Major Owens

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman also for sponsoring this Special Hour on Black History Month, and I want to discuss a few milestones and events in African American history that are related to education and that should not be forgotten. We should not forget that one time to teach reading to a slave was a crime. If you want to know why we are in a position where we need affirmative action, if you want to know why at present the median net worth of white families in America is $120,000 while the median net worth of black families is America is only $17,000 then take a look at where we had to come from. For 232 years it was a crime to teach a slave to read, and then we went through a period where we had to endure separate but equal; but separate but equal was never equal. I came from the Southern schools, the Southern schools. All my life I was in Southern schools, and there was a point where the books and desks and everything that we had had been used for 5 or 6 years by white schools before they were shipped to the black schools. So in every way there was no equality. We should remember this. We went through separate but equal, and now we are in a situation where it is official neglect. The money, the resources necessary for education is not there. We have a lot of rhetoric supporting public education where most of our black youngsters are educated, but we do not have any resources. My time is short so I will have to cut this sort. I just want to say that education is a civil rights issue of our time. It is a civil rights issue we must focus on. The slaves who were set free understood very well the most important thing for them to do was to read. People who learned to read had a great deal of status in the new free-slave communities, and we have to get back to that in our African American communities. Education must be our first priority. It is the only way out of poverty. It is the only way to achieve political equality.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the White House has abruptly ended the brief era of bi-partisan cooperation on the vital issue of education. In his recent budget message the President halts the six year pattern of increases for education. Private school vouchers are returned to the federal policy agenda through the proposal of a 75 million dollar funding initiative. HeadStart is threatened with obliteration through the combination of a freeze on funding and the transfer of this successful child development program to the limited confines of the Department of Education. And finally, the administration has not continued the 1.2 billion dollars in funding for school repairs which was introduced in the last year of the Clinton administration. Only for charter schools is there a recognized need for school construction and modernization--100 million dollars is provided. Meanwhile, the overcrowding and unhealthy conditions persist in schools serving the poorest children throughout the nation. Without adequate facilities and other vital education resources, No Child Left Behind becomes a fraudulent and deceptive piece of legislation. The following rap poem sums up the spirit of this rapidly deteriorating situation. Crowd the Children In No Child Left Behind, Crowd them in, Construction dollars Never win. No Child Left Behind The budget is unkind An increase of billions They promised-- A bold elephant fable, A decrease by millions Placed on the table. Under funding catastrophe Lurking in the wind, Carefully covered sin, Regally wrapped spin, Cutbacks cover the table. On the made in White House label Read progress, Camouflage the big mess, Public relations success. No Child Left Behind, Crowd them in, Construction dollars Never Win.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Congressional investigating and hearing process is over for the racketeering corporations of the nation. With all three branches of the government now controlled by Republicans, the world's most costly coverup can be finalized. Enron, Worldcom, and all of the rest have proved that crime can pay huge profits. As a member of the 108th Congress I beg that we at least be allowed to discuss these serious thefts on the floor of the House. But, alas, the Republican majority through a tyranny of rules changes has cut off the opportunity for free speech on the floor. We are forced to keep the dialogue alive through ``guerrilla'' communications among ourselves. The following two poems comment on corporate morality. Corporate Credo 1 Greed is great, Less harmful than hate, Not the business of the state, Each sucker deserves fat bait. For the economy's sake Protect our freedom to take From any investor on the make. Pension funds we can feed To the belly of great greed, Old guys never really need Too much green evil weed; It's a handout risk free; Social Security we guarantee-- 401K's must take a chance, The market is the ultimate romance. Greed is great, Not the business of the state, Each sucker deserves fat bait.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I make an appeal to the President that he lead us in the most profound and comprehensive way and give us hope in his State of the Union address. At the beginning of this 108th Congress, it is important that we take note of a very important report recently released by the Federal Reserve. The study focuses on consumer finances, and is issued once every 3 years. Among the definitive items in this comprehensive statement is a report that the median net worth for our white population rose by 20 percent to $120,900 while the median net worth for minorities fell over the last 3-year period by 4.5 percent to $17,000. Consider the contrast of $120,900 versus $17,000. It is a portrait of two economies. It is a portrait of two societies. In the midst of a period of great prosperity, at least 2 of those years we were in a period of great prosperity, just before the economic slow down, minorities were existing with a standard of living close to that of the third world. In the year 2003 this is the state of the Union for a population that can be no less than one-half of the total. I have not been able to review the report closely and find out what their definition of minority is, but I will do that. But I am certain if minority means all of the groupings that I know as minority, we are talking about more than half the population. I intend to review the report in more detail and see what this category of minority means. While we casually speak of the expenditure of as much as $200 billion for a possible war against Iraq, a large portion of our population is sinking deeper into poverty. A war against poverty should be our first priority because this economy, which is sinking into a recession, will cause more hardships if we do not address the war against poverty. In the State of the Union we hope to hear that there is support for an increase in the minimum wage. We have been hearing about that for several years, and it is still locked into $5.15. Even if we go to work every day 40 hours a week, Americans will not get out of poverty on that kind of minimum wage. I hope the State of the Union will talk about job training and employment for mothers being pushed off welfare. It is premature to claim that we have solved the welfare problem by giving people jobs with dignity instead of a handout. There are no jobs with dignity that also pay decent wages out there, otherwise we would not have a 4.5 percent decline among poor people in terms of net worth. For workers who have never been on welfare, we want to provide jobs and job training, and we need revenue sharing for cities and States because large numbers of municipal and State workers who have decent jobs now are in danger of being laid off and losing their jobs, and that is a further decline into poverty. We need funding for necessary capital projects like school construction which provide real jobs, good jobs, and keep our population working. We hope and we pray that the vital standard of living issues that we are talking about here will be addressed in the State of the Union address. It is not the war against Iraq that should have priority; it is the war against poverty and the war to maintain a decent standard of living for all of our population that ought to be given a priority in the State of the Union address.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, recently Dr. John C. LaRosa, President of SUNY Downstate Medical Center announced the appointment of noted community leader and writer, Martha Thomas as Assistant Vice President for Community and Government Relations. It is no secret in Brooklyn that Martha is a very skilled professional who, in her previous positions at SUNY Downstate Medical Center served as the Director of Community Relations in the Office of Institutional Advancement as well as Director of Media Relations. Since joining the staff in 1977, Martha has been instrumental in educating elected officials about the needs of the medical community as well as serving as a liaison to the community and its leadership. I have known Martha for a number of years, and I know personally the level of her commitment to insuring that all people have access to quality health care. In her new position, she will continue to serve as the government relations manager in addition to advising the institution on legislative issues ranging from health care to education. Prior to joining SUNY Downstate, Ms. Thomas was a Michelle Clarke Fellow at Columbia University and a television reporter at Two Florida stations: WCTV in Tallahassee and WJXT in Jacksonville. She is also a playwright whose work has been produced on Manhattan's Theater Row and in Brooklyn, Harlem, Phoenix, Arizona and Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Martha is the mother of two. Her son Eric is a teacher in Trenton, New Jersey, and her daughter, Dr. Cheryl Thomas is a graduate of Downstate's College of Medicine who practices in New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Central Brooklyn's Martha Thomas as a Point-of-Light for all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, during the 106th Congress, the following statement was submitted for entry into the Record but was inadvertently lost. It is imperative that I re-submit this tribute to an outstanding American Point-of-Light. Herb Yassky: A Point-of-Light for All Americans Herb Yassky sometimes seems to be climbing perpetually uphill with his efforts to bring medical supplies and equipment to Haiti and other underdeveloped countries. The problems multiply and the disappointments mushroom but Herb toils on in his almost singlehanded effort. He refuses to surrender when a container of hospital supplies is stuck on the docks of Port-au-Prince because there is no money to pay for transportation and the added cost of storage. Because he is quietly stubborn and intensely compassionate about his mission, Herb finds a way to deliver his vitally needed goods. In his spare time, as a volunteer, Herb has sent more than fourteen forty-foot containers of supplies to not-for- profit institutions overseas. This represents just one of many causes in the mosaic of Herb Yassky's Lifetime Struggle and Achievement. A New Yorker by birth, Herb Yassky attended Stuyvesant High School, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from New York University, studied Business Administration at Columbia University and became an executive in the electronics industry. He has served on the Board of the Shorefront YM- YWHA, the Board of Brooklyn Jewish Hospital and many civic organizations. Presently he serves as a Trustee of the Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center and as President of the Rutland Nursing Home. Joining him in his generous contributions to the community is his wife, Paula. Moved by the plight of poverty in Haiti, as well as other third world nations, Mr. Yassky founded ``Medical Aid for Haiti'' and for years worked closely with the New York Consul General, Phillipe Wilson Desir. The two of them teamed up for radio and television programs to make the public aware of the vital need for help in Haiti. Herb Yassky presently serves as Chairman of the 11th Congressional District Health Care Advisory Committee where he works with Congressman Owens to expand his quest for adequate health care for all. Under Herb's leadership the hospitals of the Central Brooklyn Medical Complex-Kingsbrook, Kingsboro, Kings County, Brookdale and SUNY Downstate Medical Center have collectively become an important developable site in the Brooklyn Federal Empowerment Zone Plan. With Owens, Herb shares the dream of a Clarkson Avenue area where the threat of homeless shelters and detention centers will cease to exist because all available space is occupied by health care related organizations. Facilities for computer related health occupations training; a high school for health care careers; a medical supply shopping mall; offices for doctors and therapists; these are a few of the dreams that may be turned into brick and mortar realities. Yassky is an advocate and a planner who attends to the details and makes great things happen. Because he is a tireless Champion for Health Care and Human Life, the people of Central Brooklyn are proud to salute Herb Yassky for his Lifetime Struggle and Achievement.