of black-white relations in America than the report which is laden with facts.'' The report is the ``One America in the 21st Century'' that was put out by the Initiative On Race. I thought it was an interesting report. But, as my colleagues can see from my remarks here, I do not think it went nearly far enough. But if we took the report together with the new facts, together these two developments could greatly enhance our understanding of an extremely complex phenomena. ``The weakness of the report of the President's Advisory Board is that it is thorough about obvious kinds of things that we all know about but it lacks the vital ingredient of profundity. The report is competent, respectful, universal in its coverage, balanced, and not at all an embarrassment to the White House. However, when the depth of the deliberations of that report are measured against the complexity of the mission and the intensity of the challenge, the appropriate grade for this noble but feeble effort would be B- or C+. Our national dialogue would be greatly benefited by the establishment of several adequately financed commissions on group relations. ``Native Americans certainly deserve their own separate historical documentation and analysis. African-Americans require no less than an objective statement of history, a thorough and comprehensive study as a basis for the unraveling of the many complexities of our present interaction with mainstream society. ``Contrary to the beliefs of many African-Americans, as well as others, current policy-making would be greatly enhanced by a world- class study of American slavery and the thwarted reconstruction effort that followed the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Such a study would be useful if it is done in the spirit of truth and reconciliation. ``The noble embryo that the President's Initiative has planted should be allowed to sprout and grow. Using the bully pulpit of the White House, the President should call on private foundations to finance such a world-class project and he should recommend that the world's top scholars and thinkers, including Nobel Prize winners, be recruited to provide research and editorial guidance for such a study. ``One of the first items that should be placed on the research and analysis agenda is a controversial question of the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. It would be a human interest case study offering great illuminations for American history. It could also be an educational landmark love story that captures the attention of a mass audience and forces them to confront the institution of slavery in all of its dimensions. ``The scientific validation of Jefferson's paternity with respect to Hemings' children is a historical blockbuster. DNA evidence has exposed the fact that respected academicians and historians have promulgated or tolerated a dangerous and suffocating denial of certain self-evident truths about American slavery. This same distortion process applies to too much of American history as it relates to slavery, the Civil War and reconstruction. ``Unlike the very civilized behavior of the new rulers of South Africa, the United States has never had a truth and reconciliation commission. As part of a larger effort, the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings could provide a potent spark to generate a bonfire of new revelations which will increase the possibility of long-term, improved black-white reconciliation.'' Most people would say that they do not see how any probing of such a relationship could lead to anything but more controversy, more hostility, and more antagonism between the races, starting with the numerous African-Americans who want to throw Thomas Jefferson down from his throne because now it has been confirmed that he took advantage of a slave woman. Well, I do not think the evidence confirms anything of the nature. Slave owners were in a position to take advantage of all their slaves. That is true. But the evidence with respect to Thomas Jefferson is that this particular woman he cared a great deal for. He maintained her near him in Monticello, in the mansion, for 38 years despite a scandal that normally would lead a politician to distance himself from such a person. ``The story of Thomas and Sally may be summarized as follows: While Jefferson was serving as the American ambassador in Paris, Sally Hemings arrived as a maid for his younger daughter who sailed from Virginia to join her father. Jefferson seduced her, and the pregnant Sally returned to America only after he promised that all of her children would be set free. Under French law, she could have remained a free person in France. ``During the first year of his presidency, a journalist exposed the fact that Jefferson had a `slave mistress' who was the mother of his children. The third president of the United States refused to answer this charge. He also never removed Sally Hemings from Monticello. They were together for 38 years at Monticello until Jefferson died. ``Three of their children were allowed to `run.' '' Jefferson noted in his farm books and his accounts that whenever one of the Hemings children left the plantation they really were set free with his consent, he would just note in his book that they were allowed to run. Because to set them free required certain kinds of filing of papers; and in Virginia, once you were set free, you had a limited amount of time to get out of the State. There were complications. So they were just allowed to run and the notations were made. Nevertheless, these same children who were allowed to run always ended up in urban settings where they got new footing and it was assumed that Jefferson, and his friends had helped to establish his children in those new settings to enable them to thrive. Two of the children were set free in Jefferson's will. ``With the DNA testing confirming Jefferson paternity, the journey so competently and eloquently begun by Fawn Brodie with her best selling book entitled ``Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History'' has now reached its peak.'' That is more than 15 years ago that Fawn Brodie, who was a professor at one of California universities, wrote a book called ``Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History.'' The book was denounced by the Regional Daughters of Virginia, and a number of other historical groups denounced Fawn Brodie. But her set of facts, her documentation, was used to set in motion a process that has continued to today. And finally we have the DNA testing. ``Despite vicious criticisms from the establishment historians still prolonging the Confederate view of American history, Brodie's scholarship propelled the search for truth forward. While the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was not her primary preoccupation, Brodie provided this story with a rightful proportion of the space,'' and she integrated the story of Sally Hemings with the rest of her narrative. ``Brodie's thorough account of Jefferson as a failing businessman on the brink of bankruptcy alongside the documentation of the continuous presentation of Sally Hemings may both raise and answer an obvious question: Why didn't Jefferson marry a wealthy widow or a daughter of a wealthy person to end his financial woes?'' I repeat. ``Brodie's thorough account of Jefferson as a failing businessman on the brink of bankruptcy alongside the documentation of the continuous presence of Sally Hemings may both raise and answer an obvious question: Why didn't Jefferson matter a wealthy widow or the daughter of a wealthy person to end his financial woes? ``With an eye more focused, and operating from a courtroom point of view, a more recent book by Annette Gordon-Bennett updates the work of Brodie, and with her remarkable presentation of the evidence, has stimulated the more recent debates which has helped produce the DNA testing. Now all sides must respond to the scientific evidence. In her book, `Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,' Gordon-Bennett goes on to indict the establishment historians for their gross neglect of vital records. ``Barbara Chase-Riboud in the novel entitled `Sally Hemings,' '' which was written based on facts related in Fawn Brodie's nonfiction work, the novel by Barbara Chase-Riboud ``offers a uniquely constructed and very ambitious fictional account to interpret the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Her point of view repeatedly emerges crystal clear throughout the novel. Although her writing is often laborious and strained, she sometimes reaches dramatic heights in her depictions of emotions of her imagined victims of Jefferson's patriarchal and slave-owning powers. Chase-Riboud is able fictionally to occupy the bodies not souls of Sally and her children, and from within them she confronts what she imagines to be the cold blue insensitive eyes of the master of Monticello.'' Chase-Riboud depicts Jefferson as a patronizing anti-woman, cruel oppressor. ``From this novelist, Jefferson is a white, southern aristocrat trapped within the personality parameters of his class and his time.'' That is her point of view. ``He is also a male chauvinist pig who raped and ruined a young slave girl who is left with no alternative except to `love him to death.' ``Chase-Riboud forces Sally to become a drug to afflict the addict Jefferson til death parts them. The merits of Jefferson's public achievements and historic accomplishments can never offset his intimate behavior flaws in the opinion of Barbara Chase-Riboud,'' who is a female story teller of African descent. Each day since the new DNA discovery, I read or hear the same kind of intense condemnations of Jefferson, although they are usually more blunt and crude and they lack the redeeming eloquence of Barbara Chase- Riboud. I hear them from African-American females who want to dismiss Jefferson and forget about the fact that Jefferson was a precursor to Lincoln and the whole idealistic bold advance of Jefferson made it possible to create an America which would later emancipate its slaves. I am compelled personally to register intense disagreement with Chase-Riboud and all those others who want to knock Jefferson off his pedestal for that reason. There are people on the other side, the conservatives and the Confederates, who want to dismiss Jefferson now because, if he did have a serious relationship with a slave, then he does not deserve to remain in their pantheon. But let me deal with those who are African American who refuse to accept Jefferson for what he really is and what he did contribute both to America and to the emancipation of the slaves. Any interpretation of the Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings relationship that discounts or trivializes Jefferson as an idealist, a visionary, an intellectual, a pragmatic statesman and a crafty Machiavellian politician is not acceptable in my view. He was an idealist and his ideals are still very important to what happened, the sequence of events that took place in America, even those that led to the Emancipation Proclamation. The fact that such a giant as Thomas Jefferson chose to keep Sally Hemings at his side for 38 years opens the door to a myriad of magnificent questions: Does the length of the relationship despite the inconvenience caused by public exposure and scandal clearly show that it was not a lust but a love relationship? If he did not ``love'' Sally Hemings, then why did he not just keep her as a concubine while he married a woman of wealth to solve his ever present financial problems? Would a confirmation of his deep love for Sally Hemings not also clarify a number of the other riddles and contradictions which are related to this so-called ``sphinx''? The last great book on Jefferson was called ``The Sphinx.'' The same youthful Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence, with an original draft that condemned slavery, also set forth a racist platform in the book called ``Notes on the State of Virginia.'' I repeat. The same youthful Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence, with an original draft that condemned slavery, also set forth a racist platform in ``Notes on the State of Virginia.'' As a young Congressman, however, Jefferson led the fight to stop the spread of slavery into the new States. He led the fight to stop the spread of slavery, and he lost that by one vote, by the way. He lost that bill by one vote. He stated that slaves had a limited capacity for learning. Nevertheless, Jefferson urged at one time that slaves should be educated and then set free. In the oppressive social and political environment of Virginia, why did Jefferson speak out of both sides of his mouth? Why were there contradictions? Why did Jefferson not just settle down comfortably as a pure acknowledged slave owner and racist? In his philosophical restlessness and his discontent with his own public positions, one can find the wellsprings of Jefferson's greatness. The politician in his pronouncements surrendered to his peers while privately he subscribed to greater truths. His love for Sally was probably a constant internal irritant. This lifelong reverence for his chambermaid is also a vital and legitimate clue to what he personally believed with respect to the equality of the races. I said that Jefferson was an idealist, he was a visionary, he was an intellectual, but he was also a pragmatic statesman and a crafty Machiavellian politician. Jefferson founded the first political party in America. Jefferson united with a guy called Aaron Burr who most people did not trust to form the first political party in America. Aaron Burr, true to his reputation, later betrayed Jefferson, but that was necessary to get an opposition party going to the Federalists. Jefferson pretended he was not interested in being elected President, while he was plotting all the time to become President and successfully managed to become President. Jefferson was a politician, and I do not find the fact that he made contradictory statements to be a great puzzle. He is not a sphinx to me. Politicians do make contradictory statements all the time. Unfortunately that happens and we say it is in order to achieve some more noble goal that we distort the truth or we do not tell what we really think. But Jefferson was not only a politician, he was a southern politician. He was rooted in the plantation culture of Virginia. Consider all that and consider the fact that he still led the fight on the floor of the House of Representatives to stop the spread of slavery into the other States. In the Virginia environment where slavery escalated downward into an ever more savage and criminal institution, did Jefferson's attachment to Sally and her children keep the embers of his antislavery sentiments burning? If there was some way that we could miraculously recover the missing letters of Jefferson, would we find corrections of his most racist utterings? Would we find apologies to Sally Hemings? Would we find expressions of his great love for Sally in his own insightful words? Jefferson, while he was President, also later narrowly fought for and narrowly passed the legislation which ended the importation of slaves into the country. That was very difficult. It took his son-in-law, Randolph. His son-in-law Randolph had to help him a great deal to pass that legislation. It is probable that the recent DNA clarification will generate more than new scholarly debates among academicians. More fictional interpretations in poetry and novels and drama are inevitable in the quest to fill in the gaps of a tale that is about both love and power. I think that the accounts of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, the history of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings is now at the point where it is a bit of a legend and it will take on all the trappings of a legend, and Barbara Chase-Riboud's novel will not be the last novel. There will be many novels, there will be many plays, there will be other kinds of things done in connection with this love story which also tells a whole lot about power in America and about the idealism and the kind of people who helped to make this Nation great, the kind of person who helped to twist events in a way which led the way, established the prerequisite for what later happened with Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. As much as he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States and the purchaser of the Louisiana Territory, Thomas Jefferson was also the concerned father of several children of African descent. With unfortunate limitations and restraints, the evidence is that Jefferson loved his common-law wife and his children. He was not a brilliant, cold-blooded beast. The hypocrisy he felt compelled to perpetrate certainly created a personal life wracked with intense conflicts. Jefferson's public statements on race and slavery often stand in opposition to his private passion and compassion. However, when his intimate relationship with Sally is affixed to selected public actions, it is clear that he consciously made a vital contribution to the abolition of slavery. There are many who contend that without Jefferson, there could never have been an emancipating Abraham Lincoln. Congressman Jefferson attempted to halt the expansion of slavery into new States and failed by one vote in the House of Representatives. As President he narrowly won a victory for a law that finally ended the legal importation of slaves. It is also important to note that Jefferson's advocacy for the rights of the common white man had to take roots before Lincoln could fight the war that freed the slaves. Let me repeat. It is also important to note that Jefferson's advocacy for the rights of the common white man had to take roots before Lincoln could fight the war that freed the slaves. Jefferson was quoted by the slave mongers as well as by the abolitionists as they made their cases during his time, or shortly after his death and up to the Civil War, into the Civil War. Both sides claimed Jefferson. Until today he is still cited by racists as well as progressives. The new DNA clarification of his paternity of Sally Hemings' children may finally end this ideological tug of war. In a superficial response, the races may jettison the man who treated the slave mother of his children as if she were his common-law wife. A more profound response from progressives in general and African Americans specifically would be a new celebration of Jefferson as the prerequisite to Lincoln. It is an historical fact that one of Jefferson's proteges, Edward Coles, took his slaves from Virginia to Illinois where he gave them their freedom and acres of land. Edward Coles later became governor of Illinois, he defeated a referendum seeking to make Illinois a slave State, and he was an active politician in Illinois at the time of Lincoln's election and at the time of the Civil War. More than mere words and ideas connected Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln. Celebrations of the new Jefferson discoveries and expressions of gratitude to the science of genetics which produced DNA testing I think are very much in order. What the historians and the researchers of several generations refused to examine objectively has now been determined to be almost certainly true. The white male southern academicians who have dominated the interpretation of pre and post Civil War history have now been thoroughly discredited. Their refusal to accept overwhelming evidence with respect to Jefferson, of necessity, raises serious questions about the integrity of the rest of their scholarship. Some obvious indictments of these proponents of the Confederate view of history are now in order. The establishment historians are guilty of ignoring the record of widespread miscegenation fostered by white men and its implications. Mainstream scholars have refused to offer any meaningful expositions of the ``breeding farm'' industry, for example. On the other hand, post-Civil War terrorism and violence by the defeated rebels has been glorified. ``The Birth of a Nation'' movie was an interpretation that has never been answered by academicians with a true and thorough story of the terrorism, the murder and the mayhem which returned the blacks of the South to a state of semi-slavery. I am talking about what a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could have accomplished. Instead of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we had John Wilkes Booth. We had Booth assassinating Lincoln. We had Andrew Johnson, who took over at that point, the last thing he wanted was truth, and as a result we had a downward slide back into the era when terror, murder and mayhem for the blacks in the South returned, and it took us another 100, or more than 100 years to get back to restoring the civil rights of the African-American population, certainly of the South. If we had some truth, if we had some honest historians to shed some light along the way on some of these things, we might have made different kinds of public policy decisions and, of course, the reason I am here today is because there is a definite connection. Our present race problems, our present serious race problems as far as African Americans are concerned are rooted in 232 years of slavery. There are still people who make speeches about African Americans being inferior, African Americans are prone to criminal activities, African Americans are generally not as well off as other people. Even immigrants who came to this country much later than the African Americans have accumulated more wealth. There are answers to all of these assertions, to all of these misstatements of fact. There are answers, but unless you have a concerted, systematic pursuit of truth, you are never going to be able to establish the answers which will allow us to have meaningful public policymaking. In summary, the recent kingpin discovery which confirms the common- law marriage relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings has generated new demands for more historical truth to support current reconciliation between whites and African Americans. I am saying that the recent kingpin discovery which confirms the common-law marriage relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings has generated new demands for more historical truth to support current reconciliation between whites and African Americans. Madam Speaker, I believe that the truth can support reconciliation. I do not think the truth has to be a generator of more hostility and ill will. Since there was no Truth In Reconciliation Commission established following the Civil War, it would be wise to currently create a substitute project. That has come as close as we can to a Truth In Reconciliation Commission. We did not have the advantage of the South African Nation has when it tried to get rid of a large part of the baggage and the garbage related to racial oppression, the victimization, the response to the victimization, the people seeking revenge. All kinds of poison existed that the South African government is trying to get rid of by establishing a Truth In Reconciliation Commission. We had no such commission following the Civil War. Instead of a comprehensive approach similar to the Truth In Reconciliation Commission and instead of a comprehensive approach, which was attempted by the President's Commission on Race, it is recommended that smaller components of the overall problem of U.S. race relations be explored separately. I recommend that we have this kind of Nobel Prize guided winner, guided truth-seeking group who would write an objective history for us of slavery. I would recommend that it be explored in segments. An objective rewrite of the history of slavery in America constitutes a productive beginning. They may want to go back and write the history of slavery for all times. They may want to write the history of the exploitation and the destruction of the Indian Nations, the Native Americans, on this continent. They may want to get segments in order to help tell the whole story. But certainly the history of slavery in America would constitute a productive beginning, an objective history of what it was all about. You know, what does it mean to keep people for 232 years in bondage, what was the cruelty, and the abuse of children and the attempt to obliterate the humanity of human beings? What were the consequences of that? And as I said earlier, a consortium of foundations could finance such a sweeping study, and Nobel Prize winning scholars throughout the world could be recruited to supervise such a study and to guarantee the objectivity of such a study. In that demonstration of extraordinary and original insight into the dynamics of civilization development and nation building the recently formed government of South Africa, the government of Nelson Mandela, has pointed the way out of contradictions, the way out of conflicts and enmities which heretofore had seemed to be inevitable. To avoid the endless sufferings and social retardations inflicted by lies, guilt and preoccupations with revenge, nations must labor vigorously. The process of striving must be supported systematically and with adequate resources by governments. Since America has not yet matched the South Africans in their recognition of the power of this approach, let us imagine the ghost of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings holding hands as they hover over us. We must strive harder to acquire insights from the emotion laden and sociologically complex legend of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Madam Speaker, let me close by saying that I applaud and congratulate the University of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation for a conference which they held on the weekend of March 5 which brought together 20 scholars from all over the Nation to explore the meaning of the relationship of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings for American history, and they intend to publish an entire series of writings on this subject. The University of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation are moving in the right direction to take an objective fact of history and use that fact of history for a very positive purpose. If it helps America to seek reconciliation among the races, then it will have made a great contribution. Madam Speaker, before we can have reconciliation, we need to have truth, and the truth of the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings is a magnificent truth that should be thoroughly examined. The article referred to follows: Kingpins for truth and reconciliation: Thomas and Sally dna evidence confirming Jefferson's relationship with sally Hemings could open the door for a more profound dialogue on slavery and race relations Only a few months after the release of the report of the Advisory Board of the President's Initiative on Race entitled One America In The 21st Century: Forging A New Future, a scientific report has confirmed the likelihood that President Thomas Jefferson was the father of the children of his slave and long-time companion, Sally Hemings. These two events can be constructively