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we respectfully regret the decision of our colleague from Florida, Carrie Meek, to bid us all farewell at the end of this 107th Congress. Carrie Meek is a unique and tantalizing politician and public servant who came to this body with a wealth of experience and a reservoir of intense dedication. There will be numerous serious tributes paid to this departing member whose spirit will linger long after she returns home. In a serious but lighthearted RAP poem below, I offer my fond sketch of ``Hurricane Carrie'': Miami Hurricane Wonder Miami Carrie Is a hurricane wonder-- Thunder and lightning On an electric chain, Admirers line up For one sip of her magic rain; She can flood you with sweetness Or drown you in pain. In precious flesh tightly wrapped Hot spices and pepper together trapped. She initiates no seductive action But is still a startling attraction; In politics or life Will nurse you through strife; Do your duty And she'll permit you to stay, Try a cheap trick And she'll blow you away, Renege on a deal She'll refuse any appeal. Miami Carrie Is a hurricane wonder Before her lightning strikes She will warn you with thunder.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, if we had the opportunity to vote on the decision, our colleague from North Carolina, Eva Clayton, would be denied the right to retire at this time. In the coming Democratically controlled House of Representatives, her leadership abilities will be missed more than ever. Eva Clayton is the model of the quiet but effective power broker. In the very beginning she was elected president of her Freshman class; at the conclusion of her career in Washington, she served as the Chair of the Board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Before the more serious retirement tributes begin, I would like to offer this serious but lighthearted sketch of Eva Clayton through the RAP poem below: City Girl Clayton City girl With a kind country soul, Chameleon Lady Eva For any royal role. Lips leak logic always cool Anger at injustice From a deep volcanic pool; North Carolina Style Magnetism reaching a mile Kidnaps with a Southern smile; Lady spider for ambitious flies She can paralyze just with her eyes. City Girl dresses Always in sophisticated fashion Practices methods To check eager passion; Stingy with her caresses Continuously she assesses Steps over any messes; She can strut through a downpour And never get wet, Top prizes race into her net-- Power is her pet. City Girl With a kind country soul Chameleon Lady Eva For any royal role.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay a special tribute to Michele Mills, a Flight Attendant who was also a distinguished community leader and friend who's life was cut short by the American Airlines crash in Rockaway, New York which occurred only a few weeks after the September 11th tragedy. As we approach the one-year anniversary of her passing, I would like to pause for a moment to remember her and salute her as a Great Point-of-Light for All Americans. The bird is one of God's creatures. When it is ill or near death, the bird does not fly. She prepares for death on the ground. The airplane is one of man's creations; sometimes we know when there is illness or decay and many times we do not. We say that flying is safer than driving a car, and, in our arrogant confidence, we fly our airplanes as long as we possibly can. After all, imitating God is expensive and we want to get every dollar's worth of flying time from our creations. Thus, tragedies such as the end of American Airlines Flight 587 herald the immediate need for inspections, new regulations and equipment modifications. It is the human way, not God's way. Our Lord is always with us. But who, besides our Lord, is on every flight worldwide to guide the plane, to make the passengers comfortable or to rescue them if the need arises? The valiant crews who love their jobs and do them well. And particularly now, in the aftermath of terrorist attacks where planes and innocent lives were used as weapons of destruction, these flight attendants and pilots have a greater burden thrust upon them as a jittery nation struggles to come to terms with flying again. And, for the most part, they have been wonderful healers for our nation. Day in and day out, these unsung heroes face the same risks as their charges and they serve us all very well. One of these unsung heroes is our friend, sister, daughter, and constituent Michele Mills. Michele Mills was born to Priscilla and Eugene Mills on June 4, 1955 in St. Mary's Hospital of Brooklyn, New York. Michele remained a proud resident of the Brooklyn communities for many years--from both Red Hook and Crown Heights. Michele graduated Franklin D. Roosevelt High School in 1973. She furthered her education at Fashion Institute of Technology and majored in merchandising/buying. She was encouraged to pursue a career in the airline industry by her sister, Tricia. She began this career with Overseas National Airlines. Michele joined American Airlines in May, 1978, and completed 23 years of service. She always kept her priorities in order: God, Family, Work and Hobbies. She realized God's presence in her life at a very early age and joined Brownsville Community Baptist Church, where she served as a faithful member. She was a very spiritual person who routinely began her day with meditation and spiritual readings. Michele's family and friends were an extremely important element in her life. Her home was a gathering place for festive family occasions. She took great pleasure in preparing gourmet meals and sharing the serenity and peaceful comforts of her home. Her jovial, playful, and light-hearted nature readily endeared most any ``strangers'' to her. She was a ``communicator'' in the truest sense. Michele was an avid reader, a gourmet cook, an interior decorator and a thrifty shopper. She was rarely seen at work or around the house without her ``book of the week,'' nearby. She became well-known by her JFK co-workers, family and friends for her famous, ``Michele's Fried Chicken.'' Every aspect of her life was orderly; and her attire was always impeccable. She took little to nothing for granted. Michele was called home while in the line of duty on Monday, November 12, 2001. Her memories will be cherished by her parents, Priscilla and Eugene Mills; her siblings, Tricia and Kenneth Mills; her fiancee, Henry Ray; two uncles: Bob Mills of Edison, New Jersey and Freddie Holmes of Columbia, South Carolina; five aunts, Albertha Bell of Brooklyn, New York, Dezel Mallory of North Carolina, Doris Mills of Edison, New Jersey, Lysine Holmes of South Carolina, Irene Holmes of Brooklyn, New York, a great aunt, Lucille Wilkins of Brooklyn, New York, one god-daughter, Stephanie Holmes of Brooklyn, and a host of cousins and friends throughout the United States. Thousands of passengers and friends who knew Michele Mills will never forget her. In her special way, she was a Great American Point-of- Light.