related. The new discussions of the life, philosophy and politics of Thomas Jefferson might do more to facilitate an honest assessment of black-white relations in America than this fact laden official report. Or reviewed together these two developments could greatly enhance our understanding of an extremely complex phenomenon. The weakness of the report of the President's Advisory Board is that it is thorough about the obvious, but it lacks the vital ingredient of profundity. The report is competent, respectful, universal in its coverage, balanced and not at all an embarrassment to the White House; however, when the depth of the deliberations is measured against the complexity of the mission and the intensity of the challenge, the appropriate grade for this noble but feeble effort would be a B- or a C+. Our national dialogue would be greatly benefitted by the establishment of several adequately funded Commissions on group relations. Native Americans certainly deserve their own separate historical documentation and analysis. African Americans require no less than an objective statement of history, a thorough and comprehensive study, as the basis for unraveling the many complexities of our present interaction with mainstream society. Contrary to the beliefs of many African Americans as well as others, current policy making would be greatly enhanced by a world class study of American slavery and the thwarted reconstruction effort. Such a study would be useful if it is done in the spirit of ``truth and reconciliation''. The noble embryo that the President's initiative has planted should be allowed to sprout and grow. Using the bully pulpit of the White House the President should call on private Foundations to finance such a world class project, and he should recommend that the world's top scholars and thinkers, including Nobel Prize winners, be recruited to provide research and editorial guidance. One of the first items that should be placed on the research and analysis agenda is the controversial question of the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. It would be a human interest case study offering great illuminations for American history. It could also be an educational landmark love story that captures the attention of a mass audience and forces them to confront the institution of slavery in all of its dimensions. The scientific validation of Jefferson's paternity with respect to the Hemings children is a historical blockbuster. DNA evidence has exposed the fact that respected academicians and historians have promulgated or tolerated a dangerous and suffocating denial of certain self-evident truths about American history. This same distortion process applies to too much of American history as it relates to slavery, the civil war and reconstruction. Unlike the very civilized behavior of the new rulers of South Africa, the United States has never had a Truth And Reconciliation Commission. As part of a larger effort the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings could provide a potent spark to generate a bonfire of new revelations which will increase the possibility of long-term improved black-white reconciliation. The story of Thomas and Sally may be summarized as follows: While Jefferson was serving as the American Ambassador in Paris, Sally Hemings arrived as the maid for his youngest daughter who sailed from Virginia to join her father. Jefferson seduced her and the pregnant Sally returned to America only after she promised that all of her children would be set free. Under French law she could have remained as a free person in France. During the fist year of his presidency a journalist exposed the fact that Jefferson had a slave mistress who was the mother of his children. The third President of the U.S. refused to answer this charge. He also never removed Sally Hemings from Monticello. They were together for 38 years at Monticello until Jefferson died. Three of their children were allowed to ``run'' and two were set free in Jefferson's will. With the DNA test confirming Jefferson paternity, the journey, so completely and eloquently begun by Fawn M. Brodie with her best selling Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, has now reached its peak. Despite vicious criticisms from the establishment historians still promulgating the Confederate view of American history, Brodie's scholarship propelled the search for truth forward. While the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was not her primary preoccupation, she provided this story with a rightful proportion of the space, and she integrated it with the rest of her narrative. Brodie's thorough account of Jefferson as a failing business man on the brink of bankruptcy alongside the documentation of the continuous presence of Sally Hemings may both raise and answer an obvious question: Why didn't Jefferson marry a wealthy widow or daughter and end his financial woes? With an eye more focused, and operating from a court room point-of-view, Annette Gordon-Bennett updates the work of Brodie, and with her remarkable presentation of the evidence, has stimulated the more recent debates which have helped to produce the DNA testing. Now all sides must respond to the scientific evidence. In her book, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, Gordon-Bennett goes on to indict the establishment historians for their gross neglect of vital records. Barbara Chase Riboud in the novel, Sally Hemings, offers a uniquely constructed and very ambitious fictional attempt to interpret the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Her point-of-view repeatedly emerges crystal clear throughout the novel. Although her writing is often laborious and strained, she sometimes reaches dramatic heights in her depictions of the emotions of her imagined victims of Jefferson's partiarchal and slave owning powers. Chase-Riboud is able to occupy the bodies and souls of Sally and her children, from within them she confronts what she imagines to be the cold blue insensitive eyes of the master of Monticello. For this novelist Jefferson is a white, Southern aristocrat trapped within the personality parameters of his class and his time. He is also a male chauvinist pig who raped and ruined a young slave girl who is left with no alternative except to ``love him to death.'' Chase-Riboud forces Sally to become a drug to afflict the addict Jefferson til death parts them. The merits of Jefferson's public achievements and historic accomplishments can never offset his intimate behavior flaws in the opinion of this female storyteller of African descent. Each day since the new DNA discovery I read or hear such intense condemnations of Jefferson although they are usually more blunt and crude, and lack the redeeming eloquence of Ms. Chase-Riboud. This male writer of African descent is compelled to register intense disagreement with Chase-Riboud and any interpretation of the Thomas and Sally relationship that discounts or trivializes Jefferson as an idealist, a visionary, an intellectual, a pragmatic statesman and a crafty Machiavellian politician. The fact that such a giant chose to keep Sally Hemings at his side for thirty eight years opens the door to a myriad of magnificent questions: Does the length of the relationship, despite the inconvenience caused by public exposure and scandal, clearly show that it was not a lust, but a love relationship? If he did not ``love'' Sally, then why didn't he just keep her as a concubine while he married a woman of wealth to solve his ever present financial problems? Would a confirmation of his deep love for Sally not clarify a number of other riddles and contradictions related to this ``Sphinx''? The same youthful Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence, with an original draft that condemned slavery, also set forth a racist platform in Notes On The State of Virginia. As a young Congressman he led the fight to stop the spread of slavery into the new states. He stated that slaves had a limited capacity for learning, nevertheless, he urged at one time that slaves should be educated and then set free. In the oppressive social and political environment of Virginia why didn't Jefferson just settle down comfortably as a pure acknowledged racist? In his philosophical restlessness and his discontent with his own public positions one can find the well springs of his greatness. The politician in his pronouncements surrendered to his peers while privately he subscribed to greater truths. His love for Sally was probably a constant internal irritant. This lifelong reverence for his chamber maid is also a legitimate and vital clue to what he personally believed with respect to the equality of the races. In the Virginia environment where slavery escalated downward into an ever more savage and criminal institution, did Jefferson's attachment to Sally and her children keep the embers of his anti-slavery sentiments burning? If there was some way that we could miraculously recover the missing letters of Jefferson would we find corrections of his most racist utterings? Would we find apologies to Sally Hemings? Would we find expressions of his great love for Sally in his own insightful words? It is probable that the recent DNA clarification will generate more than new scholarly debates among academicians. More fictional interpretations in poetry, novels, and drama are inevitable in the quest to fill in the gaps of a tale that is about both love and power. The long term fascination of this writer with Jefferson and Hemings has inspired a play which is presently being considered for production and publication. All quotes utilized below in this exposition are taken from the manuscript of the play, Thomas and Sally. In Act I, Scene 9 of Thomas and Sally, Jefferson recalls his initial seduction of Sally following his wrenching breakup with Maria Cosway in Paris: Jefferson: Your mind is as splendid as your beautiful face, Sally. Soon, you may become my French teacher. But not today. In my present condition your energy would be too much for me. Sally: I am so sorry that you have no time to talk to me. When we sit and chat, for a tiny while, you make me feel that it is Christmas morning. Jefferson: How interesting. You think of Christmas when you talk to me. But always when I see you it is the image of Easter that rises in my mind. Always you remind me of Spring with seeds bursting and flowers blooming. I have been leaving early and I have missed you. Tomorrow we will practice French together again. But not now. Today I am like a dog exhausted after chasing a bone that finally had no meat on it. For some women the ultimate excitement is to lead a man through a maze, forever pulling him at a faster pace until . . . Set the tea down here, Sally, and leave me. I want to be alone. . . . Sally: Yes, Marse Tom, I will go. But you look sick, sir. (Begins to walk slowly toward the door while Jefferson lowers his head into his hands again.) Jefferson: Wait, Sally! (He suddenly raises his head and calls after her.) Come and sit for a minute. (Motions toward a chair near him.) Just for a minute. It is so cold in here. Sally: (Pushing into the chair.) Yes, Marse Tom, I will sit with you. Jefferson: It is cold and your eyes are like two suns. Always they seem so bright and full of heat. Sally: No, Marse Tom, your eyes are bright. I see the sun coming out of your eyes. Jefferson: What you see in me is the reflection of your own eyes. Sally: Slaves are not supposed to look into the eyes of masters, but you always make me look into your eyes, Marse Tom. I try hard to turn away, but you make it so hard for me not to look into your eyes. Please excuse me, sir. . . . Jefferson: I did not mention Maria Cosway. Aha! You have been spying on me, Sally. You are a naughty child. Sally: Please, Marse Tom, do not call me a child. And I am sorry that I called the name of the English woman. I do not spy on you. But I do watch you. I watch everywhere you go, whatever you do. I listen to everything you say. Jefferson: I am not angry, Sally. I called you a spy in jest. I have seen you watching me. And you have my permission to call the name of the English woman. We have seen the last of Maria Cosway. I will never follow her through that mysterious maze again. Sally: Maze? Is that the same as the labyrinth thing, Marse Tom? Jefferson: A maze, a labyrinth, a wolf-trap, a deadly bear hug, a snare, quicksand in a swamp. She was all of these crushed into one. Sally: She fiddled with your heart. She led you around the mulberry bush. Maria Cosway was a mean woman, Marse Tom. Marse Tom! Your face is turning red like fire! . . . Jefferson: (Raising his head abruptly.) Please, Sally, lay your hands on my head again. Massage the back of my neck. Your hands are so warm. Sally: Yes, Marse Tom, I will rub your head; I will rub your neck. Come back to life, Marse Tom. Do not leave me! Jefferson: (Abruptly standing and pushing Sally down until he towers over her and gazes down at her with a look of astonishment.) Two suns are set in your eyes. And those same eyes are filled with Virginia. There is no limit to what your eyes can hold. I see the world when it first came. I see the world going on forever. It is all there without embellishment, without ornaments. It's all there shining in your eyes. It shines even through your tears. (Bends down to kiss her head. She responds by throwing her arms around his long legs.). . . . At the end of a failed attempt to separate him from Sally by banning her from the Monticello mansion the two lovers are united: Scene thirteen: Sally joins Jefferson in the bedroom. Jefferson is first alone. He has placed a light in a small window above his bed. Jefferson: Come, sweet Sally, and bring me peace. The force of my feeling gives me direction. Let it be disease, affliction, addiction; you are a habit I will pursue. No surgeon can cut me free of you. If I am blind then I never want to see. If this is rape then I declare that all husbands, with their wedding night madness, are similarly guilty. Thomas and Sally are one. In what language does God require the marriage license? Is he satisfied to see the vows written on men's hearts; or do only wedding gowns and hypocritical ceremonies move him? Am I condemned because of my oath of monogamy is unregistered? Is it some base perversion that leads me to discern that nothing is more delicious than fidelity? (Sally emerges from the floor climbing up from the stairs at the foot of Jefferson's bed. She is draped in a black cloak on the upper part of her body but below the knees a white night gown can be seen.) Jefferson: (Throwing open his arms as he moves toward her.) Ma Cherie! My magnificent flower! Sally: (Leaping into his arms.) Like a baby rabbit racing for its mother I came running. Please excuse me but my legs leaped forward all on their own. I could not hold back one minute more. I have waited so long for the lamp in the window to light my way back to you. Jefferson: Please forgive me. You have been humiliated for the last time. I beg you! Forgive me! (Falls to his knees and throws his arms around her legs.) Sally: Mon Cher, please don't greet me on your knees. Don't drown my mind in fancy pleas. Just squeeze me close. (He rises and envelopes her in his arms.) Speak to me with the strength in your hands and arms. I have been a lost orphan without your love to surround me. Jefferson: My Sweet Angel, look at Monticello. (Begins to speak French.) C'est un chateau tres incomplete. Mais un jour, je le finirai totalement. Monticello est ton chateau, Sally. You will never be driven from your castle again. I swear it to you, sweet Sally. You demand nothing but this is my gift to you. No one, not even Martha, shall ever take Monticello away from you again. I swear it! Sally: Please do not swear again. I do not need another oath. Make no promises except one. Promise you will love me like the green grass grows. The grass is forever. Jefferson: I will love you forever, Sally. We are one. Now, tell me that you forgive me. Promise that you will love me forever. Sally: Oh my sweet Cher, how can I answer you? I can't match your basket of fancy words. Just look into my eyes and real all of your answers. You see my pain. You alone know how much I hurt. I can see the understanding in your eyes. The heavy beating of your heart is sending me a message. As much as I have missed you, you have missed me. You still Love me. The election, your daughters, the planters, the guests; nothing has been enough to block your path back to me. The message is so simple, Mon Cher. You still love me. And I promise to love you forever. Jefferson: The world is as it is. Let the violent variables swirl around us in chaos. You, sweet Angel, shall be my constant. Everlasting you are mine! Sally: You have recited enough of your sweet speeches tonight. Take me to our bed. Your cold sheets are waiting to be warmed. (Sally takes off her black cloak and stands in her white nightgown before Jefferson carries her to the bed.) In Act I, Scene 25, Jefferson is forced to justify his love for Sally to his jealous daughter, Martha: Martha: I did not like her. Perhaps I was jealous of every female in your life. But Maria Cosway was an elegant lady. Sally was nothing. You remade Sally. Why did you select Sally? Jefferson: An architect can read his own blueprint easily; but it is not always possible for a man to decipher his soul. Martha: You told her the right books to read in your library. You coached her until she learned to speak French better than me. You let her reign supreme over all the servants. Sally was nothing but mud. But you diligently molded her into your favorite statue. Jefferson: To some degree maybe I did mold her. But God alone could teach her to burst into a room like a morning glory; to bloom as the reddest rose commanding every eye; to stand as the sunflower in every crowd; to always be the lily who lights up a dark pond of tears. Sally is what nature and God and I have made together. And so is Patsy. You are separate and distinct but blessed be the priceless two of you. Sally extracts nothing from Patsy. Martha: Why love, Father? Why not just let it be lust? The South is littered with mulattos but white men don't treat their mothers like wives. Jefferson: Tonight, Patsy, I beg you to be my daughter. I have only two of you. I have hundreds of inquisitors. Do not insult me. Do not degrade me with conventional accusations. If you have ears, then hear me. I need more than pleasure! Watching loved ones die maims the spirit, cripples the soul; even the strongest among us are never fully rehabilitated. There is but one antidote to such despair and most men never find her. Life and joy are for the living (pauses) but we disabled souls require magnificent assistance. Sally is my magnificent assistance. Inspiration is that which completes a man; supplies drive and ambition; stimulates vision; absorbs despair. She who inspires is sacred. Sally is sacred. The fact that an aging Jefferson could not separate himself from Sally raises questions less about sexual addiction and more about the magic and magnetism of Sally Hemings. She obviously had more than her beautiful body to offer. Why are all records of Sally so thoroughly and meticulously missing? In his seventies and eighties why did Jefferson still find her company indispensable? Since her continued existence posed an obvious embarrassing threat to Jefferson's heirs, how did Sally manage to outwit them and survive? And is it not obvious that both the father and the mother had to be involved in the arrangements made for the big city survival of their children who were allowed to ``run''? For a lifetime Thomas and Sally did more than merely sleep together. But what was it that made Sally ``sacred'' in the eyes of Jefferson? All traces of Sally Hemings have been scrubbed from Jefferson's writings and from history. Fiction writers thus have great latitude in the challenge to recreate this central character. She may be glimpsed through her own speeches: In Act I, Scene 16, on the day she learns of the public charges that she is the President's mistress and the mother of his children: Sally: Marse Tom don't want to know what's happening here. Marse Tom won't look down at the dirt. Marse Tom rather gaze up at the skies. He always goes in person to buy slaves. But you won't see him around when slaves are sold. But Marse Tom is many men all squeezed into one. He is the owl and the eagle, the fox and the sheep, rose and thorn, still pond and flooding river. God was straining hard the day he made Marse Tom . . . The closer you watch Marse Tom, the less you understand him. I have seen him wave his hand at heaven and thumb his nose at the angels. But some days he takes oaths and swears under the watchful eyes of God. So much about him stays in the dark. But why must we figure out the puzzle? Why do you ask so many questions Millie? I just know in my bones that Marse Tom is the grandest man that walks on this earth. . . . Preacher Zeke: They say Marse Tom could be pushed out of office. They say nobody will vote for him a second time. This is bad, Miss Sally. Look right there in the paper. They called you a concubine! Sally: Our love is right, Preacher. Your God, our Jesus smiles down on Thomas and Sally. The newspapers are all wrong and our love is right. He will not bend, Preacher. Marse Tom will stand and fight. Preacher Zeke: Chief Justice Marshall, Patrick Henry, John Adams! They have all come out against Marse Tom. Sally: You hear a hundred dirty puppies howling at the heels of a mountain lion. My Master will never bow to them. You watch, Preacher Zeke. Watch and see him strike with quiet lightning. He will leave the puppies scattered across the woods. He will stand in this storm. Pray to make him strong. The God who gave me my love will not tease me and then take him away. The Almighty who made me a slave would not torture me twice. Pray the right prayer, Preacher. Make him like David against Goliath; like Daniel in the lion's den; let him be Samson. Give him the jawbone of an ass and let him beat the Philistines down. For our love he will go up to the gates of heaven and wrestle St. Peter himself. Pray, Preacher, pray! Millie: Preacher Zeke, do they put corcupines in jail? Sally: Concubine, Millie? Not corcupine! The word is concubine! Any woman that is used but not loved is a concubine. Many waives are concubines. I am not a concu- bine . . . In Act I, Scene 24, Sally confronts Jefferson's daughter: Martha: You are both reckless! Love has nothing to do with it. My Father is first of all a man and men are prone to allow their lust to place everything else in jeopardy. Sally: Be careful what you label lust. Lust is an easy pig to feed. Men can drop their pants anywhere. My love gives life to him. He says that he can sometimes only heal his headaches by placing his head in my hands. He calls me his magic and his medicine. . . . Martha: Yes, I hear you as a woman, tonight. But all these years I have worked so hard to make you a thing. I could not admit my Father had succumbed to a mere woman. You had to be a soft, fuzzy, lustful creature that he took to bed to keep himself warm; a witch to cure his manly madness; a slop jar for his boiling male juices; a submissive sheep; a ravishing werewolf; I made you anything in my mind but a woman. You could not be human. Sally: Not human, Martha? But we played together as girls. We have lived for twenty-three years within each other shadows. I am your mother's slave sister, her half sister. The father of your mother was my father. You are my niece, Martha. Martha: Stop it! Don't remind me of the disgusting lust of my maternal grandfather. Let me forget how our lives are intermingled, miscegenated and tied together like insane serpents. Sally: Consider the serpents, Martha. In the Spring when certain snakes mate, they wrap themselves around each other with passion. And neither snake supplies the poison to ruin their great hug. You come to the love feast with fangs, Martha! You bring the poison! Martha: Stop judging me! We are not as the gates of heaven--and you are not St. Peter. You are not an angel merely because you are a slave. Other women suffer too! Sally: Yes, Martha, admit it. We are both women. But after tonight we will never suffer together again. Thomas Jefferson is your Father. I give him all to you. To take him from me, day and night you tear at him with sharp hooks in his mind. Every axe and dagger you use. Sometimes you dump a heavy load of reminders about your mother. Sometimes you paint me as a demon. I am unlawful, illegal, sinful, the Jezebel dragging him down to hell. But your spray of poison has not put out my Master's passion. Our love is like an iron rock against all of your heavy hammers. I win the battles but you keep fighting the war. You can not take him from me. No woman can take him from me--no daughter, no Washington ladies with all of their lace and lovely speeches. No ghost of a wife long gone. You have all failed. You can not take him, He is mine! And since he is all mine I have the power to give him to you. (Begins to cry.) For his sake I give him to you. Take your Father and let me go! Martha: Sally, Father will be here soon. Perhaps you should rest. You should not meet him with tears. Sally: Take him! To get at me you are driving him mad. You will split his soul right down the middle. Preacher Zeke tells the story of two women before King Solomon both claiming a baby. Like the real mother standing before Solomon my love is bigger than yours. Your Father has been split in half too long. Take him! He should not have to wake up each day and choose between me and you. I am my own butcher. I choose to cut him free. I want him made whole again. The country still needs him undivided. I stand on one side and all the world weighs down against me. So heavy a sin will surely drag me to the bottom of hell. . . . In Act I, Scene 26, declaring that she will leave Monticello, Sally confronts Jefferson: Jefferson: Liberty and freedom are necessary to guarantee the opportunity to love. Around your waist in a pouch are the papers that validate freedom for you and each child. You are not my slave, Sally, You don't have to stay if you do not love me. Sally: In the dark you whisper over and over again that you love me; at night I am your adored wife. But in the morning I am again just a slave. At night I am everything. In the morning I am nothing. Monticello you declared to be my castle but when company comes I am the pussy cat who must crawl into a corner or go hide in the bushes. Jefferson: You stab with a long rusty knife! Sally: Hear me til the sound of my voice makes you want to puke. And then maybe you will never ever want to hear my voice again. Jefferson: You speak from great pain, Sally. I honor your suffering. Sally: To be a slave, night black or mulatto, is to live always in pain. The days creep by so slowly for a slave--and there is nothing to look forward to but more misery tomorrow. If we slaves were wise we would punish all slave owners by killing ourselves and destroying their property. If slaves had a democratic government we would all go to the polls and cast our ballots for a holiday of destruction; a