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this alternative offers a nonviolent and diplomatic way to wage the peace. We should be serious about this process of waging the peace with U.N. inspections. We should not take a bargain basement approach to U.N. inspections. We are willing to talk casually about spending billions of dollars for war. Let us spend what we need to have these U.N. inspections be credible. I refer my colleagues to Nightline of last night, Wednesday, October 9, where the inspection process was presented in a way which ridiculed it and showed that a handful of inspectors, scientists and college professors were bullied and harassed and we sent the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein about inspections. Let us have inspections, let us pursue the diplomatic and the nonviolent alternative with the same vigor and seriousness that we will pursue a violent alternative. Let us have full administrative support, full logistical support, transportation, everything the inspectors need to go in and conduct large numbers of inspections all over Iraq at the same time and have a chain of command that goes right to the Security Council.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably absent and missed rollcall votes No. 442, No. 443 and No. 444. If present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this resolution which seeks to stampede the Congress into granting the powers for unilateral declaration of war on Iraq. Aggressive action against terrorists is needed, but we should not damage our own capability to wage the broader war against terrorism by succumbing to an all-consuming tunnel vision action on Iraq. Certainly, all Members of Congress recognize that we are living in a time of new dangers and new kinds of unique risk. The Cold War era, with its possibilities of nuclear annihilation restrained only by threats of mutual destruction, was also a time of great danger. We did not succumb to panic and hysteria during the Cold War; we should not succumb now. Our present recognition, our new awakening to the possible lethal potency of terrorist tactics perpetrated by hidden worldwide terrorist organizations is the new national defense reality. The massacre at the World Trade Center on September 11 has seared the reality of this new danger into our minds. This is a debate about how our great democracy will coexist with this new set of challenging dangers. It is about how we will cope with a new set of recognized risks. I contend that this administration has made the wrong analysis and has set the wrong priorities. President Bush mistakenly proposes that the obliteration of the capacity of Iraq to deliver biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons must be at the center of our strategy for national security and safety. In particular, the President proposes that we go to war to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. The assumption, which is certainly correct, is that, through Iraq, terrorists would have access to nuclear weapons. It is absolutely necessary that we do all that we can to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. In connection with this overwhelming need to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, Mr. Speaker, to the President and to all advocates of the invasion of Iraq, I would ask one simple question: Do you all realize that the simplest route for terrorists to gain access to nuclear weapons is through the takeover of our embattled and endangered Islamic ally, the Nation of Pakistan, which already at this moment has nuclear weapons? Al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists are already on the borders and inside Pakistan. This Muslim Nation is our most vital ally in our fight against terrorism, but Pakistan is an endangered ally. Each $1 spent to strengthen the friendly government of Pakistan, whether it is for economic development or education or whatever, each dollar would produce more safety and more security for America than $1 million spent invading Iraq. Mr. Speaker, my contention is that our present all-consuming focus on Iraq is a major blunder. I repeat my common-sense observation: Iraq may acquire nuclear weapons within a year, but a successful terrorist coup in Pakistan would place nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists immediately. Saddam Hussein, the monster who pays bonuses to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, is truly one of the most dangerous tyrants in the world. All that has been said and charged against Saddam Hussein on this floor are true charges, and he must be contained. But blind obsession with Iraq represents dangerous American policy and strategy tunnel vision. Wake up, FBI, CIA, colleagues here in the Congress. Wake up and understand that the war on terrorism must remain a comprehensive war. If we are sucked into the bottomless pit of a war with Iraq, we will be unprepared and shocked by calamities that rain down on us from other theaters of conflict. Our cocksure experts have already blundered and allowed the leadership of al Qaeda to escape in Afghanistan. I challenge these same experts in their assignment of maximum priority to an invasion of Iraq. Protecting nuclear capabilities of friendly Pakistan from terrorists should be a greater priority. We must not remain silent and compliant. We must understand that it is important that we fight terrorism, the wider war against terrorism, and it must be fought more effectively and not jeopardized by a focus on Iraq. Vote ``no'' on the resolution to declare war on Iraq.