grand day of death. . . . Jefferson: Forgive me, Sally. I have written in riddles and traveled in evasive circles for too long. I swear I will someday set these matters straight. Sally: If you are truly my champion--and since you are the powerful President of the United States, I most reverently appeal to you to publicly whip the man who wrote these words that I have copied from his book: (She reads from a piece of paper.) ``Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry; in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous on. They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the skins, which give them a very strong and disagreeable odor''. . . . Sally: And you will promise never to be mad at me for doing what it was right to do. (Pause) I have a gift for you, Mon Cher, a gift I bought in a Paris flea market. I bought this from an old African who was selling carvings. He had a big head and a face that could only have been chiseled by a very strong angel. He was tall with big hands and long bony fingers. (Pulls the cloth covering from a small black stone carving.) See, it is a tiny family of a man, his wife and two children--the way families must have been before the slave catchers came. Take it! It was dreamed up by an inferior ``dull, tasteless'' black mind, and carved with inferior black physical fingers. Take it and always remember that the Sally you once adored was first of all a slave. I am Black Sally! Jefferson: Thank you Sally. But please do not remind me that the trial is over. Sally: I sentence you to one day write that any being able to bear the daily burdens of slavery and still be able to laugh and to love is surly superior to all other human beings. Jefferson: I swear that I shall truthfully instruct posterity and work to shield them from the errors committed by my generation. Sally: Say no more. (Holds a finger up to her lip.) Jefferson: As you wish, my divine inquisitor. The nobility of Adam is best reflected by the fact that he made no attempt to argue with his God. Adam quietly acknowledged his guilt and he left the Garden of Eden. . . . In Act I, Scene 27, Sally reverses her decision to run away from Monticello: Sally: I could take my children and live anywhere. I could mop floors as a maid, or melt away in sweat cooking in some lady's kitchen; or I would do well as a seamstress. I could put plenty of food on my table for my children. Black Sally could survive. But there would be no thread tough enough, no needle big enough to sew up the aching hole in my heart. Martha: I promise you peace Sally. I shall never again harass or insult you. In no way will I ever block or handicap you in your pursuit of happiness at Monticello. Sally: The slave in me is beaten down and bitter, but I can never be happy unless I stay hostage to my heart. Against the hurricane of the heart the head is like a crippled fly. This morning when I got out of bed I knew in my bones that I had lost the battle. No woman can love him, be loved by him, and them pick up and run away from Thomas Jefferson. It would take an angel or some other being able to work miracles to carry out such a deed. I'm only a woman. I love him. I can't abandon him. (She takes up a pen and begins scribbling a note.) Martha: In the end we must always remember that we are only women; incomplete and not fully made without our men. Sally: We are women, and men are not fully finished until we make them so. In Act II, Scene 3, Sally comforts an old, sick and dying Jefferson: Jefferson: My dearest Magic Woman, now you are so kind as to assign me another son when I have refused to claim the sons you gave me. Sally: I didn't come to talk about that. Your morning is cloudy enough already. Accept Edward Coles as a son from you soul and celebrate. Jefferson: Why accept a son who publicly chides me and privately mocks me with flattery. Sally: Sons do sometimes rebel and challenge their fathers. Jefferson: And sometimes children hate their fathers. I have given ample cause to your Thomas and Harriet and Beverly and Eston and Madison. Toward my own flesh I have behaved abominably! Sally: (Screaming) Stop it! The world is as it is. In a great burst of love you gave my children life. And later you gave them their freedom. I asked for nothing else. You must not torture yourself! If my children have suffered it is because they were abandoned by their mother who wouldn't carry them all at once to freedom because she couldn't bear to leave her lover. Jefferson: My loud and powerful queen, I beg you not to scream at this old man. My conscience is crammed with sins that break out like blisters. Brains overloaded with living and learning become grotesque. That I sometimes become unhinged should not surprise you. Wrinkled hearts and musty minds are not good company. Wise women do not waste their love on old men. Sally: (almost whispering) Then I never want to be a wise woman. Let me die a fool! Loving an old man is like loving a baby. It is the best used time of your life. No need to have a reason. The love just swells up all inside you and then runs over in a flood. (She kneels beside his chair and begins to caress and kiss him). . . . As much as he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States and the purchaser of the Louisiana Territory, Thomas Jefferson was also the concerned father of several children of African descent. With unfortunate limitations and restraints the evidence is that Jefferson loved his common-law wife and children. He was not a brilliant, cold blooded beast. The hypocrisy he felt compelled to perpetrate certainly created a personal life wracked with intense conflicts. Jefferson's public statements on race and slavery often stand in opposition to his private passion and compassion; however, when his intimate relationship with Sally is affixed to selected public actions, it is clear that he consciously made a vital contribution to the abolition of slavery. There are many who contend that without Jefferson there could never have been an emancipating Abraham Lincoln. Congressman Jefferson attempted to halt the expansion of slavery into new states and failed by one vote in the House of Representatives. As President he narrowly won a victory for a law that finally ended the legal importation of slaves. It is also important to note that Jefferson's advocacy for the rights of the common white man had to take roots before Lincoln could fight the war that freed the slaves. Jefferson was quoted by the slave mongers as well as the Abolitionists as they made their cases. Until today he is still cited by racists as well as progressives. The new DNA clarification of his paternity of Sally Hemings' children may finally end this ideological tug of war. In a superficial response the racists may jettison the man who treated the slave mother of his children as if she was his wife. A more profound response from progressives in general, and African Americans specifically, would be a new celebration of Jefferson as the pre-requisite to Lincoln. It is a historical fact that one of Jefferson's proteges, Edward Coles, took his slaves from Virginia to Illinois where he gave them their freedom and acres of land. Coles later became Governor of Illinois; defeated a referendum seeking to make Illinois a slave state; and was an active politician in Illinois at the time of Lincoln's election and the Civil War. More than mere words and ideas linked Lincoln to Jefferson. Celebrations of the new Jefferson discoveries, and expressions of gratitude to the science of genetics which produced DNA testing are very much in order. What the historians and researchers of several generations refused to examine objectively has now been determined to be almost certainly true. The white male southern academicians who have dominated the interpretation of pre and post civil war history have now been thoroughly discredited. Their refusal to accept overwhelming evidence with respect to Jefferson, of necessity, raises serious questions about the integrity of the rest of their scholarship. Some obvious indictments of these proponents of the Confederate view of history are now in order: The establishment historians are guilty of ignoring the record of widespread miscegenation fostered by White men and its implications. Mainstream scholars have refused to offer any meaningful expositions of the ``breeding farm'' industry. On the other hand post civil war terrorism and violence by the defeated rebels has been glorified. ``The Birth Of A Nation'' interpretation has never been answered by academicians with a true and thorough story of the terrorism, murder and mayhem which returned the blacks of the South to a state of semi- slavery.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Classroom teachers do the paperwork for the grants?

Mr. OWENS. I would ask the gentleman, classroom teachers do paperwork?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman give us one example of what he means by the Federal Government interfering with one's ability to be flexible with parents and run the schools?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is not a question of flexibility, it is a question that we need more paperwork reduction.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I think the gentleman who has just spoken and all of the people in this room will agree with me that at least 90 percent, or more than 90 percent of the funds we use to run our public schools with are State and local controlled. We are talking about less than 10 percent of the total funds. We are talking about flexibility on less than 10 percent of what we use to run our schools with, and if we have 10 percent of the funding by the Federal Government, it means the Federal Government only has about 10 percent of the control, if there is any control at all. So the American people should understand that the whole flexibility argument is based on a phoney hypothesis. Our schools are in bad trouble, bad shape. We are 20th in the international arena because the States and the localities have not done a good job, and the Federal Government wants to participate. They only want to participate. They are not willing to put up even 10 percent. It is less than 10 percent participation. What we are talking about here is an attempt to destroy the Federal Government's role totally. We are back to where we were in 1995 with a call to abolish the Department of Education. It is just another approach. It is a more sanitized approach to destroying the Federal role in education. The New York Times today has said what I said in the committee. They said it in much more succinct terms. The wise thing to do, this is an editorial of March 10, today, the wise thing to do would be to put Ed- Flex aside until later in the session when Congress reauthorizes the entire elementary and secondary education act. What we are doing here is stampeding. Education, there is an emergency in America on education. It deserves a serious response from Congress. What we are doing here is not a serious response. This is a stampede to push us into a political posture. We want to open the door for block grants. That is what we are doing today. It is trivializing the legislative process, because we have on our agenda for this year the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. That is on our agenda. Why can we not wait, as the New York Times says we should, and I agree? Why can we not wait? The New York Times editorial also says, ``The Ed-Flex expansion being debated in Congress would extend waivers even to States that have no intention of innovation and no means in place of evaluating what they do.'' Correct. The New York Times starts its editorial with the following: ``The achievement gap between affluent and disadvantaged children is a challenge to American education and a threat to national prosperity. Unfortunately, a bipartisan bill that is scheduled for debate and a vote today in Congress could widen that gap by allowing states to use Federal dollars targeted at the poorest students for other educational purposes. The so-called Ed-Flex proposal could damage the poorest districts, which have traditionally been underfinanced by the states and cities even though they bear the burden of teaching the least prepared students.'' Why did the Federal Government get involved in education? Lyndon Johnson, what was his argument when he started the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965? That we would help the poorest students in the poorest districts. What Ed-Flex does is provide money for greedy Governors who have shown by the way they have handled the welfare reform money that they do not intend to spend money for exactly what it is intended for, they want to have the freedom to use it in various ways that do not necessarily focus on the poorest people for which the funds are intended. We have a continuation of an effort to destroy the Federal partnership. The Federal Government only wants a role. We want to make certain that the national security, the national interests, are protected by having the most educated populace we can have. What the majority in this Congress is seeking to do is what they sought to do in 1995, get rid of the Federal influence. It is only a tiny influence. The American people should understand that we are talking about less than 10 percent funding, less than 10 percent control. The States and the local governments are in control, and they have all that flexibility with the 90 percent of the funding that they put up. They have maximum flexibility. With all that flexibility, they have not been able to keep up with the demands for modern education. The Federal Government needs to be involved because education is our primary means of guaranteeing the national security. We have a Navy which floated an aircraft carrier, and could not find enough personnel to run the high-tech carrier because they were not available. We need an educated population. We cannot leave it up to the States. They have not done a good job. The States should at least be willing to partner with the Federal Government.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, several of the previous speakers have mentioned education, and today's agenda in the Congress focused primarily on education. We had before us the bill which is commonly known as the Ed-Flex bill, H.R. 800, and the rule for that bill allowed for only 5 hours of debate. We need some additional time to discuss it. Why, when the American people have stated that education is one of the highest priorities, do we have only 5 hours in the United States Congress to discuss an important education bill? It must be important, if it is the first bill that the majority has seen fit to bring to the floor. It is important to them. It is an important proposal that they are making. Some of us contend that what they are doing should not be done in this fashion; that we should have this particular proposal about flexibility considered at the time of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act. We reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act every 5 years, and it is up for reauthorization this year. So if we are doing that, why not consider these very important components of that bill all at once? They are taking a part of the bill, a part of the funds that go into that bill related to Title I, and proposing that a greater portion of it be used in an experiment which grants greater flexibility to the States and localities as to how they spend the money. They are rushing to do that. Already it is suspect, that kind of action. Why are we being stampeded into a consideration of one particular aspect of the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act? What is the hurry? Why, if we are going to treat education as an emergency, why not bring the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act to the floor earlier this year instead of waiting until later? Why not bring it all together instead of Balkanizing it, fragmentizing it, as the Republican majority expects to do? The education emergency faced in this country deserves a serious response from Congress. The emergency is real, and we should go forward in a very serious way to deal with that emergency. One of the things we should do is to listen to what my Republican colleagues were saying a few minutes ago; that the money that is in the Federal Treasury does not belong to the Federal Government. It does not belong to the Congress, it does not belong to the White House, it belongs to the people. It is the taxpayers' money. All taxes are local. Tip O'Neill used to say all politics are local. Well, all taxes are local. They come from the pockets of all taxpayers. The biggest tax, of course, is the income tax. It is not only local, it is right into the family, right into the individual's pocket. It is taxpayers' money. If it is taxpayers' money, why can we not match the money up with the priorities the public has set? In poll after poll we keep hearing that, after Social Security, education is the number one priority. There was a time when education was just one of the top five. There were other things that people wanted done. Crime was a big concern, and it competed with education as one of those top priorities. But it is clear now in all the polls that education is the number one priority, after taking care of Social Security. If education is the number one priority, then the proposals that the President has made in his budget that he submitted to Congress ought to reflect that priority. The proposals that the Republican majority is making ought to reflect the concern of the public. We all look at the same kinds of polls. We had a Democratic retreat, we went away and we spent days, and a large part of the time was examining polls, public opinion polls and studies of the voters' attitudes. I am certain that in the Republican Caucus retreat they did the same thing. There is going to be a bipartisan retreat next week. They will probably spend some time with some polls also. The polls repeatedly say the same thing. Pollsters are very good. They take a very scientific approach to things and they do a basically good job. They all come up with the same answers; that, clearly, education is the number one priority of the American people, the American voters. Why do we not respond? I do not think a single poll has shown that one of the top priorities for consideration by the American voters is defense. The American voters may be concerned about defense, as they should be, but it is not one of their top priorities. It is nowhere near education as a priority. There are a lot of other things that take priority over defense. The common sense of the American people is amazing. While we stumble around and make problems and create needs to expend greater amounts of money on defense here in Washington, they clearly see that we have other priorities that ought to be taken care of. They see that there is no more Cold War. There is no more nuclear threat from another superpower. They clearly see that we have the most modernized armed forces anywhere in the world. They clearly see we are big enough to handle most real threats to our national security. So they have the common sense, the people's wisdom to say, look, education is what we are concerned about. They may even be far ahead of the military strategists, because they recognize what military strategists know when questioned closely; that more than a need for weapon systems, more than a need for additional military hardware, we have a need for manpower capable of operating the modern weapon systems that we have now. We have systems that are very complicated. We have systems that require people, men and women, who have some training, some knowledge of how to deal with this digitalized cyber world that we are living in. I have cited several times the fact that the Navy floated a super aircraft carrier recently, state of the art in aircraft carriers, state-of-the- art in every respect, and for that reason they had a shortage of personnel. They were 300 personnel short of the necessary number of people needed to man that aircraft carrier. Why were they short? Are there not plenty of young people who want to go to sea? Are there not plenty of young people in America, men and women, who would like to be in the Navy? Yes, there are. But they want people with a certain kind of training and aptitude, people who have been developed to the point where they can learn how to operate very sophisticated weapons systems, very sophisticated energy systems. That aircraft carrier is probably loaded with systems that many of us would consider systems of the future, kinds of things that we do not see every day. They need young people who are already trained to the point where they can easily pick up and be trained specifically for the duties required in that piece of sophisticated floating city with a lot of sophisticated operational systems that deserve the very best. In general, our military is complaining about a lack of manpower, that they are short of people. Well, they are short of people because they are not willing to take anybody off the street. They need young people who have some kind of training, some kind of prerequisite preparations that allow them to see that they can train these people to run the systems that we have. So wherever you look, in the military, the answer is in education, a greater need to train young people so that they can deal with the systems that are necessary to make us secure. Education should be the number-one concern of people who care about our defense. And, of course, our economy, it is obvious that our economy has moved into a high tech economy and that we are almost standing alone in this global economy with sophistication in terms of the operation of a cyberworld for business and it is likely to increase, that we are going to have to carry that load. The Japanese, the second or third largest economy in the world, is way behind this country now in terms of digitalized systems in the business world, and there is probably no other country or area that is going to catch up with us. In Europe they are still far behind in terms of the kind of computerized and digitalized systems that are going to carry us forward into the future. We are going to be the leaders in the world for a long time if we are able to man it. The science is there, the technology is there, but where is the manpower? Where are the personnel? How much longer are we going to have to rely on India and other countries to bring over or send over here the information technology workers? How much can they fill for us? How much longer are we going to ship contracts over to places like Bangalore, India and have the income absorbed by people there that ought to be going into our wage structure here so that the workers who get those jobs in information technology can pay into the Social Security fund. We are going in a circle. Even Social Security would be greatly benefited if we were to focus more on investing in education. The primary problem with Social Security is that we see that the wage earners paying into Social Security in the future is going to decline in proportion to the number of people who are retired and need to be paid out of the Social Security fund. A very simple problem. Very complicated answers are being offered. One of the answers is that we must keep a wage-earning population out there that pays as much as possible. It may not be the only answer. Some other source of funding is going to have to be found, probably, I think, a Social Security tax on unearned income would be one of those ways that we should seek more revenue to put into the Social Security fund. But I am not going to talk about that in detail here. The number-one source of revenue for the Social Security fund for a long time will be the wage earner. We need more wage earners earning the wages in the high tech areas. We do not need foreigners absorbing that portion of our economy. We do not need overseas contractors absorbing great amounts of money that ought to be going into the economy to pay the wage earners who pay into Social Security. So education becomes the number-one issue even if you look at it from the point of view of the military or the economy. It just again shows the tremendous wisdom of the American people. Tremendous wisdom. They understand what it is hard for us to understand or respond to here in Congress. What kind of response have we gotten? We have the Ed-Flex bill that is on the floor now. We dealt with two amendments today, we are going to move forward and finish the final hour of discussion tomorrow. I think at least 3, 3\1/2\, most of those hours are gone. The question everybody who is listening out there ought to put to their Congressperson is why do we only have 5 hours to discuss the first education bill on the floor? I mean, why only 5 hours? This bill is not just a simple adjustment to the existing Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act. It is not a simple adjustment. It is not a little amendment that is going to make things move faster. We are taking an experiment which involved 12 States, and most of those States failed in that experiment according to the General Accounting Office. They did not do very well. Yet we are going to go and broaden the experiment and cover all 50 States. In the process what we are doing, and the reason the Republican majority has put it on the floor and is pushing us into a stampede mode is they want to set a precedent. They want to open the door for the block grant process. They want block grants to be the way of the 106th Congress. What we are going to see is more and more talk of block granting, giving the money in one block, just take the money and give it to the States. Take the money and give it to the governors. Dollars to the governors. They talk about dollars to the classrooms. It is dollars to the governors. The governors never get enough. They want more and more. The governors have welfare reform money falling out of all their pockets. They have a great welfare reform windfall that they are supposed to spend on job training, day care and other areas related to dealing with the welfare reform situation. The recent surveys have shown that most of the States are not using the money properly. The governors are just using that money to take care of needs that they consider their own special needs or pet needs. They are not following the general mandate of law. They are not going to do it. Why are they not going to do it? I am not sure I know why they are not going to do it, but here is the history of education funding. The States and the localities have always had the premier responsibility for education. They still do. Most of the funding for education comes from the States and the localities right now. Less than 10 percent of the funds for education, elementary and secondary education, is provided by the Federal Government. I am being generous. It is more like 7 or 8 percent. Only 7 or 8 percent is provided by the Federal Government. If we are only providing 7 or 8 percent, then we only have 7 or 8 percent of the control and the influence. The other money is being provided by the States, and they