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleagues who provided the review of the irresponsibility of the Republican majority toward the economy and my previous speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio, in terms of her spirit of indignation expressed about cavalier attitudes towards war. I think the subject that I want to talk about tonight, the lady that I want to talk about, the Congresswoman I want to talk about tonight, would very much approve of what our previous colleagues have done here already tonight. I want to talk about Congresswoman Patsy Mink, who recently passed away in Hawaii. Patsy Mink is known for many things, but I know her as a Patsy Mink who was filled with righteous indignation and anger against injustice, and my colleagues have presented tonight very intelligent presentations, well-documented presentations, but that will get all the time. I think I heard in their voices also some outrage. They were upset. They were angry about the irresponsibility of the Republican majority, and that we have all too little of here in this Congress, all too little righteous indignation and anger. We are going to miss Patsy Mink because she was a lady with great righteous indignation against injustice. She was angry at the kind of callous approach to human welfare that was exhibited too many times on the floor of this Congress. Yesterday we had a resolution on Patsy Mink, and many people spoke. I was not able to speak, but I did submit for the Record a tribute to Congresswoman Patsy Mink, and I would like to start with that tribute and make comments on it. The tribute, of course, is in its entirety in the Record, Tuesday, October 1. In Tuesday's Record this appears in its entirety, but I would like to repeat it and comment as I go, because I heard my colleagues yesterday talk about Patsy in many ways. Most of the references were personal. I would like to focus primarily tonight on Patsy Mink as a policy manager, Patsy Mink as a champion of the poor, Patsy Mink as a champion of women, Patsy Mink who could be very intense, although she always was polite and warm, and lots of people talked about that yesterday. Patsy Mink will be remembered with a broad array of accolades. She was a warm, compassionate colleague. She was civil and generous, even to the opponents who angered her the most. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, which when Patsy Mink first came to Congress was called the Committee on Education and Labor, as a member of that committee, in any long markup, and we could have some long markups, we always knew that Patsy would try out macadamia nuts to supply for all of us to refresh myself, and she would share my macadamia with everybody, those who were opponents as well as those who were allies. I remember her chiding me, joking with me when I talked about how much I loved macadamia nuts. I was a macadamia nut junkie, but I said to her, Do not bring any more because I am on a diet, and these things certainly do not help anybody's diet. The next time she came with macadamia nuts, they were chocolate-covered macadamia nuts, and they are even more delicious than regular macadamia nuts and greater calories. But that was the kind of person she was. She was quite warm, cared very much about everybody, but she could be angry. She could be a peace of chain lightning. For me, she will be remembered as my friend, mentor and my personal whip on the floor. Often at the door of a House Chamber, Patsy would meet me with instructions. ``We,'' she said, ``are voting no,'' or, ``We are voting yes on this one.'' I did not consider that to be intimidation at all. I considered it always an honor to have been invited to function as an ideological twin to Patsy Mink. She was not telling me or instructing me. She was making assumptions about how we would be together in our analysis of the problem, our conclusions about what to do with respect to voting. That was a great honor, and I am going to miss that. In the Committee on Education and the Workforce, as well as on the House floor, I was always inspired by Patsy's convictions. She was always an independent spirit, and she pursued her causes with total dedication. She was not just another advocate for education or for women or for jobs for welfare mothers, not just another one. Patsy Mink was a special advocate. She was forever a fiery and intense advocate on these issues. She frequently exuded an old-fashioned righteous indignation that seems to have become extinct in the halls of Congress. For Patsy, there were the right policies and laws which she pushed with all the zeal she could muster, and there were the wrong-headed, hypocritical, selfish and evil policies which had to be confronted, and they had to be engaged to the bitter end. When colleagues spoke about partisan compromise negotiations, Patsy would quickly warn Democrats to beware of an ambush or a trap. I think Patsy in her encyclopedic approach to her mission, encyclopedic concern about anything that affected human beings, would have very much appreciated the presentation by my colleagues before the 1-hour presentation on the economy. On the Committee on Education and Labor where Patsy served and I have served for the 20 years that I have been here in Congress, we used to have hearings and testimony from economists, because this committee was charged and is still charged with overall responsibility with respect to the economy as it impacts on working families and working men and women, and as the human resources interact with the other factors in our economy. So we used to have many economists come, and our approach was certainly not a tunnel-vision approach. She would have been concerned and has been concerned all year long about the fact that the economy has been deteriorating, the fact that unemployment is increasing. The unemployment rate averaged 4.1 percent in the year 2000 and reached a 30-year low of 3.9 percent in October of 2000; but today the unemployment rate has increased to 5.7 percent nationwide. We have presently 8.1 million unemployed Americans, an increase of 2.5 million compared to the year 2000. The number of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment over 27 weeks has almost doubled in the last year. Some of this my colleagues heard from my previous colleagues who spoke on the economy. I think this is summarized very well by my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform. Job creation has reversed. In the year 2000, the year before President Bush took office, the economy created 1.7 million new jobs. This trend has been reversed, and the economy has lost almost 1.5 million jobs since President Bush took office in January 2001. Poverty is increasing. After decreasing for 8 straight years, decreasing for 8 straight years and reaching its lowest level in 25 years, the poverty rate increased from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2001. In the first year of the Bush administration, 1.3 million Americans slipped back into poverty, with a total of 32.9 million Americans living in poverty in 2001. Incomes are falling. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are filing for bankruptcy. Mortgage foreclosures are at a record high. The Federal budget deficit is increasing. In 2000, the year before President Bush took office, the Federal budget, excluding Social Security, showed a surplus of $86.6 billion. The most recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that for 2002 the Federal budget excluding Social Security will show a deficit of $314 billion. This represents the largest budget decline in U.S. history, and it is the third largest on-budget deficit in history, exceeded in size only by the deficits of 1991 and 1992 under the first President Bush. I think Patsy Mink would be, has shown all year long, that she is very concerned about all of these matters. Patsy Mink, in the 107th Congress, was one of the great spirits continually pushing to get more activists going in response to the decline of the economy. Patsy was a policymaker. Patsy should be remembered as a policymaker, as a fighter. Whatever else we remember about her as an individual, we should not trivialize her role in the dynamics here in the Congress with respect to making policy. Her profound wisdom on all matters related to education in particular and matters relating to human resources, whether it was job training or occupational health and safety, whatever matters relating to human resources, she had a profound wisdom about that because she had been here for quite a long time. Her long years of service on the Committee on Education and Labor, which later became the Committee on Education and the Workforce, afforded her that kind of wisdom. Too many of us in the Congress have forgotten the value of institutional memory. While the House is filled with Members who speak as experts on education, Patsy Mink was among the few who had hard- earned credentials with respect to education. She was a part of the development and the nurturing of title I to the point where it has become the cornerstone of Federal education reform. She was here during the Great Society program creation. She served with Adam Clayton Powell and Lyndon Johnson in the years that they passed more social legislation than has ever been passed in Congress. Title IX was a landmark reform to end the gender gap in our educational institutions, in school athletics; but also many other aspects of higher education. Title IX belongs to Patsy. She conceived it decades ago, and she had to fight all the way to the President. Even recently, in this 107th Congress, there were skirmishes seeking to cut back on the funding for title IX. Title IX was passed in 1972, but right up until recently, the grumbling and the attempts to undercut have persisted. I will talk more in greater detail about some of the things that have happened along the way as Patsy was forced to fight to keep title IX. As I said, she had an encyclopedic approach. She was involved in many issues. There were certain issues she would focus on tenaciously. And because she focused on them, she was prepared to defend them, and she very effectively saved many of these programs from the jaws of those who would roll back progress. Title IX, like many other Federal policies and programs, was considered to be impossible, something else we could not afford. We could not afford to have equality in our education activities for women. That would be a burden on our higher education institutions. That would be a burden on higher education athletics, college athletics, or school athletics. Always those who want to conscript and limit the opportunities for a class of people insist that it is not doable. Social Security originally was attacked. We know we did not get a single Republican vote when Social Security was implemented and passed. Social Security was attacked as something that would wreck the economy. The minimum wage was attacked. The minimum wage provision was attacked as another item that would wreck the economy. Always reasons are found to stop the spreading of the benefits of our great American democracy and our great economy to all. They particularly hold on with respect to matters relating to women. We are way, way behind, even in liberal America, liberal and progressive America. We are still way behind in recognizing full unfettered rights for all women. There is no more category of human being more oppressed in the world than women. If you want to look at numbers, the greatest number of people oppressed throughout the world are women. In all societies, just about, there is oppression. In societies that suffer from racial prejudice, an oppression because of race, or in others who suffer as a result of colonialism, and all those societies where everybody might suffer, the women still suffer most of all because of male dominance. Male chauvinism seems to hold on. It seems to be institutionalized in certain religions. And when we liberate women finally, we will have arrived as a civilization. But there is a great need to have the fullest possible liberation for women in America. We are more advanced in this respect than probably any society. The mountaintop is in view, and we should certainly go on to make certain that all of the pathways are cleared so that women and men are clearly equal in one society in the world, that is the American society, and that this will spread first in the Western world and on and on and break down any shibboleth that may remain in terms of religions that insist that women are inferior and women do not deserve complete equality with men. Patsy was an advocate for total equality for women, and that is quite appropriate. Her spirit will be missed. We should remember Patsy as an advocate for women. She was the coauthor of title IX of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits sex discrimination in all education institutions receiving Federal funds. This law, which Patsy cited as one of her greatest accomplishments, has had a dramatic impact in opening up opportunities for girls and women in the professions and most visibly in athletics. In 1970, before the passage of title IX, only 8.4 percent of medical degrees were awarded to women. By 1980, this figure had increased