have always provided it, and the localities. The States and localities presently have responsibility for education. They have always had responsibility for education. We heard speeches today which were fantastic on the floor blaming the Federal Government for the state of education in America. Education is in a poor state, they say, because the Federal Government has saddled the States and localities with bureaucratic mandates, paperwork, they have interfered with innovation, et cetera, et cetera. Well, what is happening with the 93 percent of the funds that are strictly State and local funds? They have total flexibility, total flexibility. They have had flexibility since the dawning of this Nation. The Constitution has never seized responsibility for education. It has always been a State matter. The States have that responsibility. Why did the Federal Government get involved in the first place? The States were not doing a good job. The States were not placing us in a position to be able to mount the kind of technological drive and scientific drive to keep up with the Soviet Union, which is a backward country in many ways but scientifically they put the first sputnik into space and they showed that when they concentrate on a particular area, they could go forward and leave us in the lurch, leave us behind. For a long time our policies were driven by the fact that we wanted to help improve education in order to create the kinds of minds and the kinds of body of expertise in this Nation that would allow us to do the job. We did that. Large amounts of Federal aid went into the defense, the National Defense Education Act, and later on Lyndon Johnson proposed the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act and other Federal aid to education, because the States were not able to do the job, partially because the complexity of the world had run off and left the States. That is only a small part of the problem. The larger part of the problem is that the States have never shown great vision in terms of investing in their populations. Before World War II they were not doing anything to help the total population just stay alive and healthy. When World War II came along, we had a lot of recruits that were unhealthy, a great majority of the recruits and the people who were drafted were just unfit to fight and they had to be put in condition with special procedures in order to just be able to carry a rifle. The States had neglected their populations to that point in basic matters like health care and providing decent, nutritious food to eat. The Federal Government understood that lesson and began to deal with health care and nutrition programs. We have an act which provided for school lunches, recognizing that the first thing the Government can do for our young people is to make sure that the poorest youngsters get a decent meal at least once a day at school. They also discovered at the time of sputnik that a nation like Russia, the Soviet Union, had left us behind. Japan in terms of industrial development, technological achievements there, had left us behind. So it has been clear that whatever the States have been doing for the last 300 years with respect to education is not enough just to keep up. But also the States do not show any great compassion and humanity for their total populations. Large portions of State populations, the people without power, have always been left behind. The poor whites; certainly in the South the African Americans; in the Far West and the West the Hispanics. Anybody who belongs in a group that does not have power, left out of power, they have been consistently neglected and abandoned by the States. That has been true historically and it is still true now. The Federal Government's role was to step in and try to compensate for the fact that the States were not doing what they should be doing. Now we have a situation where the Federal Government has stepped in, its role is still minor, it is not a major player, it is a minor partnership where they are only providing 7 to 8 percent of the funds, leaving the States to take care of the other 93 percent, and they are being accused, the Federal Government is being accused of ruining the public education system in America. We have a body of 435 people who are among the most talented people in America. You do not get here without being talented in one way or another. Most of the Members of Congress have a great deal of vision. Maybe the vision does not see exactly what I see, the liberals see one way and the conservatives see another, but they have vision and they have a great deal of education. They know how to use data. It is a highly qualified body here, the United States House of Representatives, and the Senate also. We have highly qualified leaders capable of doing great things. But we have allowed ourselves to be driven into a corner where we are discussing really relative trivialities on education. Our first great debate is focused on a charge that the Federal Government must give more flexibility to the States for the small amounts of money that the Federal Government is supplying. They must supply more flexibility for the States in order for us to improve education in America. That is a hypothesis that has no support in fact. It has no support in fact. Again the American people show they have more common sense than this talented body that we have here in the House of Representatives, more common sense. Common sense will tell you, if you have 93 percent of the control, you are at fault if it goes wrong. Whatever is happening with education in America that is wrong, the States and localities must accept the blame for. What the Federal Government has said is that we want to be partners. We would like to supply some small amount of money, we would like to supply some advice from a national perspective, from an international perspective. We are the only industrialized Nation that leaves the greater proportion of the decision-making about education up to regions or States or localities. Most other nations have national policies and national education administrations that have much more influence than we have. We defer to the States. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the responsibility for education, and therefore it defers to the States and has done that traditionally. So while we in 1999, in the 106th Congress, which has wasted a lot of times with matters that really were not that important, but finally we have gotten moving, why are we debating a bill which is based on the assumption that the problem in America in education is that the States need more flexibility? The Federal Government is preventing the States from doing a good job. That is totally erroneous. The Federal Government is not the problem. The Federal Government is begging to be a partner, the Federal Government is taking certain initiatives to try to move the States beyond their inflexibility. States are inflexible in their incompetence, some States are inflexible in their corruption, inflexible in their cronyism. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, State government is not a model of government in America. They operate in areas where there are more shadows than there are in respect to the Federal Government. I say that at every level of State government. I was of government. I served at every level. I was a commissioner in New York City of an agency, I was a State senator in New York State, and now I serve here in the Congress. I have served at every level of government, and I think that the level of government which needs the most light shined upon it, the most exposure, who should be held up mostly and examined and critiqued is State government. State government is the in-between. They do not have a constituency like you have, of the kind you have in city government where the constituency is real, they are living, they are breathing, and they are right there, and they are pushing for real responses from their government. They do not have the kind of problem that the Federal Government has where the whole Nation is looking at what we do here, and the spotlight is on us, and we are dealing with matters at a high policy level that are complicated and deserve a long and intense discussion and will be picked up on by the media, will pick up on what we are doing, and there are a number of reasons why we cannot operate in shadows here. But State government operates in shadows in State governments and bureaucracies. They do not have the pressure of a constituency, so state government is the least efficient form of government, least efficient area in government, and it should not be glorified. I have said that many times. We should not be here wasting our time debating a bill which is focused primarily on removing Federal involvement, removing Federal wisdom, in my opinion. What the Federal Government is doing is far superior to anything that most States have offered. They do not want to be told you got to do systematic planning. They do not want to be told you got to have real goals. You cannot drop the burden of education totally on the backs of the students and say we are going to test them and kick them out of schools if they do not do well. When they close down schools they do not do well. What are you doing as a government to provide opportunities to learn? They do not like that concept. Governors hate the concept, the opportunity to learn, because it is all related to the whole approach of necessary accountability. Everybody else is held accountable. Why cannot Governors and local school boards be held accountable? They do not want to deal with that. They want the flexibility not to be accountable. They want the flexibility of never being held responsible for systematic planning, never to be questioned in their arbitrary decisions about sex in personnel, never to be questioned about the fact that they are always making new laws to put more burdens on the backs of students, but they do not guarantee that students are going to have a safe place to study, they do not guarantee the students are going to be able to have decent laboratories and equipment for science, they do not guarantee the students have enough books. They will not do the things that are necessary for education, and they do not want the Federal Government to say, well, we think you ought to show us how you are going to do that before we give you more money on top of the money you already have. It is all right to give the money back to the States and localities. I began with the assumption it is our money, give it back to us. Give it back to us for school construction. Give it back to us for whatever needs are identified by the people. The people have identified education as a major need. Do not take our money and spend it on defense or spend it excessively somewhere else and neglect the requests we have made that you provide more federal assistance to education. Let me just conclude about today's Ed-Flex bill today's Ed-Flex bill, H.R. 800. As my colleagues know, there are many of my colleagues who have amendments to offer which are very useful amendments. We had an amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) today which was very useful and would have made it possible for many more Members to vote for the Ed-Flex bill if it had passed because it called for accountability. It says if we are going to give the Governors, the States and localities more flexibility as to how they spend a portion of the Title I funds; that is what this is all about; if you are going to do that, then let us have an agreement that they are going to be held accountable in certain specific ways. They refuse to accept that. We are discussing that there are other amendments that my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce: the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) have to offer in order to improve the bill. Most of them are going to be rejected, and many of them are never going to be considered because all we have is 5 hours to discuss this bill. Now you say why do you only have five hours? We have a system of rules here that determine how every bill will be processed on the floor, and the Committee on Rules at the request obviously of the leadership and the people on the majority party, members on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, they decided to limit the debate to 5 hours. It is as simple as that. So, if people want to change things right away, why not you call your Member of Congress and ask why we are debating this important bill for only 5 hours. But let me make my final comment by reading from the New York Times editorial page today, March 10, 1999. The New York Times had an excellent editorial, and it says many of the things that the Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce education said at the time the bill was up for consideration in our committee, and I will read the entire editorial and submit it also for the Record so that it will be clearly known that all the parts are here and there will be no mistakes. It is entitled ``A Threat To Impoverished Schools''. This is a New York Times editorial page of March 10, 1999, and I quote: The achievement gap between affluent and disadvantaged children is a challenge to American education and a threat to national prosperity. Unfortunately, a bipartisan bill that is scheduled for debate and a vote today in Congress could widen that gap by allowing States to use Federal dollars targeted at the poorest students for other educational purposes. The so-called Ed-Flex proposal could damage the poorest districts which have traditionally been underfinanced by the States and cities even though they bear the burden of teaching the least prepared students. Let me reread the last sentence from the New York Times editorial. The so-called Ed-Flex proposal could damage the poorest districts which have traditionally been underfinanced by the States and cities even though they bear the burden of teaching the least prepared students. To continue reading the second paragraph of the editorial: Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was the Federal government's way of assuring impoverished children a chance at the supplemental services they need to succeed. Title I money, about $8 billion a year, pays for special courses like remedial reading and math as well as services like counseling. Over all Federal dollars make up only about 8 percent of the public school budgets, but in the poorest schools in the deep rural south Title I can account for more than a third of school spending. The Ed-Flex proposal would allow States to apply for waivers to do what they wish in education with the poverty money on the premise that the States might use it more wisely than federal law allows. The proponents of this process point to ongoing Ed- Flex experiments conducted under the Clinton administration in 12 States. But a report from the General Accounting Office suggests that the experiments have been sloppily handled and should not be duplicated without careful guidelines and performance criteria. The GAO found that of the 12 experimental States only Texas had established clearly- defined goals for employing the waivers and laid out criteria for evaluating the experiment. The Ed-Flex expansion being debated in Congress would extend waivers even to States that have no intention of innovation and no means in place of evaluating what they do. Let me repeat what the New York Times editorial of today, March 10 says. The Ed-Flex expansion being debated in Congress would extend waivers even to States that have no intention of innovation and no means in place of evaluating what they do. Congressman George Miller, and I am continuing to read from the New York Times editorial, Congressman George Miller, Democrat of California, and Dale Kildee, Democrat of Michigan, have proposed an amendment to the plan that would allow waivers only if the States employ serious assessment plans and commit themselves to closing the achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers. The wise thing to do would be to put Ed-Flex aside until later in the session when Congress reauthorizes the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Let me reread the last sentence. The wise thing to do would be to put Ed-Flex aside until later in the session when Congress reauthorizes the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But if Congress insists on moving forward now, to do so without the Miller-Kildee amendment would be socially irresponsible. The Miller- Kildee amendment was defeated on the floor of the House today as a last act of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I will enter this editorial in its entirety into the Record: [From the New York Times, March 10, 1999] A Threat to Impoverished Schools The achievement gap between affluent and disadvantaged children is a challenge to American education and a threat to national prosperity. Unfortunately, a bipartisan bill that is scheduled for debate and a vote today in Congress could widen that gap by allowing states to use Federal dollars targeted at the poorest students for other educational purposes. The so-called Ed-Flex proposal could damage the poorest districts, which have traditionally been underfinanced by the states and cities even though they bear the burden of teaching the least prepared students. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was the Federal Government's way of assuring impoverished children a chance at the supplemental services they need to succeed. Title I money, about $8 billion a year, pays for special courses like remedial reading and math as well as services like counseling. Over all, Federal dollars make up only about 8 percent of the public school budgets. But in the poorest schools in the deep, rural South, Title I can account for more than a third of school spending. The Ed-Flex proposal would allow states to apply for waivers to do what they wish in education with the poverty money, on the premise that the states might use it more wisely than Federal law allows. The proponents of this process point to ongoing Ed-Flex experiments conducted under the Clinton Administration in 12 states. But a report from the General Accounting Office suggests that the experiments have been sloppily handled and should not be duplicated without careful guidelines and performance criteria. The G.A.O. found that of the 12 experimental states, only Texas had established clearly defined goals for employing the waivers and laid out criteria for evaluating the experiment. The Ed-Flex expansion being debated in Congress would extend waivers even to states that have no intention of innovation and no means in place of evaluating what they do. Congressman George Miller, Democrat of California, and Dale Kildee, Democrat of Michigan, have proposed an amendment to the plan that would allow waivers only if the states employ serious assessment plans and commit themselves to closing the achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers. The wise thing to do would be to put Ed-Flex aside until later in the session, when Congress re-authorizes the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But if Congress insists on moving forward now, to do so without the Miller-Kildee amendment would be socially irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, I contend that the only reason we are considering the Ed-Flex bill at this time is because it is a Trojan horse designed to open the way for a block grant process. What they really want to do is to block grant the entire Title I program. They want to give it all to the States. This is an experiment; they put it on the floor early. If they set a precedent by passing this, it greases the wheels, and it makes it more likely that we are going to be able to get a block grant where you just pick up the education money and hand it to the States. Well, Congressman Owens, why should you object to that if you think that all money comes from the States and localities and it ought to be back to the States and localities? I object to it because this money ought to go back to the States and localities. It ought to go back with some instructions, some wisdom from the Federal Government, some wisdom gleaned from national experience, some wisdom based on the understanding of where we exist in the global economy, some wisdom based on the fact that our military needs are highly sophisticated, population in order to operate. All of these considerations which States do not seem to care about, the Federal Government must be concerned with. Give the money back, but why not give it back in ways that are going to promote some new approaches? The States have mostly failed up to now in meeting the needs of education, of students in this 20th century. As we go into the 21st century, let us at least end the arrogance of the States or the arrogance of the Republican majority here in Congress. Let us do away with the ideological addiction which says that States must have the money back and can do far more than the Federal Government. Why not have a partnership? All the Federal Government is asking is this small amount of money that is being given back to the States should do a few things differently, be more flexible, be more flexible in the approach to education; do not do it the way it has been done for 300 years, and failing. Let us do it a little differently. Why cannot we have that kind of approach for the benefit of the entire Nation? The States refuse to accept this and the goal is to remove the participation of the Federal Government totally from education. We are back to 1995. We are back to the Newt Gingrich Congress, the majority, Republican majority, which came into this Congress in 1995. They barnstormed in and said they wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. They barnstormed in and said they wanted to cut education by at least $4 billion. We are back to the process of removing the Federal Government from the process of education reform in America. That is the goal. I do not know what the motivation is really, because we are not allowed to impugn the integrity of the individuals. I do not care to waste my time describing fully why the party is acting this way. I suspect, however, that if we remove the Federal Government's role in education, it appears to the Republican majority that we have removed another piece of competition in the budget, a valid competitor in the budget, for funds and they can pour more funds into tax cuts and into lucrative defense projects that do not pay off for the American people. I suspect that the drive to get the Federal Government out of the business of education is based on the assumption that one can make the budget safer for Republican priorities. Why are not Republican priorities the same as the priorities of the American people? Why do not they care about education? I do not know. They pretend to care about education. When election time rolls around, they bow to the facts that the public opinion polls show us. In 1996, after 2 years of threatening to eliminate the Department of Education, of cutting back on school lunch programs, of threatening to cut the education budget by $4 billion as we approached the 1996 elections in October, at the very last minute the Republican majority went into the Committee on Appropriations process and increased the education budget by $4 billion in response to the overwhelming expression of need that came from the public. So they are willing to pretend to care about education. When the chips are down and the election is approaching, they pretend to be champions of education, but they really would like to get the Federal Government out of the business of education for their own purposes. Now we are engaged in a process of wrangling in these discussions about minor matters. The really big issue that ought to be on the table here in this Congress is what will the 106th Congress do about the two primary problems facing our public schools? The Federal Government alone has the resources to deal with the number one problem faced by the schools, and that is school modernization, construction; school acquisition of the technology needed to prepare the students of the day for the cyber civilization that is coming tomorrow. That is what we need. We need a Federal Government assistance program which can do what most States and localities cannot do fast enough. Yes, there are funds that are available to States and localities which they could use in greater proportion to provide funds for school construction and modernization. They could do it, but they are not doing it. Certainly New York City and New York State, New York City had a surplus last year of $2 billion. They did not spend a penny on school construction or modernization, even though they have more than 250 schools that have coal burning furnaces. Of the 1,200 schools in New York City, at least 250 still have furnaces that burn coal, polluting the air, immediately threatening the health of children in that vicinity. We have a great asthma drive on. City Hall is pushing to do something about asthma in dramatic ways but they do not talk about their failure to provide funds for the conversion of the coal burning furnaces. So they could do more. Every State, most States, could do more. Many have surpluses. Even if they were to put a great proportion of the available funds at the State and local level, they would have to take a long time to catch up with the needs that have accumulated over the years because of the deferring of maintenance and deferring of capital projects. The General Accounting Office said in 1995 that we needed $110 billion to stay even, to provide adequate schools for the enrollment that existed at that time. Now we have galloped on and there are some estimates that the need is way up at the level of $170 billion to stay even and keep up with the enrollment, to modernize so that we can actually wire schools for the Internet; $170 billion is needed. We have on the table only the proposals that have been offered by the President with respect to school construction. We should not be debating ed-flex and how to take a portion of the existing title I funds and give them to the governors. We should be debating how we are going to meet the need for space out there in our school districts. Some districts just need plain space that is clean, that is well lighted, that is safe. Other districts need improvements in existing buildings so that they can wire to be able to bring in technology that is needed to teach students and prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow. Some districts have a critical need of funds to eliminate health hazards. If the health department of New York City were to be objective and to treat the school system the way it treats private business, they would close down some schools because of the health hazards they pose. We have problems, first, of pollution by coal burning furnaces, asbestos problems, lead poisoning in the pipes, lead poisoning in the paint, and we have schools that have roofs that leak. No matter how much you fix them, the damage keeps occurring. Walls are collapsing. We have all kinds of health problems that ought to be addressed first. So we need not what the President has proposed. We need far more. The President has proposed $25 billion that would be bonds floated by State and local governments. The Federal Government would pay the interest on those bonds. We are offering to pay the interest on $25 billion in bonds, bonding authority. The interest would amount to about $3.7 billion over a 5-year period. That means that the Federal Government is offering to cope with the construction problem that we have, the need for new schools and modernization of schools. We are offering $3.7 billion over a 5-year period. The public has said we want the Federal Government to provide more assistance in education to meet the needs of education. The response of the Federal Government in the area construction is $3.7 billion. The need is for $110 billion. The response is $3.7 billion over a 5-year period. Now, there is something wrong with our democracy if the people, through the polls, keep telling us that we need more Federal assistance and all we get is the $3.7 billion response in the area of construction and modernization. It is said that is just in the area of construction and modernization. What about in the other areas? We are going to increase the after-school centers to the tune of $400 million. We are going to go from $200 million to $600 million. That will allow us to take care of the after-school center needs, tutoring, counseling, et cetera, for about 1.1 or 1.2 million young people. We have a policy of no more social promotions that we are proposing, and one of the answers we say to the social promotion is that instead of social promotion, give kids more help through the after-school centers. Do not promote them unless they are ready with the after- school centers. The summer schools will allow them to catch up, but the $600 million to serve the 1.2 million children is all we are offering in that endeavor. There are 53 million children in the public schools of the Nation right now, 53 million children. If only one quarter of those need help, then one can see how far we are from meeting the needs of that one quarter of 53 million if we are only going to take care of the needs of 1.2 million. If one adds up all of the increases in education that are being proposed and say that we will be successful, the majority party in the Congress will cooperate, we would get less than $10 million in increases for education, less than $10 million. If we add them all up from the President's budget, then the President is proposing far more than anybody else. So we certainly endorse what the President proposes, but we argue that it is not enough. We must have a response from the President and from the Congress, which is closer to the need that has been expressed, the priority that has been set, by the public. We have not heard from the public in terms of defense. Nobody has asked for $100 billion over a 6-year period or 5-year period for defense and yet we are proposing to spend $110 billion for defense while we are proposing to spend for school construction only $3.7 billion. Now tell me what sense that makes. The common sense of the American people has to be brought to bear on this process in order to make the Members of Congress, as well as the President, understand that something is radically wrong. Why not spend $100 billion on construction? When that kind of proposal is made, over a 5-year period, I propose that we spend $100 billion on school construction, $20 billion a year over a 5-year period, we would still not meet the need that the General Accounting Office identified in 1995 but we would be realistic about it. We would be responding to what the American people have said is a priority in a far more responsible way. The immediate answer we get is that the Federal government cannot spend that kind of money for school construction. We have never done that before. Well, there are many areas where we have never been before. Before Sputnik, we were not in education at all. Before we saw ourselves falling below other industrialized nations, we did not have assistance to education. We recognize that as we go into the 21st Century, the complexities of a high tech economy and a global economy dictate that we need a more educated population so we are going to do things differently. Why not spent what is necessary, starting with school construction? School construction is the clearest need. School construction is the need that ought to be the least controversial because school construction does not involve tampering with the curriculum. It does not involve telling local school boards what to do. It does not involve a lot of paperwork. One builds a school and they leave it, and local education authorities will run the school. We could do a great service in an area where only the resources exist at the Federal level to do the job that is needed; $100 billion over a 5-year period. Where is the money going to come from? Well, we could close some loopholes, of course, in the corporate welfare structure. We could raise taxes on unearned income. We could do a number of things. The simplest thing to do is to take it from the surplus. The surplus, according to the President, and nobody is disputing his priorities here, 62 percent of the surplus should go for Social Security, 62 percent. Fifteen percent he wants for Medicare. We don't argue with that. The next 20 percent, let us have it go for school construction. That is where the money is, the next 20 percent go for school construction. Twenty percent of the surplus each year, or $20 billion, whichever is the smaller amount, let that be the way we deal with the American people's stated priority that education assistance from the government is a great need. We are going into a cyber civilization. We need an education system which will prepare students for that cyber civilization. We have nothing near that at this point. We are falling further behind as we go along at this point. We have real needs for health and safety. The first priority is to go to those schools that have health and safety problems. I think that maybe a fair way to do this is to have a per capita distribution of the money for school construction. That is, all districts would get money based on the number of students they have, per capita. Those that do not need to build new schools would modernize their schools for wiring. Those that are modernized and ready for wiring could use the money to buy equipment for technology. The way to deal with it in terms of the money going back to meet needs may be to have a per capita formula. However, the per capita formula ought to also have, the law should have a provision that in the distribution of the per capita formula, the first priority goes to those areas, not more money, but they get the money first, those areas which have health and safety needs that ought to be met. That is, the money in the first year would be dedicated first to meet the needs of schools that have coal-burning furnaces, lead poisoning, asbestos problems, roofs that are decaying and falling in. Anything that threatens the health and the safety of a child would be the first priority, and we could easily find that out and get that certified. They would get the first funding, but in the end, when it is all over, they would get no more money, those areas would get no more money than other areas, according to their per capita needs. We would not distribute it the way the Title I formula is distributed, which is fairer in terms of Federal Government helping the poorest districts. We will not get into that. There is a claim that everybody needs help, so let us help everybody at whatever level. They could have the flexibility of spending it on school construction or on school modernization, or on the purchase of technology, they could have that flexibility. But let us understand that we need larger amounts of money. We need $20 billion at a minimum over the next 5 years. There is a title already in the Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act, I think it is Title XII, it is sometimes stated as Title XI. Title XI or XII, I forget which it is, but it is called the Education Infrastructure Act. It is already in the law. It is already in the law. Carol Moseley-Braun, the Senator from Illinois, and myself, we put it in the law in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act. It is in the law. The Senate actually helped Carol Moseley-Braun appropriate $100 million to get it started, but the Republican majority came in the following year and took out $100 million, so it never been funded. But it is in the law. It is authorized. Only the Committee on Appropriations needs to act. We could leave it as it is and the Committee on Appropriations could act and begin to take care of the problem. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to leave it as it is. I intend to amend the title in order to provide for a $20 billion authorization, at a minimum. Mr. Speaker, $20 billion will be less than we are proposing to spend for defense; it will be far less than we authorized last year for highways and transportation. Most of the Members of Congress voted for a bill which provided $218 billion for highways and transportation; $218 billion, because they felt it was needed. There was a general feeling out in the public that it was needed. The public had not said that transportation was a high priority. The public had not said that highways were a priority, but they had no objection. When we voted on that kind of bill, $218 billion of over I think a 6- year period, there were no objections by the editorial boards, there were no demonstrations, there were no letters; everybody accepted it, that this is a need. Always, we need highways and sidewalks and in New York we need help for our subway system and bus system, so that expenditure was accepted because it made sense, to expend $100 billion over a 5-year period on school construction makes sense. We have no problem with the general public and the voters out there who are asking us everyday to give education more help. The public must look with great disgust on debates like the one that took place today where the Members of Congress are wasting their time debating a bill which is designed to hand governors more dollars. The greed of the governors knows no end. All kinds of roadblocks are offered when we try to do realistic approaches to meeting the response of the public that they have placed upon us when they ask for more assistance for education. We have some people who have repeatedly said, we do not want to build more schools because Davis-Bacon will drive up the cost of the schools, and in order to get Davis-Bacon, they do not want to build schools. They are going to punish the children, because two Republicans, one named Davis and one named Bacon, authorized a law some time ago which made a lot of sense that one could not bring contractors from outside an area and lower the standard of living of the people who were workers there by bringing in cheaper labor. If we had a government job involving the Federal Government and we brought in outside labor or used local labor, either way, you are going to have to pay the prevailing wage. The prevailing wage means no more than whatever brick layers, carpenters, whatever they are being paid in that area, you pay it. It makes a lot of sense. Davis and Bacon, Republicans. Now they are objecting to building more schools because they do not want Davis-Bacon to be utilized because it drives up the cost. We have study after study that shows that we can build schools at basically the same cost or a lower cost when we use the Davis-Bacon contractors. So let me conclude by saying that I hope the public, the voters who have made it clear that they want education to be a priority will focus intensely on what is happening here in this Congress. It looks as if only the people can turn around the madness that is occurring here, the endless debates about trivialities, the endless debates about changes in the law, rerouting the money which will have minimal effect on the improvement of education, and may have a dangerous impact because it will take the money away from those who need it most. Mr. Speaker, we need more money for construction, and we should get it as soon as possible.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 221. This bill permits children to work in one of the most hazardous industries in the country. Fourteen-year-old children do not possess the full autonomy of choice and may not possess the full capacity for choice possessed by adults. They should not be allowed to place themselves or be placed by others in occupational situations that may be life threatening. The occupational fatality rate in the Wood Products Industry is five times higher than the national average. One of the witnesses who testified on behalf of this legislation told of how he lost several fingers when during a moment of inattention, he carelessly set his hand on a conveyor belt and it ran his hand into a saw. This accident happened to an adult with years of experience in the wood processing industry. Inexperience and lack of maturity serve to make the potential risks faces by minors even greater than they are by minors even greater than they are for adults. It is unreasonable to expect a fourteen year-old to maintain the kind of continuous safety concern we expect for adults. In this industry, a moment of inattention can be fatal. Secretary Herman in a letter to Chairman Goodling opposing this legislation said, ``While we are sensitive to the cultural and religious traditions of the Amish and similar American communities, we believe the benefits of accommodating those traditions must be carefully balanced against the nation's longstanding concern for the safety and welfare of children.'' Secretary Herman provides the focus which should guide this Congress in its deliberations concerning child-labor issues. We should always place the protection of our children's health and safety first. To employ children in an industry where the occupational fatality and injury rates are five times the national average is irresponsible. If enacted, H.R. 221 will inevitably result in the serious injury or death of a minor. Attached for the Record are letters from the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio and congratulate her for continuing the tradition that was started by her predecessor, Lou Stokes, in guaranteeing that at least once a year the members of the Congressional Caucus should make a special effort to note some achievements in African American history. There is a lot of talk these days about the fact that it is a little ridiculous to set aside one month a year to pay tribute to African American history, and a lot of people say it is a little silly on the one hand. Others say that it is now being over-commercialized, and companies are exploiting it, and people are trivializing it by running advertisements that say that they support Black History Month, et cetera. I disagree. I disagree profoundly. I think that only people who are snobbish and people who are elitists and who have lost contact with the masses would come to those kinds of conclusions. There is a great vast body out there of African Americans who are totally ignorant about their own history and who are victimized with low self-esteem and low sense of self-worth because they have to hear from other people lies about their history. They hear from other people that they have no history. Even such great writers as Arnold Toynbee dared to say that, you know, of all the races, the Africans were the only ones who made no contributions to civilization. You know, since he said that of course there have been many, many diggings in the desert, and African cities have been unearthed, and the whole Kingdom of Cush have been attributed to Africa instead of Egypt, and people have recognized that many of the great kings of Egypt have Negroid features, and on and on it goes. It was a big lie perpetrated, however, by a very high-level British scholar. I would like to pay particular tribute to one individual that certainly had a great impact on my life in terms of the importance of African American history. It was a little old lady, one of the unsung heroes that very few people ever know about, but she made a contribution, not only an impression on me, but many other people, a little old lady who lived in the community of Brownsville where I got my first assignment when I went to New York City as a professional librarian. In the local library we have programs of various kinds, and this lady appeared to ask me to have a series of lectures on African American history, and I agreed to do that, and she was going to help me set it up. And during the course of it, of the development of that series of lectures, I got to know her very well. Her name was Mother Rosetta Gaston. They called her Mother because when I met her she was already 88. When she died, she was 99. She was quite a person because she was quite lucid and had all her faculties and quite strong and combative all the way to the time when I went to the hospital to visit her shortly before her death, a very short little black lady who also fascinated me because she is one of the few people I ever met who was born and raised in New York City. Most of the African Americans in New York that I met, they came, like me, from somewhere else. I came from Tennessee. A lot of other people come from North Carolina, South Carolina, all over, but she was born and raised in New York, and that fascinated me. But the most fascinating thing about Mother Rosetta Gaston was the fact that she actually knew Carter G. Woodson. She had actually met, and she knew Carter G. Woodson, and she adored him. He was kind of like a saint for her. Carter G. Woodson is a founder of the study of Negro life and history, the Association for Study of Negro Life and History, which later sponsored the first Negro History Week and then later became Negro History Month and Black History Month or African American History Month, whichever way you like to label it. And Carter G. Woodson was, of course, a scholar. He had a Ph.D. And Carter G. Woodson was interested in dealing with other scholars, trying to straighten out people like Arnold Toynbee who distorted history by saying that Africans had never contributed anything to history, trying to straighten out the people who wrote the textbooks in America, who refused to recognize basic facts about African American history. He wanted to change curriculums and do many kinds of things that needed to be done at the level of scholars and educators. He was not particularly interested in popularizing it. It was Mother Gaston who influenced him to begin the Negro History Weeks and to start young people's groups called Negro History Clubs throughout the country. And a whole youth movement was developed as a result of Mother Rosetta Gaston pushing the great scholar, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, to popularize African American history. So it is, you know, most people will find it hard to understand how in school districts and in local schools where 90 percent or 95 percent of the young people attending the school, students, were African Americans, it was hard to get the teachers to acknowledge that there was anything significant that African Americans had ever contributed. It was hard to get them to break away from racist textbooks. You know, I had textbooks when I was at this school in the south, in Memphis, and they described the Civil War as a disagreement between the States, and there is nothing wrong with slavery according to that textbook. And on and on it goes. Corrections like that Carter G. Woodson was very concerned about, moving to have the curriculum supplemented so that some sense of self-worth, some sense of self- esteem could be communicated by the curriculum. In a place like New York, a rich history of slavery, most people do not know that New York was the third largest slave port in the country. They think slavery is something totally associated with the south. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are many streets in Brooklyn named after great slave owners and slave holders, and New York City's early days, when they cleared the forests and built the area from the downtown waterfront upward to Central Park, all of that was done by slave labor. We recently unearthed a burial ground in the building of the Federal building which documented that fact very well. So there is a whole lot of history that needs to be dealt with at the scholarly level, and all of it in my opinion is filled with the kinds of anecdotes and incidents and facts that should be communicated to the larger population. The larger population needs to know the history, and Mother Rosetta Gaston is one of the heroines of the movement to popularize African American history. I hope that we will not never fall into the trap of being snobbish and elitist to the point of wanting to get rid of African American History Month.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice of praise and congratulations to the retiring chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in one respect that I think people keep forgetting, and it ought to be an important footnote in the history books. That is that the biggest appropriation in the last few decades for education, the biggest appropriation, was the appropriation in 1996 that came out of the Committee on Appropriations. Education got a $4 billion increase under the leadership of Chairman Livingston, $4 billion. We had gone for 2 years with proposals coming from the majority party that we decrease education and that we cut education. And the miracle of that fall and the miracle of the sessions of the Committee on Appropriations produced a $4 billion increase in education. And I want to congratulate Mr. Livingston, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for that; and history should note that. I am very concerned about education. And I have been on the Committee on Education and the Workforce now, this is my 17th year. I really wanted to make my speech tonight a speech about the importance of the education agenda, particularly the item of school construction. I wanted to confine my remarks originally only to that subject. However, I must say that a matter of grave concern to me forces me to broaden my discussion, and for days now I have been very disturbed about events taking place in my home city of New York. I represent the 11th Congressional District of New York State, which is part of New York City. The 11th Congressional District is in New York City. And although it did not happen in my district, there was an incident where the New York City Police Department, a street unit, fired 41 shots at a young man; and a large number hit him, of course; and he was killed. We do not use the word ``killed.'' He was murdered. Because there was no real reason why a man standing in a doorway, innocent, no record, no violent crime had been committed in that immediate vicinity during that particular period, and suddenly an innocent man, who happened to be an immigrant from Guinea, was killed in cold blood. Of course, if this stood by itself as one lone incident where four policemen emptied their guns on an African in New York City it would not have caused the furor that it caused. But there were other incidents recently. Abner Louima, in a precinct adjacent to my district in Brooklyn, was sodomized with a broomstick last summer during the mayoral election that took place. And Abner Louima, the four policemen on trial for that still have not been tried. That was another incident. I have lived in New York City now for more than 35 years, and I have been an activist for most of that time, so I can recite easily a long list of other people who have suffered from police brutality and police killings. The killings stand out. And every time one of them took place, I always said we cannot get much worse than this. When Clifford Glover was gunned down in Queens, a 12-year-old boy who was fleeing from the police and was shot in the back, I said, how horrible. It cannot get much worse than that. But many others have taken place since Clifford Glover was killed. Claude Reese, Randolph Evans, who was shot at point-blank by a policeman who put a gun to his head in a crowd and shot him; and there was no explanation that the policeman could give, so he finally was acquitted on the basis of psychomotor epilepsy. They brought a psychiatrist to court, an expert who we have never seen or heard from since, who described the condition of the policeman as pyschomotor epilepsy. So that policeman was acquitted. I said, oh, you cannot get much worse than that. Then we had Eleanor Bumpers in the Bronx, who was a grandmother in her sixties, in her own living room who was shotgunned down by a policeman, a police sergeant, who said that he was frightened for his life because he came into her living room and, not knowing who he was, she lunged at him. She was shot down in cold blood. And not only was that sergeant exonerated, he was later promoted. And on and on it goes. In my district, several years ago a young man was killed. Twenty-one shots were fired from the police at a young man in a car. They noted that the car was stolen, and they identified it. And they said he went for a gun, but no gun was ever found. But he was shot 21 times. And we could not even get the photographs of the policeman who did that released. So there has been one incident after another and people have been crying, as they always have the right to cry, about public officials not providing proper leadership. Where should we leave them in this situation? The demonstrations are taking place in New York. Yesterday, there was a demonstration near city hall. It was one of about five demonstrations that have taken place since this incident occurred on February 4. Eight protesters were arrested near city hall in Manhattan yesterday when they chained themselves together to block traffic on lower Broadway. And on and on it goes. Several churches had special prayer marches last Sunday. On and on it goes, and it is appropriate that people should be very upset. And it occurred to me that there is a link between the problem we have in New York City with education and school construction and the problem we see now manifested in the way the police brutalize the minorities and the pattern of brutality and pattern of killings. One of the facts in the pattern of brutality and the pattern of killings is that these accidents that the police claim misjudgment or reasonable reactions and responses, these accidents never happen in white neighborhoods. There have been no accidental killings, there have been no atrocious incidents where guns were emptied on white young men or women. There have been no grandmothers in the white community ever murdered in their living rooms by police. The pattern is clearly the evidence that it only happens in minority neighborhoods. Yes, some have been Hispanic, some of the victims. Some have been Asian recently. Because we have a new immigrant population, powerless