to 23.4 percent. By 1997, women were earning 41 percent of medical degrees. So in addition to athletics, in an area like medicine, Patsy's title IX opened the way for women. I think her colleague, Senator Akaka, in honoring Patsy, was able to bring some light on her personal travails as a woman. Patsy wanted to be a doctor. She applied for medical school after studying zoology and chemistry at the University of Hawaii. She applied in 1948 to a medical school there, but she was rejected, along with other bright young women who were aspiring to be doctors at a time when women made up only 2 to 3 percent of the entering class. Patsy went on to apply to a law school instead. She gained admission to the University of Chicago. It was during her years at the University of Chicago that she met and married her husband. Patsy returned to Hawaii and gained admission to the Hawaii bar in 1953. But as a woman, even then, she had difficulty, because it was said that her husband was a native of Pennsylvania, and a woman had to gain her bar admission in the area where her husband lived. She challenged that piece of sexism and she won. She was admitted to the Hawaii bar, and she became the first Japanese American woman to become a member of the bar in Hawaii. In 1965, Patsy brought her views to the national stage when she became the first woman of color elected to the United States House of Representatives to represent Hawaii's Second Congressional District. 1965. You can see that she was here during the time when Lyndon Johnson put forth his Great Society programs, and she was a colleague of Adam Clayton Powell as each one of those measures came through the Committee on Education and Labor on its way to the floor of the House to be passed successfully by a Democratically controlled Congress and Senate. So the institutional memory, the institutional achievements of Patsy Mink ought to be remembered as part of the record. She is a role model that the present Members of Congress should look up to. She is a role model that should be held up to future Members of Congress. We need role models that go beyond the fact that we are all very intelligent men and women who come to this Congress. You will not find a single person elected to Congress who is not intelligent. You do not get here unless you are very intelligent. Most of us have extensive formal education. Most of the Members of Congress are college graduates. Many are people who have gone beyond college and have professional degrees. So intelligence is not a problem here. If intelligence were the kind of cleansing overall virtue that I once believed it was when I was in high school and college, that intelligent people always do the right thing, intelligent people understand the world, they understand what is right, and they do what is right. Intelligence does not automatically lead to correct and appropriate, democratic, generous, progressive, and charitable behavior. So intelligence is not the problem here in this Congress. The quality that is missing here is indignation, righteous indignation, dedication to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. And if they are all created equal, they all have a right to share in the prosperity and the benefits of this great country. We have to make a way for them to do that, even if they are people who are very poor and at one time or another have to go on welfare. At one time or another they have to be the recipients of the safety net benefits of our Nation. We have safety net beneficiaries who are rich farmers, yet we never are critical of them. But we have safety net beneficiaries who are welfare mothers, mothers of children; and you do not become a woman on welfare unless you have children. It is Aid to Families With Dependent Children. So welfare women, who we refer to, are really mothers of children who are covered by the law Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In this Congress, Patsy declared war on the oppressors of welfare women. It was a lonely army that she led. A very tiny platoon, I would say, that she led as she made war on the oppressors of welfare women. No one was more incensed and outraged than the Member from Hawaii when the so-called welfare reform program of President Bush threatened greater burdens and smaller subsidies for welfare recipients. Patsy came to me often and said we must fight this, we must do something, we must not allow this to happen. We must point out the fact that welfare benefits have been greatly reduced in most of the States. We must point out the fact that in the model State of Wisconsin, the State where the Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Governor Thompson presided, they have reduced the welfare benefits for a family of three to less than $300 a month; and they are praising him for having made that reduction. That is wonderful; that a welfare family of three only gets less than $300 a month. That same Governor Thompson had transferred welfare money that would have gone to welfare beneficiaries to other functions in State government. Maybe he had a few other cronies he wanted to employ, maybe he gave a few more State banquets, who knows where the money went; but the Federal money that was meant to go to welfare beneficiaries, the law allowed him, if he saved it by curtailing the benefits for welfare families, then he could use it in other ways. No one was more incensed and outraged by that kind of activity than Patsy Mink. Patsy said, we must do something. The Democrats are going to be rubber stamps to the Republican proposals. The Democrats are going to be rubber stamps to President Bush's proposals. Patsy Mink came forward, and we had made many proposals. We fought the greater burdens and smaller subsidies for welfare recipients. All of Patsy's proposals in the House were voted down. We did not pass anything at all. But I admire and will always praise Patsy Mink for leading the fight which stirred up the long-dormant conscience among Democrats. Democrats did come to the floor with an alternative bill. We did produce a fight on the floor. We did have a debate on the floor. We offered an alternative. We set the stage for what happened after the bill left this House and went to the other body. We would like to believe that the fact that deliberations on this very important matter, welfare reform, continues and is stalled because we fought valiantly under the leadership of Patsy Mink, and that fight still goes on as a result of the record. We united behind Patsy. We were voted down, but we were