Asians. One small kid who had a toy gun was shot down by a policeman and killed. On and on it goes. The pattern is clear. Something is wrong racially in terms of the actions and reactions of the New York City Police Department. I have been involved for a long time, and I can give my colleagues the long list of demands that we made 20 years ago. Those same demands are being made now. And yet nothing changes. They sit as a permanent government of New York, the newspapers, the New York Times and the media, and they all control public opinion, and they do not want to see something happen that does not happen. So I assume that reform of the police department, which is basic, the establishment of a civilian review board, a number of things that we asked for, the appointment of a special prosecutor to deal with police brutality and police killings so that the district attorney who has to work with police all the time is not in a position to prosecute police. There is an intimidation factor which is obvious. The ending of the 48- hour rule, where policemen cannot even be interviewed about an incident like this until 48 hours has elapsed. The movement of New York City into the same category as the other cities in the State where New York City has the right to hire only policemen who live in the city. Other municipalities and counties in New York State have the right to have a residency requirement. Only New York City, by State legislative law, cannot have a residency requirement. So we have most of the people who are policemen coming from outside the city. They live in communities outside of the city. Of the people who were involved in this latest killing, three of the four lived outside of the city. Of the people involved in the latest killing, the oldest person was 27. One was as young as 23, the policeman. That pattern goes on and on, and the establishment, the power structure, will not cooperate with the leadership from the minority communities to give any kind of ground in terms of meeting demands that are reasonable: the appointment of a special prosecutor, the residency law, the end of the 48-hour rule, the establishment of a civilian review complaint process that is not tainted by the police commissioner having the last word. All these basic, reasonable demands have not been met. On the other hand, if we look at education, we have made some basic, reasonable demands over the years that also have not been met. Some atrocious things are happening in education. There is a pattern of tyranny here, a virus into the democracy of New York City and New York State. There is a virus of tyranny and a virus of oppression which is reflected in some atrocious acts that are being committed across the board whether you are talking about welfare policies and recently the Federal Government criticizing New York City and putting it under a special court order for the way its welfare policies are being handled, the way people are being processed or whether you are talking about hospitals and health care. The city hospitals, the Hilton hospitals corporation that has existed for several decades, the present administration of the city is trying to sell the hospitals, privatize them. It gets so ridiculous until in my district recently the laundry that services the city hospitals in Brooklyn has been ordered closed and they are going to contract with a laundry across the river in New Jersey because, by the pound, they can provide the service for a few pennies cheaper to launder the linen and the sheets and the various things that relate to the hospitals. The pattern is to try to sell the hospitals, if not sell them, destroy them. And then in education, the pattern has been to refuse to deal with obvious problems related to education infrastructure. School construction is no longer an education issue in New York, and probably in large parts of the country it is the same situation. It is a moral issue. It is a moral issue. It is not a financial issue in New York. It is a moral issue. School construction reflects the same pattern, the same mind-set of the administration in respect to tyranny and oppression of a certain group of people. The worst schools are in the minority areas. The worst schools are in the areas where black and Hispanic and Asian children go to school. The worst schools are in neighborhoods that have been neglected over the years. So when you have a $2 billion surplus, and New York City had a surplus, revenue over expenditures last year of $2 billion, not a single penny of the $2 billion was devoted to meeting school construction emergencies in New York City. At a higher level, in New York State, the State had a $2 billion surplus. I am sometimes ashamed to come to the floor of Congress and talk about the subject that I am going to primarily talk about tonight, the need for Federal aid for school construction, because our State and our city, even with the resources, is doing so little, is dedicating such a small percentage of those resources to deal with school construction. Why? They do not care. There is a moral issue. There is a determination made to destroy a certain segment of the population. The basic human rights of a certain segment of New York City's population are being violated. There is a process which is very different from the way the Serbs violated the human rights of the Albanians in Kosovo. In Kosovo you have violence, you have bullets, you have blood. It is kind of obvious. But also in Kosovo they complain about the fact that the school system for the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, run by the Serbs, the school systems were not teaching the children properly, the basic problem of language they would not teach but there are things they complained that they had inferior schools. I remember reading at the time when the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan had a lot of visibility in the world that one of the big things about an enclave of Armenians that were in Azerbaijan was that the school system was deliberately neglectful of the needs of the Armenian children. So the school system's neglect of a particular population is not by accident. The people in power who make the decisions, the people in power who have the money, even if they have a $2 billion surplus, if they do not care about what happens to a certain segment of the children who go to the schools, they will not use those resources. So it is more than just money. It is a moral issue. We would like to have some aid from the Federal Government and I am going to talk about the need and the duty of the Federal Government to provide aid but we certainly are not doing enough in New York City or New York State with what we have. Why? Because there is a virus of tyranny, a virus of oppression that has contaminated our democratic process in New York City. There is a small group that has managed to take power and they have determined that they are going to drive a certain segment of the population out of the city. They are going to neglect them to the point where they will be totally powerless forever. And they continue to go on and on successfully. That is why I feel I have to deviate from just talking only about school construction and make the linkage between the pattern of police brutality, police killings, the pattern of hospital closings and privatization, the pattern of neglect of certain neighborhoods deliberately, the pattern is such that we have to link them together and understand that we are fighting a much bigger problem than just the neglect of school construction in New York City. And probably the application to other parts of the country, certain big cities, is the same. People in power who make decisions about the money have over the years neglected these schools and now we have a crisis and they have determined to do nothing about the crisis. We have a situation where the General Accounting Office in 1995 said that we needed $112 billion to revamp the infrastructure of schools all across America. They cited, and it is not just the problem of big city schools. There are problems in rural schools which are very serious, there are problems in suburban schools, but mainly the biggest problem, of course, is in the big city schools, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit. It is all over where you have deteriorating schools, in some cases endangering the health and safety of children. The trailer problem. Somebody said a few days ago, they called the trailers learning cottages, not trailers. Let us call them trailers. When the greatest Nation in the world with the highest per capita income and Wall Street setting records every day, when they have to have their children go to school in trailers, then something is radically wrong. The Vice President has recently discovered some schools somewhere in America where children are forced to eat lunch at 9:30 because of the overcrowding. It is such a crowded school until they have to eat in shifts and there are so many shifts that you have to begin serving children at 9:30 and you do not end until 1:30 or 2 o'clock serving the children in shifts. That is commonplace in my district in New York. It is commonplace across New York that children are being forced to eat lunch at 9:45 or 10 o'clock in the morning. That is child abuse. But decent people, teachers with education and a mission to help children, principals, administrators, the city council members, everybody is acquiescing to a situation where children are abused systematically by being forced to eat lunch when they have just finished breakfast. That is the way you solve the problem, take the pattern of least resistance. Treat the children of the schools as if they were not quite human. Maybe their parents will get the message and move out of the city or somehow take the burden away from the city administration, or whatever. But it is related. The fact that you cannot have law and order in New York City, some people believe you cannot have law and order without having a violation of civil rights and without having justice is not accurate. There is no reason why we cannot have law and order with civil rights being respected and justice for all. New York City recently announced and they initiated last night, I think, the policy where anybody who is caught driving drunk will have their car taken away from them. Well, the first reaction of the minority neighborhood is that, there goes our cars, because certainly anybody with alcohol on their breath in the minority neighborhood is going to be stopped. The profiling that is so outrageous all over the country where they have profiles of criminals and color is a basic part of the profile. You stop the cars where the young people are black. You stop the cars where the young people are Hispanic. I want to congratulate the Justice Department for its announcement, the United States Justice Department for its announcement that it is going to conduct an investigation of profiling in New Jersey, the State right across the river from New York, because New Yorkers and other minorities, certain Hispanic and African-American young people have been complaining for years about the fact they always get stopped, their cars get stopped. The law of averages say if you stop every car with a young person who also happens to be black or Hispanic, you are going to find a large percentage who might have something wrong in the car. They might have an open beer bottle or they might have even some drugs. If your profiling is done that way, you are going to have a pattern where most of the people who get arrested are going to be black or Hispanic. If you are going to profile drunk driving and stop more people in the minority community, more minority drivers, you are going to have more minority people losing their cars because they happen to be caught up in that network. We do not think it is a good approach to punish people before they have their day in court. But that is just part of a pattern of moving to maximize law and order at the expense of civil rights and justice. It does not have to be. The unique thing about our democracy, what makes America so great, is that these excesses we do not tolerate in order to get the productive results. Law and order they had in Mussolini's Italy. Law and order they had in Hitler's Germany. Law and order can be achieved if that is all you want. But why make law and order a goal which prevails over everything else? Law and order over civil rights, law and order over justice. What you end up doing is end up getting lawlessness. You get violence perpetrated by the people who are hired or commissioned to carry out the law and order, the SS, the Gestapo, the police departments filled up with people who are not given proper training, too many people who do not have proper training. I do not think that the whole New York City police department should be indicted. I think the administration of the police department, I think the administration in city hall must be indicted because they have created an atmosphere, a mind-set, they have made law and order a political objective that must be achieved over everything else, and they have created a situation where people who are unstable, people who are not properly trained, people who have problems. One of the policemen who shot Amadou Diallo, and I might have gotten ahead of myself and not been specific about what I am talking about in terms of the latest outrage. Amadou Diallo on February 4, an unarmed street peddler from Guinea, was killed in a barrage of 41 bullets in the Bronx. The people who shot him, one of those people had also been responsible for the murder of a young man in Brooklyn not too long ago where the young man was shot and the wounds that he sustained were not life-threatening but he was allowed to bleed to death. They did not give him any medical attention for 45 minutes and he bled to death. The doctors at the hospital said if he had only been brought to the hospital within a reasonable length of time, his life would have been saved. There were no obvious life- threatening wounds at the beginning. So Amadou Diallo becomes a symbol, because he is part of a long line. Before him Abner Louima, before him the long succession of Eleanor Bumpers, Claude Reese, Clifford Glover, Randolph Evans and numerous others who were killed by police under circumstances that could not be justified. Anthony Biaz is unique because he is one of the few persons killed by police where the police were punished. So it happened the policeman who strangled him to death or killed him with a choke hold happened to have had a long record of brutality, and the city and the union ran away from defending him, and he was convicted. Livoti is his name. Livoti was convicted of killing Anthony Baez in a civil suit at least. And the important thing is that some punishment was meted out, whereas in the case of Eleanor Bumpers, the grandmother who was murdered in her living room, the policeman was not only not convicted, he was given a promotion later. So, the task I made for myself tonight is to make synergy here. There is a clear relationship between the way and, as I speak, it applies to many other places in the country so I do not feel guilty about taking the time here on the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about this because in other places in the country we have the same kind of problems. The task is to let it be known that the education problem is partially, certainly, the obvious part of the education deficit. The lack of resources is due to the fact that there is no moral commitment to educate the poorest children in America, no moral commitment, and the poor happen to be mostly African American, Hispanic. There is no moral commitment to really educate them, and that is why we cannot get around to doing what is obvious. There is no commitment there. There is no commitment to provide law and order with justice if you can just forget about justice and be careless about the way you provide law and order. Then Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima and Eleanor Bumpers, they are all sacrificial lambs. I am going to go on to talk more specifically about school construction and education, but first I want to enter into the Record a letter that was written by my colleague from Chicago, Danny Davis, and signed by many other members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I wrote my own letter to Janet Reno, and I am going to enter that in the Record, too. It was like a ceremony every time one of these outrageous cases occurs and someone is unjustifiably murdered by the New York City police. I wrote a letter to Janet Reno asking for an investigation. I asked not only that the particular specific individual incident be investigated but I asked that they investigate the systemic problem, why it keeps happening over and over again, why do only these accidents only take place in minority neighborhoods, why only people who are considered powerless, why only people who are African American or Hispanic or Asian, why are they the only victims of police mistakes? It is really a question worthy of the attention of the United States Justice Department. But I ceremoniously write these letters. I get an answer back from Janet Reno and, before that, previous Attorney Generals saying, we will proceed to investigate, but I never get a later letter which says exactly what they are doing or what the outcome was. They promised to investigate systemic police abuse in New York at the time of the outrageous sodomization of Abner Louima. Abner Louima was sodomized with a broomstick and left to die. He just was very tough, and although they left him around for several hours, when they finally got him to the hospital, he fought, and he lived and was able to tell his own story. But the letter from Janet Reno said, we will proceed, I have ordered an investigation. I even got a letter from the local U.S. Attorney saying, we are proceeding to investigate the New York City Police Department, the systemic problem, but you never get any final conclusion or any progress report. So Danny Davis, my colleague from Chicago, is asking the same things I have asked repeatedly in my letters. Danny Davis' letter reads as follows: Dear President Clinton, we are writing to urge you to form a Federal task force comprised of community leaders and Department of Justice officials to investigate incidents of police brutality and misconduct. As you may know, on February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo was shot 19 times in New York City when police mistook him for a rape suspect. In all, four white officers shot 41 times in Mr. Diallo's apartment. That is not exactly correct. There was a doorway leading into his apartment house. Continuing to quote the letter from Congressman Danny K. Davis: There have been numerous incidents of this kind of unchecked police abuse throughout the Nation especially in African American communities. In 1997, police sodomized and beat Abner Louima, a Haitian immigrant, while he was in police custody in New York City. In Los Angeles, there was the police beating of Rodney King. In Chicago, Jeremiah Mearday was beaten by police who were later fired. In addition, two young boys ages 7 and 8 were arrested and charged with raping and killing 11 year old Ryan Harris when it was later revealed that these young boys could not have committed the crimes with which they were accused. We have numerous examples all throughout the country where this type of police abuse is or has taken place. There is a real perception in the African American and minority communities that if your skin is dark then you are in trouble. In addition, police brutality has undermined the respect of people in minority communities for the rule of law, because there seems to be two sets of rules. We remain concerned that the police cannot fairly investigate themselves. Moreover, we believe that the formation of a national citizenry board in conjunction with the Department of Justice provides legitimacy to a fair process. If we are to have true racial reconciliation in this country, then we must deal with the issue of police brutality. Finally, if America is to be what she ought to be, then there must be one set of rules by which every citizen is governed. We thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, and we look forward to your reply. Danny K. Davis. And this was signed also by other members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I enter the letter of Danny K. Davis into the Record: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 22, 1999. Hon. William Jefferson Clinton, The White House, Dear President Clinton: We are writing to urge you to form a federal task force comprised of community leaders and Department of Justice officials to investigate incidents of police brutality and misconduct. As you may know, on February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo was shot 19 times in New York City when police mistook him for a rape suspect. In all four White police officers shot 41 times in Mr. Diallo's apartment. There have been numerous incidents of this kind of unchecked police abuse throughout the nation especially in African American communities. In 1997, police sodomized and beat Abner Louima a Haitian immigrant while he was in police custody in New York. In Los Angeles, there was the police beating of Rodney King. In Chicago, Jeremiah Mearday was beaten by police who were later fired. In addition, two young boys ages seven and eight were arrested and charging with raping and killing 11 year-old Ryan Harris--when it was later revealed that these young boys could not have committed the crimes for which they were accused. We have numerous examples all throughout the country where this type of police abuse is or has taken place. There is a real perception in the African American and minority communities that if your skin is dark then you are in trouble. In addition, police brutality has undermined the respect of people in minority communities for the rule of law, because there seems to be two sets of rules. We remain concerned that the police cannot fairly investigate themselves. Moreover, we believe that the formation of a national citizenry board in conjunction with the Department of Justice provides legitimacy to a fair process. If we are to have true racial reconciliation in this country then we must deal with this issue of police brutality. Finally, if America is to be what she ought to be then there must be one set of rules by which every citizen is governed. We thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, and look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Danny K. Davis. Mr. Speaker, I also enter a similar letter that I wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno into the Record: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 6, 1999. Attorney General Janet Reno, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: Over the course of the last few years I have appealed to you and President Clinton to launch a comprehensive investigation into the pattern of misconduct by the New York City Police Department. The most recent incident involving the shooting death of Amadou Diallo on February 4, 1999, underscores my concern about a police department that appears to be out of control. By all accounts, it is obvious that officers have engaged in a pattern of reckless guerrilla warfare tactics against innocent victims. Our community has grown weary of repeatedly being victimized by the institutional racism that exists within the New York City Police Department. Somewhere in the midst of all of this confusion lies the fear of every minority citizen that they could be next. It should be noted that these incidents never occur in predominately white neighborhoods. We are deeply disturbed by the actions of the police; shocked and amazed that it took four officers and 41 bullets to bring one man down. This individual was a human being, not an animal. At some point, the leadership of the city has to acknowledge that it is incapable of controlling the growing number of misfits within its ranks and yield to a more objective body that is not driven by politics. We have a number of excellent police officers in New York City whose reputations are being strongly impacted by those who do not have the best interest of our citizenry at heart. One indication of the systemic nature of the problem is the fact that a Street Crimes Unit with life and death power over citizens was comprised of four inexperienced officers under 27 years of age. Madam Attorney General, this is a very serious matter and requires a very thorough and comprehensive investigation. These last few years have been emotionally draining for the people of New York and I call on you to respond as soon as possible to the urgency of this matter. Sincerely yours, Major R. Owens, Member of Congress. Again, I do not need to read a list of the demands that have been made over the years. I have been involved for many years, and the patterns are the same on police brutality and the ending of police killings. We have made certain demands, and those demands still are legitimate. We demand, and the way to solve the problem, probably not only New York City but across the country, is to have special prosecutors appointed for police brutality and police killing cases. The way to solve it is to have a situation where any locality anywhere in the country can hire policemen from among its own citizens. People who live and work in the same community are less likely to participate in abusive behavior. In New York, the demand also should include the end of a 48-hour rule where you cannot even interrogate a policeman about an incident of brutality or killing for 48 hours. Union contract specifics that, and there are numerous other demands which have been applied. The question over the years, made over the years, that is still applicable. So I think what we need in New York is a basic campaign, for a campaign or a crusade for basic human rights. We need to call upon the whole world to take a look at what is happening in New York and compare it to Kosovo. In one sense, they are very different; in another sense, the oppression and the tyranny that has taken place in New York is a preview of coming attractions. It is a very sophisticated kind of oppression. The virus of totalitarianism, the virus of tyranny, have been introduced into the democratic culture of New York City and New York State. The virus manifests itself in both ways, through the fact that education is neglected, abandoned. Even when there are clear resources available, they refuse to apply them to education. The Governor of New York produced a budget which had additional money for the creation and construction of prisons while at the same time he made cuts in education at the elementary and secondary level and also at the higher education level. This is a pattern now of both the Governor and the Mayor. Both happen to be Republicans, both are running for or are interested in national office, both are trying to make a statement for the rest of the country. Therefore, I think it is quite fitting and proper that I should stand here on the House of Representatives' floor talking to people all over the country about this virus that has been introduced into democracy in New York State and New York City. It is something that we have to contend with and respond to. And I do believe there is in America a caring majority, that most people care about democracy. Really, they just do not want democracy for themselves, they do not want the benefits of our great country only to be applied to just themselves. The majority, there is a majority, a caring majority that keeps rising up again and again when extremism raises its head. You see that manifested in many ways. I will not go into what happened recently with respect to the ridiculous indictment through impeachment of the President and the trial that took place and the final outcome of that, how the majority of the people of America made themselves known, and they will prevail. I think in the case of the kind of tyranny that has raised its ugly head in New York, which is a preview of coming attractions of how sophisticated vehicles and methods can be used to oppress people by neglecting their education, by degrading them, by crushing their will, by forcing their children to eat lunch at 10 o'clock in the morning when they are still filled up with breakfast, by having coal-burning schools. Out of the 1,100 schools in New York, 275 this time last year were coal-burning schools. Now about 250 have coal-burning furnaces polluting the air, immediately polluting the atmosphere in the school and polluting the general air. So we have an unprecedented asthma problem in New York City, and so the Mayor has an anti-asthma campaign which is phony because of the fact that during his anti-asthma campaign and his appropriation of money to fight asthma and the problem of asthma nothing is said about ending the coal-burning furnaces, removing the coal-burning furnaces. No emergency has been declared to get rid of coal-burning furnaces. You know, we are making some progress, but the City of New York has not given this any special attention. There is an $11 billion construction plan proposed by the Board of Education of the City of New York, $11 billion over a 5-year period to construct new schools and renovate old schools. Periodically, every 5 years, they come up with these plans, and the fact that the plan is proposed should not mislead anybody. The last plan was not fulfilled at all. The plan that got a great deal of publicity was a plan that School Chancellor Cortinez produced less than 5 years ago which called for $7 billion for school construction and renovation, et cetera, and he was ridiculed and driven out of town by the Mayor because he put on the table what the real construction needs were. So to have an $11 billion plan proposed does not mean that we are ever going to spend that much unless unusual things happened. I am here tonight to try to make some unusual things happen. I want to make some unusual things happen not only in New York City and New York State but all across the country. I would like to see some unusual things happen in the construction and renovation and repair and modernization of schools. I am afraid that we may reach a consensus on education matters here. Both parties are now trumpeting bipartisan cooperation, and we know that that is not going to take place in certain areas, but it might take place in the case of education, and my fear is that a bipartisan deal might be at the expense of the schoolchildren in America. My fear is that a bipartisan deal on education might leave school construction in limbo or only make a token, take token steps to improve the school construction issue. I am all in favor of everything that the President has proposed in respect to education. I endorse what he has proposed. My concern is that he does not go far enough. Certainly in the area of school construction it does not go far enough in his proposals. I endorse the $25 billion he proposes to finance. The simple plan is not that complicated. They will, Federal Government under the President's plan, will provide between 3 and $4 billion to pay the interest on $25 billion worth of bonds over a 5-year period. That is if the localities and the States will borrow the money, float the bonds and borrow the money, the Federal Government will pay the interest, which after a 5-year period, if all of this works, if every State and locality gets its share, then the Federal Government will be out of no more than about $4 billion for interest, no more. That is a lot of money. I am going to say that is a small token. The President's plan is the only plan on the table for school construction that is significant. I have not heard a plan come from the majority, the Republicans, for school construction. They are talking about a number of other issues in education but not school construction. So I support the President's plan. It is the only plan on the table, but it does not go far enough. It does not go far enough and I want to come back to that. I support the President's plan on no social promotion. No social promotion is a nice slogan, and it is a good idea. It is a sound concept. There are good reasons offered for it. If we are going to provide resources to help youngsters who are in trouble, we are going to give them tutors and mentors after school, we are going to provide them with some extra help during the summer, if all of those things are in place, then great. Who needs to advocate holding a youngster in the same grade if we are going to give him all that kind of help to keep him moving? The problem with the slogan that keeps being repeated about no social promotion is that I have heard it before, and I have endorsed it before, that we should not promote children who have not reached certain levels of competence and their performance does not justify their being passed on to another grade. I have heard it many times before. I have endorsed it many times before. One of the reasons it broke down in New York City before was that there was no place to put the children that you held back. The enrollment is increasing steadily and we are already overcrowded. The schools are overcrowded. I just said some schools, a large number of schools, force their children to eat lunch at 10:00 in the morning because the cafeteria, the lunchroom, cannot hold but a certain number. The school was built for 500 and it has a thousand youngsters so they have to feed the youngsters in cycles, and the cycle has to begin at 10:00 and end at 1:30 in order for them all to get fed. So instead of looking for some other way to solve the problem, and there must be some other way other than forcing children to eat lunch at 10:00 in the morning, as late as 1:30, they have not chosen to find another way. The overcrowding situation is dealt with by forcing them to eat lunch at those ungodly hours. I think it is child abuse. I think the nutritionists and the health department ought to be brought in to condemn it. I think it should be forbidden, it should be outlawed. But that is happening. Why is it happening? Because the schools are overcrowded. Therefore, if there are not social promotions, the number of children will pile up in the schools even more. They will be even more overcrowded. In order for a policy of no social promotion to be real and to take effect and not be a fraud, the policy must be accompanied by the building of more schools. You need more school construction. You have got to act on the basics first. No social promotion, I support that. I support the effort to increase the number of after-school centers, because the after-school programs will be part of the way to give a youngster some help so he does not, he or she does not, have to stay in the same grade; they can keep moving. The after-school programs, the after-school programs that we have, as successful as they may be, let us look at their significance in terms of numbers. We have just increased the amount of money, or in the President's proposed budget he is increasing the amount of money, from $200 million for the after-school programs to $600 million. We are going to increase the number of youngsters to the point where there may be one million youngsters or 1.2 million youngsters, I do not have the exact figures on that, who will be part of the after-school programs. However, there are 53 million youngsters in public schools in the United States; 53 million. We are going to take care of, at most, 1.2 million when there are 53 million. So whereas I endorse the after- school program, I want to see it increased. Let us not fool ourselves. That small amount of money will not affect most of the children in the public schools of the Nation. It will not have a significant impact on education in America. It is too small and there are too many children in need out there. Not all 53 million, and the actual number is 52,700,000, not all of them need after-school centers but even if half need it that is a long ways from 1.2 million. So the amount is too small. If after-school centers are important, and I think they are, we ought to really appropriate money which would reach the children who should be reached by those centers. We need to greatly increase that amount of money. So I worry about the rhetoric, the rhetoric which says we are in favor of improving our schools, but not being accompanied with resources. Rhetoric without resources probably equals fraud. There is a fraudulent overcast in these small education programs that are ballyhooed a great deal. Now I do not want to discourage making small efforts. If the darkness is out there, then light a small candle. A small candle in the dark gives some light, some hope, but let us not fool ourselves. We are not really doing anything significant to take American schools into the 21st century when you provide after-school programs for only a tiny portion of the 53 million youngsters in public schools. We talk about technology and going into the 21st century with our schools wired, at least five classrooms and the library wired, and yet many of the schools cannot get the wiring because of the fact that they are so old until they cannot make the proper connections. They have to do extensive renovation to change the wiring or to deal with asbestos problems and they also have problems with lead in the paint or lead in the pipes. There is a school, PS-92, in my district where they cannot drink the water from the school fountains. There is lead in the pipes that made it impossible for them to continue drinking the water. That same school has a coal-burning furnace. While I am at it, PS-92 is an outrageous example of how when there is no moral will to accomplish the process of creating safe schools, healthy schools, schools with physical facilities to do some learning, how it gets bogged down. It is easy for anything to happen. The PS-92 saga begins with the fact that they had money appropriated to convert this coal-burning furnace at PS-92 but the $500,000 that was first appropriated has all been spent on planning and making blueprints for the new furnace and the new heating system. They tell the parents that we are out of money, we cannot install the furnace because we have to go back and get another appropriation. Well, that kind of corruption and incompetence can go on if the people at the top do not really care. The situation at PS-92 is so bad until the angry parents and their expression of their concern about the fact that $500,000 was spent and still there is no furnace, it is so great until the last shipment of coal that was brought in to feed the coal-burning furnaces had police escorts. I think it is symbolic that parents, upset and angry about the fact that a coal-burning furnace is still in place after $500,000 has been spent, they are still told we do not have the money to change the coal- burning furnace, they are angry, the response of the city administration is to send police in with the next shipment of coal. There is a virus, a totalitarian virus, in New York City democracy. The mindset of City Hall under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the mindset is such that they think every problem can be solved with police; you can take the hard approach. Why not take the moral approach and use some of the city's surplus to replace the coal-burning furnaces? Now I was talking about the pieces in the President's program that I approve of, but right now we cannot have technology in the schools that need it most and that need to be helped by new technology because the wiring and the asbestos, all of that, has to be dealt with. It is better in many cases to build new schools rather than to try to renovate and converting some of the crumbling buildings that our schools are housed in. We also have direct problems of leaks, water actually coming into the buildings, into the roof, or water running down the sides, the walls. There are problems that are real emergencies that are being treated in an offhand way. The caring majority is certainly not very active here in New York City. I think there is a caring majority in New York City. I insist that if they give us some kind of blueprint as to how to get out of this mess, how we must unite in a crusade for our basic human rights and go where we have to go, if we are concerned about human rights in Kosovo then we ought to be concerned about human rights in New York City. It is subtle, more subtle, more difficult to understand in the case of New York, but if you destroy your children, generations of children, then it is a serious problem, maybe not as serious as shooting them down in cold blood, as it is in Kosovo, and New York does not face the kind of problem that Sarajevo faces where a beautiful cosmopolitan city was being destroyed by violence. I am proud of the fact that our President took the initiative, and although he only had one-third approval of the Congress and one-third public opinion approval he took the initiative and joined the effort in Yugoslavia to bring peace there. I am proud of what we are doing in Bosnia and Sarajevo and Serbia and now Kosovo. I think we stayed too long in Bosnia and the rest of Yugoslavia. We have spent about $8 billion, and I think that is a bit too much. I think that we should go anywhere in the world and help out in peacekeeping operations, help to save children, help to save people from genocide but when they run a game on us and begin to hustle, keep some trouble going, foment trouble to keep us there and use our military as part of their economy, I think we ought to get wise to that, but that is a subject for another discussion. If we are concerned about human rights in Kosovo, then let us take a look at the human rights that are being violated in New York City when they do not give decent buildings, safe buildings, for children to study in. Now you may talk about testing, national testing we need. I reversed my position on testing. I will support the White House and the administration position on testing. The problem with supporting a national testing program is that why are you going to test children in schools with coal-burning furnaces? In several schools that I visited, along with some colleagues of mine from central Brooklyn, the Martin Luther King Commission, we have a project of going to look at the health conditions of schools and several schools that I visited one-fifth of the children had serious asthma conditions. Many of the teachers were beginning to have respiratory illnesses. We are going to test people in those kinds of hardship situations. They do not have technology. They do not have enough books and supplies. What I call opportunities to learn are ignored and we are going to test them, but I will support theoretically the need for national testing but that controversy is going to rage for awhile. I do not think it is going to really be settled for a long time. What I want to do is support something that I think we have agreement on. I think Republicans and Democrats both agree that in order for children to learn they need a physical facility that is safe, a physical facility that is healthy and a physical facility that is conducive to learning. We need lights. In some of the school rooms we have, the lights are shot out and the kids are in a dark situation in parts of the classrooms. The library, they are crowded one on top of another. On and on it goes. They need a situation that is conducive to learning. There is basic agreement that those are terrible conditions. There is basic agreement that in America all across the country, not just New York City, not just the big cities but in many rural areas, it is atrocious the conditions of the schools. We need some help. The General Accounting Office, as I said before, estimated in 1995, that between $110 billion and $112 billion is needed in order to revamp the schools, in order to just get them in working conditions, not to take care of new enrollment. Now we are in 1999, going into the year 2000, with large increases in enrollment. They project enrollment in the year 2008 will be up at 54 million children from the 53 million; there will be 54 million. So they are not going down. Whatever the demographics are, I know people are getting older, the senior citizen population is getting larger, but the children, the children who go to school, that population certainly is getting larger. We have all of this happening and the response is to deal with rhetoric instead of substance. Now, back to the President's proposal for $25 billion in bonding authority that the Federal Government will pay the interest on. What is wrong with that proposal? Nothing, except that it does not go nearly far enough. I endorse that proposal. It is the only one on the table. Congratulations, Mr. President. He has been at it for years trying to get some movement. Part of the reason the President fashioned this particular approach is it does not require direct appropriations, because he wanted something that he thinks will pass. So we have a bill in the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee that is least concerned about children. They have never been that involved in education, they have the authority and they have the jurisdiction. They must deal with this construction bill. Suppose it passed. And as I said before, suppose we passed it. New York City and New York State would not be able to make immediate use of it. They would have to have a referendum. We would have to have the State's citizens, all the citizens of the State would have to vote. The State would have to vote to allow the bonding to go forward. We cannot have bonding, we cannot make the loan that we are going to pay the interest on unless all the voters approved. The last time we had such an issue before the voters, they did not approve it. It was voted down by the upstate voters who lived in relative luxury, schoolwise. They thought it was only for the poor children of New York City and they voted it down. We may succeed after two or three tries, but how long will that take and how many generations will be forced to eat lunch at 10 a.m. in the morning? How many generations will be forced to deal with asbestos and lead paint, the fumes from coal-burning furnaces going into their lungs? How long do we wait while we fight these bond issues in New York State? And many other States and localities also require that the voters approve the bond before we can take advantage of that offer. So even if we succeed and the Committee on Ways and Means should change its ways and really get serious about doing something for the children of America, even if we succeed, there is no immediate relief for the people who need it most. But I am all for it. Let us give it a try. However, I would propose, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in proposing, that we directly fund school construction. We appropriate the money for school construction. We need, in order to have a rational respectable beginning, we need $100 billion over a 5-year period. $100 billion over a 5-year period is what is needed. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the President, to the Republican majority, the Democratic minority, let us have a bipartisan approach to school construction. We all agree that whether we are for testing or not, or for after-school centers, or the whole word method or the phonics method, there are a lot of debates going on in education about various issues and methods and approaches. But here we are talking about physical facilities. If we agree that physical facilities are important, then let us unite and appropriate what is needed. Mr. Speaker, $100 billion over a 5-year period is a good beginning. Where are we going to get the $100 billion from? From the surplus, Mr. President, from the surplus, majority Republicans. Let us dedicate $20 billion, or one-fifth of the surplus, for each year over the next 5 years, dedicate that to school construction. $20 billion or one-fifth of the surplus, whichever is larger, to school construction. Does that sound unreasonable? Are Democrats going to be labeled as ``big spenders'' by Republicans because they propose $100 billion for school construction over a 5-year period? I do not think they should be, because last year we appropriated $218 billion for highways over a 6-year period. And the overwhelming majority, more than 90 percent of the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, voted for the highway bill, for $218 billion. So let us not continue the fraud and say we are interested in education, when the basic problem, the problem of construction, which if we do not deal with the problem of school construction, if we do not have more classroom space, the money appropriated recently of $1.2 billion that we all agreed to lower the size in classrooms, we cannot use it in New York City effectively because we do not have the classroom space. There are many other cities that cannot use it. At the bottom, if we do not do anything about construction in an appropriate way, everything else is a fraud. All of the other concerns about education moves in the direction of being fraudulent. Deal with construction first. Deal with the issue that we could get agreement on. The money can come out of the surplus. After all, we are proposing $110 billion for defense expenditures for weapons systems that are not needed. Why do we not sell bonds to deal with those weapons systems that are not needed and give the money directly and appropriate the money directly to go to localities for school construction? The challenge is to be real and do not join those people who want to destroy the poorest children in America. They just do not care. The country as a whole will suffer. Social Security will suffer because the workforce is not there to produce the income for Social Security. Our national security militarywise will suffer because we cannot staff our aircraft carriers. Recently we had an aircraft carrier that did not have enough staff because the people are not there in order to operate the ship. The rest of the country needs an education system. Education is our first line of defense and first line of security and prosperity and we should act accordingly by dealing with school construction first.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California agree to join me in a special order in the future to talk about this, the two of us?

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, first the impeachment debate; and now the trial in the Senate, have provided the American people with graphic examples of government descending into dangerous pettiness. The House Managers or prosecutors have behaved like zealous persecutors. Beyond Kenneth Starr's forty million dollars already spent, they propose to paralyze the nation's decision-making process for an indefinite time period. Issues such as school construction and the minimum wage increase will get scant attention while we drag witnesses in for more Peyton Place depositions. Mice minds have hijacked the government machinery of a great nation. The situation may be summarized in the following RAP poem: Profile of the Persecuting Prosecutors Mice men gnawing At the Core of the Nation History will rate them The pompous petty generation Rodents feeding On the Monica sensation Eloquent enemies Of issue liberation Filibuster babies Babbling in their bubbles Mischievous teenie boppers Making monumental troubles Nice men guffawing Mice men gnawing Franklin's wisdom dies Madison closes his eyes Rodents raiding Hamilton Jumping over Jefferson Boasting bloody fangs Pompous petty generation Bloated on Monica sensation Perfumed urination Decorated defecation Mice men gnawing On the heart of the nation.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pardon my ignorance, but I am not a lawyer and I have not been impressed with the legal gymnastics of the Committee on the Judiciary hearings. Like the majority of the American people, I watched and listened, and in the end I concluded that in any court of common sense, this is a case that would have been immediately dismissed. No man in America is above the law. The converse should also be true, no citizen, even a feared partisan enemy, should be denied the benefits of the law, of the due process and of equal justice. Our defendant is an outstanding citizen who has done great service for his people, for his government. On the basis of the charges before us, what prosecutor anywhere in America would press forward with this case and a demand for such a harsh punishment? Examining the extenuating circumstances related to the outstanding performance and the exemplary accomplishments of this defendant, what ordinary judge in any court, in any county in America, would allow the trial to go forward? This defendant, this President, has been denied his basic rights. He is not a beneficiary of the rule of law. This defendant is a victim of organized partisan persecution. It is not fair, it is not just. The majority of the American people are angry, for good reasons. The voice of Shakespeare's King Lear is ringing in our ears: ``Fool me not to bear tamely. Touch me with noble anger.'' Consider the record of the defendant. This is the education President, who has gone beyond lofty rhetoric and done more for education than any President since Lyndon Johnson. In Haiti they have cheered him as the liberator. In the Middle East and Northern Ireland they have hailed him as the great peacemaker. In Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Sarajevo, they give him thanks as an angel of mercy who stopped the mass slaughter of innocent men and women and children. On Wall Street this President is celebrated as a master of macroeconomic policy- making. In all endeavors where it has mattered most, this defendant has done his duty well. Why is this defendant before us? Why is the political death penalty being demanded? Our posterity will spit upon us for allowing this madness to reach this level. It is not too late for all Members to truly vote their conscience. Good men and good women can often be hypnotized momentarily by the collective fervor of the crowd. Today in this proceeding extreme punishment is the only item that is allowed on the agenda. The majority is demanding excommunication. The loud cry is for banishment. This is a political crucifixion. Responsible decision-makers have temporarily lost their reason. I call upon every Member to break the spell. Forget we are under the glare of television cameras in Washington, and imagine that we are back home in a local courtroom. The defendant before us deserves equal treatment, equal justice. Let us be fair. Let us be reasonable. Let us consider the extenuating circumstances. Let us dismiss this case now.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, because I think it is evidence of the great Nation of America acting in a small way to deal with a problem. It will probably be ignored and not recognized. Nobody knows it, but in very small ways we have attempted to provide as much assistance as possible to all the victims of the bombings in Kenya and elsewhere. We have taken steps to deal with the medical bills, the hardship suffered by the people surrounding the embassy and those killed in the embassy. The whole matter has been brought home to us as members of the Congressional Black Caucus because two very close members of the Congressional Black Caucus family were involved. Consul General Julian Bartley had served as a fellow on the hill here for a half a year and worked with the Congressional Black Caucus. His son, Jay Bartley, we also got to know, and his daughter, Edith Bartley, is still active in Congressional Black Caucus matters. It was brought home to us in a very personal way. But I think the important thing here is that this legislation is designed to help people we will never know. It is designed to help people that happened to be unfortunately there on that awful day. The message that should go out to all across the world is you need never fear being a friend of America. To be an ally of America, to host an embassy in your country, there is nothing unique to fear. We will stand by our friends. We have many enemies in the world, and for good reason. We have enemies who are seeking to maintain old systems that we are definitely against. We are against slavery in the Sudan and slavery in Mauritania. We are against the Taliban enslavement of women in Afghanistan. We are against a lot of things that create a lot of enemies. But we are also the most admired country in the world. People know that we will stand by our friends in every way. We stood by France a couple of centuries after they helped us in the Revolutionary War. Our troops were on the beaches of Normandy. This is the American colossus which is unlike any empire that ever existed; not an empire, really, but we have influence all over the world. We probably have more friends and more people who admire Americans than any other Nation in the world. That is for a good reason, because we do stand by our friends. We do stand for principles and values that large numbers of people identify with. That creates incidents. It leads to bombings, like the one in Kenya. We have retaliated, and many people are upset with the fact that we did retaliate by sending bombs into Afghanistan and then into Sudan. But if we are in a situation where terrorism is the way of the future, and there is a new form of war which can strike anybody, and you are guilty even by association, by friendship, then everybody is included. Terrorism can strike anywhere and we must strike back. The fact that we are acting today to indicate that we recognize that innocent victims need to be compensated; innocent victims need to be recognized. This Act is addressing the fact that there were people who wanted to obtain visas and wanted to come to this country whose visas were not prosecuted in a timely way. But we have also had legislation for which I understand monies are being appropriated to deal with the expenses incurred by people who suffered hardships from this awful tragedy. I want to salute the sponsors of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and the whole spirit of the legislation, which sends a clear message to all those nations in the world, and certainly the underdeveloped Nations, which is that you need not fear, you need not back away from an alliance with America. You need not fear standing for the same kind of principles that we do. You need not fear hosting our personnel or being the home of one of our embassies. We are in a world where everybody is targeted by terrorists, and anybody at any time can be a victim. But this Nation will stand by its friends. This Nation has shown that it is ready to act in a humane manner. In the case of Julian Bartley and his son, Jay Bartley, I think special efforts were made and a special dispensation was undertaken. Both of them were buried in Arlington Cemetery. That is the kind of gesture of a great president, of a great Nation, that is indicative of what is happening here. We are taking care of people who were victimized unnecessarily, and I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 4821.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are standing in the schoolhouse door and they refuse to allow Federal dollars to build classrooms or to modernize and renovate classrooms. The Republicans are blocking dollars for the classrooms. They have a bill called ``dollars for the classrooms,'' which is really dollars to the governors and state bureaucracies to play around with Federal money. But when it comes to straight bulleting of money for construction, which most school boards in America realize is one of their greatest needs. They understand that they need help; they cannot get local or state dollars. Why not bring home our Federal dollars? All taxes are local. They come from the local level. They just print money here. They do not really have taxes based in Washington. It comes from the local level. Give it back to the local level, without strings attached. This is the best deal ever for local school boards and states. It says you can have the money. You can float the bonds, and the Federal Government will pay the interest on the debt you accumulate to build classrooms. What better deal is there; or has ever been offered? The Republicans are blocking dollars to build classrooms in America.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on November 8, 1998, I. Philip Sipser will be honored with a Lifetime Struggle and Achievement Award by the citizens of Central Brooklyn; however, he is a trailblazing labor relations attorney and a creative negotiator whose work has far-reaching significance for the nation and our entire society. I. Philip Sipser is the senior partner in the law firm of Sipser, Weinstock, Harper and Dorn, L.L.P. with outstanding credentials and achievements in his profession. He must also be celebrated for his leadership as an advocate for the empowerment of ordinary people and the unheralded strategist for numerous worthwhile social and political causes. Now eighty years old and still searching for worthy candidates to support, he has always labored for no concrete rewards and performed for beyond the call of duty. Beyond his own personal involvement there are also the contributions of his wife, Martha, and their four children: Henry, William, Margaret Liebowitz, and Jane Kaplan. In the typical Sipser tradition, he recently co-sponsored an exploratory discussion meeting with a possible Year 2000 Presidential candidate. Two decades ago it was Sipser's leadership of the bravehearted Frank Barbaro Campaign for mayor which fostered the alliance with Major Owens and the Central Brooklyn empowerment leaders. That campaign created the embryonic movement which later mushroomed and cemented the victories of Owens for Congress and Mario Cuomo for Governor. His role as the Campaign Manager of the Paul O'Dwyer for Senate Campaign in 1968 is better known; however, his outreach to minority community leaders of the 80's was a major factor in the impressive Jesse Jackson for President Campaign and the victorious David Dinkins for Mayor Campaign. Under Sipser's tutelage new bonds were cemented between community empowerment activist and union leaders. For a long time he has been counsel and advisor to Local 420. Local 420, the municipal hospital workers, Jim Butler and his members represent the workers near the bottom of the wage structure who live in Central Brooklyn and other similar communities. Their victories in the fights against layoffs and the privatization of the hospitals could not have been possible without the creative legal maneuvers of I. Philip Sipser. In addition to the hospital workers, among his clients are the auto workers, iron workers, social workers, film editors, brewery and soft drink workers, museum employees, opera and symphony musicians. Sipser is a member of the New York Bar Association; the American Arbitration Association's Commercial Panel of Arbitrators; past President of the Westchester Chapter of the American Jewish Congress; and past President of the Mental Illness Foundation. At a time when the ranks of organized labor are shrinking, Sipser has opened a new frontier with the organization of the symphony and opera musicians. The future organization of doctors, scientists and other professionals and technicians has become more likely as a result of these pioneering efforts. In connection with his representation of musicians, Donal Henahan, Music Critic of the New York Times wrote: Mr. Sipser is a New York labor lawyer who has already earned himself a mention in the history of American music. He is the Moses who has led the symphony and opera musicians of this country to within sight of the promised land of milk and honey, after their years of wandering in the deserts of short seasons, low pay and no vacations. His story has never been appropriately told in headlines or on the television screen; however, within the ranks of the Caring majority, the unique genius and wide ranging compassion of Phil Sipser is loudly trumpeted and greatly appreciated. Central Brooklyn is proud to salute I. Philip Sipser for his lifetime struggle and achievement.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, Public School 91 in my district was evacuated last Friday as a result of conditions that were deemed unsafe for children. You have got lead poisoning, a coal-burning furnace, everything you can imagine in that building which was built in 1903. It should have been closed a long time ago. But Public School 91 is not atypical of the school districts across America. In fact nearly every congressional district in America has an equivalent to Public School 91, a school that really needs to be closed or modernized or reconstructed. We have an education emergency all across the United States. Why not bring our money back to our school districts? All money comes from the local areas, anyhow. Bring our Federal money back for school construction. One of my colleagues on the Education Committee keeps insisting that the school construction bill is tilted toward the urban areas. Well, yes, that is where most of the children in America live. The Vietnam Memorial Monument, if you look at the names on there, most of them come from the urban areas, too. All the wars that have existed, while we have not emphasized it, they come from where the population is. Schools modernization is needed all across America. Urban areas are just the beginning.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman is running out of time. I will enter into the Record an article that appeared in the New York Daily News on Sunday, October 11, about a school that is in my district, PS 91. The article referred to is as follows: [Daily News, Sun. Oct. 11, 1998] Obstacle Course (By Nancie L. Katz) Public School 91 has been falling down around the 1,100 students and 50 teachers who learn and work there. Students every day have had to navigate a treacherous path around jagged holes, falling plaster, contaminated water, exposed pipes, wires and brick, and dust and soot. Blocking part of the playground are boiler trucks--rented since September 1997 for about $10,000 a month to heat the school after coal-fired furnaces were deemed too dangerous to keep operating. Children at recess in the asphalt play yard skirt a drain that has collected a small pool of dirty water that everyone suspects is backed-up sewage. Pieces of plaster drop from the ceilings, drafts seep through exposed brick walls that are children's only barrier from the outdoors, and vermin scamper in through holes in the walls. Students bring bottles of water to school because the drinking fountains were shut after gushing brown liquid. Dust and soot cover the top two floors, and nobody knows if there is lead or other contaminants mixed into it. Bubbling floor tiles in the hall go unbuffed--custodians and officials are afraid they'll stir up asbestos insulation underneath. A fire alarm doesn't work. In a city of aged and crumbling school buildings, to walk through PS 91 is to walk the halls of shame. ``It is abominable for children to be subjected to this . . . in the richest country in the world,'' said Principal Solomon Long, whose calls for help have gone unanswered for eight years. ``It is just unimaginable. I have appealed gain and again. So has the principal before me. But all there has been is patchwork.'' Until Thursday night, no one was paying attention to the horrendous conditions at the Wingate elementary school. But after the Daily News launched an investigation into how the building was allowed to deteriorate, it was temporarily closed, children were shipped to nearby schools and the building was flooded with workmen. After surface patching, the school is expected to reopen Tuesday. Chancellor Rudy Crew now has promised that funds will be forthcoming for more extensive repairs. The instant response follows years of worry by Long about the safety of the ``babies'' who attend PS91. Help was supposed to be on the way over the summer. Long and District 17 Superintendent Evelyn Castro said officials promised in May that repairs would be made. So Long canceled the summer literacy program and a federal feeding program for low-income children. Teachers cleared walls and windows and carefully packed away books and other materials. The workers never arrived. Staff and children reported back to the same crumbling institution in September. Yet amid all this, learning at PS 91 has gone on. Led by Long, the school is a work in progress. Only 45% of the kindergarten through fifth-graders are reading at grade level or above. But that's 11 percentage points higher than two years ago. Children wear uniforms, and hallways, classrooms and the cafeteria are orderly. Long says the school has plenty of new books and computers, dedicated staff and involved parents. ``It's the facility,'' he said. The building opened in 1903. Three years later, a fourth floor was added, and another L-shaped addition came in the 1920s. In 1971, an annex was added for the lower grades. It was meant to last 10 years, but is still in use. It's the main building--mostly the third and fourth floors--that is most damaged. Since March, the board has spent more than $100,000 to wrap the school with protective sidewalk bridging--in case bricks tumble down. But there has been nothing to protect the children inside. Every morning, the smallest children line up in a room outside the auditorium. Last winter, the upper part of a wall collapsed. Children still walk by it everyday--past a folded cafeteria table and a rope offering flimsy protection. ``How many more pieces are going to come tumbling down on our kids?'' asked Dwayne Carrion, a parent activist with the first-grader. ``It is ridiculous that the people who sit in these offices cannot find the time or resources to address this issue.'' No children have been injured seriously, although dozens said small debris has fallen on them. ``One of the plasters fell on my head last year,'' volunteered Shadae Bowen, 10, holding a piece of Sheetrock about the size of two marbles to demonstrate her point. ``It hurt. I cried. I had to go to the doctor to see if I was okay.'' Fifteen classrooms have holes in ceilings and walls, exposing brick, wires, dust and gravel. In Norman Kravetz' third-grade class last year, students used umbrellas as protection from rain and falling plaster, teachers said. Toilets in the kindergarten classrooms can't be used because they leak through into the cafeteria. A fire alarm in one building section doesn't work, so staffers cannot hear drills. Students complain of breathing problems, headaches, itchy rashes, stomachaches. Teachers speak of allergies. And last spring there was an asbestos scare. City environmental specialists and board and School Construction Authority officials did emergency cleanup work after teachers complained of suspicious powder drifting down from rain- damaged paint. Long said he accepted board assurances--given at a heated meeting with parents--that the building was safe. ``The parents were ready to shut the place down,'' Long said. ``They asked me at the meeting. `What do you think?' I can't let these people down. They trust me with their babies. If anything is ever found here, the first thing parents will say is their great leader led us right to ruin.'' Adriane Riddick, the parents association president and mother of a fifth-grader, said the board's failure to shut upper-floor classrooms ``means they don't care about the kids who are up there.'' Last week, Long invited an independent inspector hired by The News into the building. The board then refused the inspector and a reporter entry--turning down the offer to allow The News to pay for asbestos and lead tests. Fourth-grade teacher Sharon Rose-Pooser said teachers struggle to overcome the crumbling conditions. This year, she said, she was too disheartened to try to cover the exposed brick, pipes and wires that dominate half her classroom walls. The classrooms' coast closet is unusable because the window in it is missing, and she is afraid leaks will ruin the children's coats. Her class phoneline dangles unattached. The window frames are so rotted she cannot hang shades. Her 30 students must keep shifting around the room to avoid the glaring sun. ``The kids look at this and they wonder about their safety . . . about whether adults are concerned for them,'' she said. ``I try to tell my students that students in the Third World and in slavery worked no matter what the conditions.'' Belanda Hobbs' fourth-graders said they didn't mind the holes in the walls. That's because Hobbs hides one 6-inch hole behind a brightly colored sign. ``Classroom Library.'' Bookshelves covered other holes and protected small feet from a yard-long, dust-filled gutter where the floor had crumbled away from the wall. Her portable bulletin board, listing ``Key Words,'' camouflaged a jagged hole that could easily fit a child's head. None of the disguises keep out the mice and other vermin. ``I thought of putting a carpet [over the gutter] but the mice would eat it up,'' Hobbs said. Yards of exposed brick sprayed with asbestos encapsulant dripped down Audrey Butler's classroom walls. The wrapping around an aging pipe was slit, possibly exposing asbestos. ``I had a rash all last year,'' she said. ``My daughter begs me not to go to work.'' Lorraine Williams wipes soot every day from her fifthgraders' desks, caused by the oil-fired boiler trucks parked beneath her windows. Four students have asthma. Children in Jeffrey Garrison's fourth-grade class showed a reporter rashes on their necks they said were irritated from dust. ``I feel scared because something bad might happen,'' said Crystal Myrie, 9. ``Somebody could die in there. The ceiling is falling down. I'm afraid I'll get cancer when I grow up.'' Parents charge the board has discriminated against the minority school because it lacks political clout. They are terrified for their children. ``We send our kids to PS 91, and the Board of Education will not give us any results until one leaves an angel,'' Carrion said.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, Ron Dellums, a great member of the House of Representatives, and a great member of the Congressional Black Caucus retired last February. On several occasions I spoke enthusiastically of my great admiration for Congressman Dellums; however, I was absent on the day tributes to my esteemed colleague were made on the floor of the House. Today, for the Record, I would like to summarize my tribute to a friend, a mentor and a great role model. Ron Dellums is a man defined by magnificent contradictions. he is the activist who took a great risk when he joined the establishment; but he won the bet that he could never be corrupted. He is the peacemaker who rose to the position of Chairman of the powerful war-making Armed Services Committee. Ron Dellums was and is a steady keeper of a broad and integrated vision of this complex world. He is a tribune broadcasting a consistent, universal message. Throughout his long career in the Congress he remained loyal to certain fundamental principles advocating peace with justice--and his order of priorities never became confused. Despite his world view, his philosophical and intellectual loftiness and his intensity concerning administrative excellence, Ron remained first and foremost a descendant of Frederic Douglass, first and foremost an African American with an abiding dedication to his people. When the oppressed Blacks three thousand miles away in South Africa needed a champion, Ron Dellums was there with his parliamentary skills managing a difficult controversial resolution through the House. The effort was greatly enhanced by this oratorical eloquence and the fact that he had already accepted jail and arrest to promote his position. In a historic moment on the floor of the House, which has not yet been accorded its appropriate recognition, the Dellums South African sanctions resolution passed and set in motion a process which doomed the evil of apartheid. Nelson Mandela was later set free and a new South Africa nation was born. Although he was the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in 1993 when the call came for direct action to return democracy to Haiti, Ron Dellums was again on the front lines accepting arrest and jail to promote a policy of sanctions against an oppressive regime. To promote justice and a better utilization of our national resources throughout the world Ron led the drive to reallocate the military budget. He continued to support the Congressional Black Caucus alternative Caring Majority Budget. His concerns for full employment and job training as well as a more generous and sustained investment in education never waiver while he executed his duties as Armed Services Committee Chairman. Today, the portrait of Ronald V. Dellums in the National Security Committee Hearing Room speaks symbolic volumes about the magnificent contradictions of this Renaissance Man. This great room of the warriors, with forbidding portraits all around, many with a background including some weapon of destruction, is transformed by the Dellums portrait which makes a complete and almost perfect statement. From this powerful portrait the sunshine of peace and hope triumphantly invades the war room. This masterpiece leaves the bright shining signature and spirit of a conquering hero: Ronald V. Dellums.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on November 8, 1998, Sam Meyers will be honored with a Lifetime Struggle and Achievement Award by the citizens of Central Brooklyn; however, his career is one with far-reaching significance for the national labor movement and for American progressive political leadership. Sam Meyers, retired President of United Auto Workers Local 259, has been honored by many groups numerous times over the last few decades and all of the accolades have been deserved. Now eighty years old, he can relax with the satisfaction and assurance that he has been to the mountain top. Beyond his individual giving there are also the contributions of his wife, Carolyn, a retired East New York teacher, and his sons, Dan and Matt. Attorney Dan Meyers has devoted much of his life to the case seeking justice for the victims of the Attica assault. Sam has been a special hero of Central Brooklyn for nearly twenty years. The Frank Barbaro campaign to unseat Koch and the victorious campaign which elected Mario Cuomo are two of the key events which forged the longstanding alliance of Sam Meyers and Major Owens. The Barbaro mayoral campaign created the opportunity, for fighters who had previously briefly met each other only on speaking platforms, to then become permanent partners for progressive politics and empowerment. Beyond his immersion in the strategy and tactics of everyday leadership for his union, Sam Meyers had a vision and acted with others to fulfill the dream of a citywide political coalition. In the Summer of 1982, on the same day that major Owens announced the formation of the Brooklyn Coalition for Community Empowerment as his congressional campaign committee, Sam Meyers delivered a check from the United Auto Workers. It was a maximum contribution for the primary and the only such Political Action Committee donation received by the new and unknown Brooklyn political movement. Owens and his political partners--Vann, Green, Norman, Boyland--had nothing concrete that they could trade for support. Indeed, Sam Meyers, angered many powerful old friends of his when he endorsed the dissidents who were despised by the old Kings County machine. Sam's adoptions of the Brooklyn empowerment effort was an act of political faith with roots in his mother's aspirations for a better world. Across boundaries of race, ethnicity and age, without hesitation, he applied the same principles that had guided his building of a great UAW Local 259. Always present in the mind of Brother Meyers was the credo of the street fighter. You have to believe and you have to dare. Sam Meyers began his lifetime struggle in 1940 as a sheet metal worker and a member of UAW, Local 365. In 1943 he joined the Army Air Corps. In 1958 he led the successful fight to oust a leadership that had become too far removed from the membership and was elected President of Local 259. In the late 60's he was a co-founder of the New York Labor Committee Against the War in Vietnam. In the early 70's Sam helped to bring national attention to the impact of plant closings and run-away shops. In the late 80's he served as a Jesse Jackson Brooklyn delegate to the Democratic National Convention. For several decades Local 259 championed the forces of liberation and democracy in South Africa, South America, Haiti and throughout the globe. Numerous refugee labor leaders found safe haven, support and solidarity at Local 259. To continue expanding his legacy Sam Meyers now serves on the Commission for the Future of UAW. His career offers both inspiration and challenge for future generations. The personality of Sam Meyers can be summarized in the same manner that author Edith Hamilton described the mentality of the great Greek civilization. He maintains a steady gaze on the world as it is with all of the harshness and pitfalls, but he never retreats into cynicism and despair. He is tough but full of hope. Central Brooklyn is proud to salute Sam Meyers for his Lifetime Struggle and Achievement.