together. As I said before, Patsy Mink is a role model for what needs to happen in this House. Some Members of Congress focus on housing issues. Some focus on transportation issues. Some focus on health issues. Whatever the issue, they need to bring to it the kind of indignation and determination that Patsy brought to the issues she cared about. She cared about education and welfare mothers. Nobody knew better than Patsy about the correlation between poverty and poor performance in education. She had many poor people in the rural parts of her district, and Patsy Mink understood the correlation. There is a correlation between poor performance, and the ability of students to take full advantage of the educational opportunities offered, and poverty. Poverty and education should not be discussed separately, they should be discussed together. What we do to welfare families hurts education. When a welfare family has their budget curtailed to the point where children go to school hungry, and the best meal they get is the school free lunch because supper is not going to be adequate, breakfast is not adequate, and at some schools we have begun to provide breakfast because of that, why not provide higher benefits and substitutes for the families so the children who are going to school get over that first hurdle and they come to school prepared to learn because they have a wholesome environment at home. We had on the floor today several resolutions which attempted to force the issue. Again, I think Patsy Mink would have been very pleased with what happened this afternoon in the regular session. We had four resolutions which showed some outrage, some indignation. We want to force the issue. We do not want to bide time here in this Congress the way that the Republican majority has decided we should. We do not want to just be here and not deal with the issues. I would hate to read history 50 years from now and hear how the historians analyzed what happened to the great America; that at its apex when it was most powerful, most prosperous, the leader of the entire world, the only remaining superpower sat around and, like Nero, fiddled while Rome was burning. There are so many issues related to the changing patterns of the weather, the climate, so many things that reach beyond our economy; and, of course, the ongoing fight against terrorism. That is no less an issue, but we have to chew gum and walk, sing, dance and do a lot of things at the same time, and we are letting most of our resources, the tremendous brain power of the Congress lies fallow, unutilized. There is tremendous brain power and energy. The Congress is not being utilized because, for political reasons, somebody has decided that it is best for us to tread water and do nothing. My colleagues in the Democrat Party, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), they offered resolutions saying let us do something. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) offered a resolution relating to family farmers and bankruptcy. Be it resolved that the House of Representatives should call up for consideration H.R. 5348, the Family Farmers and Family Fishermen Protection Act of 2002, which will once and for all give family farmers the permanent bankruptcy protections they have been waiting for for over 5 years. Mr. Speaker, why not? We are all here. Why do we not debate an act on this vital resolution? No, the Republican majority chose to vote it down. With a motion to table, all you need is a majority of the votes, and a motion to table takes effect. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) wanted to deal with the fact that patent drugs, the drug companies are playing with patent law so they can hold on to patents longer and keep the cost of drugs higher and avoid the utilization of generic drugs. That was voted down, too. The Brown resolution attempted to call for some constructive action, but it was also voted down, but he did it, and Democrats rallied behind the gentleman overwhelmingly out of a sense of indignation. Those of us who are sick of being victimized by the majority, we are held paralyzed. We are here, but we can do nothing. At least we can vote for a resolution to call for action, and we did. But again, the majority had the most votes, and this resolution was voted down. The next resolution was by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It was a simple resolution, after all of the whereases, resolved that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Congress should provide States with the resources they need to fully implement the No Child Left Behind Act as promised less than a year ago. Less than a year ago we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. It was a bipartisan vote on final passage. I voted for it. I voted for it because of the promises that were made with respect to funding. The President said he would double Title I over a 2-year period. The President said he would provide and support the funding for the implementation for No Child Left Behind, meaning the tests, the training and the administrative costs related to that. The President said that he would support an increase in the special education funding, but he has reneged on those promises. We would like to see the resources provided by passing the Health and Human Services and the Education and related agencies appropriations. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) offered that resolution. I would like to note that Patsy Mink said No Child Left Behind was a piece of legislation that was an ambush; it was a trap. She voted against it in committee, and she voted against it on the floor of the House. And now she has been proven to be correct. We made some stringent requirements there. We placed on the backs of school systems and teachers and students a lot of new regulations and threats, provisions for monitoring tests, and now we have reneged on paying the costs of all of that, leaving it to them. In Patsy's district, she complained several months ago that the provisions of the No Child Left Behind were beginning to upset parents because there are provisions that say if your individual school is failing in terms of the achievements of the students in reading and math, if it is failing, then you have a right to go to another school, transfer to another public school. Well, just about all of the schools in a certain area of her district are failing, and the parents are frustrated because they want to use that right, but in order to go to another school, they would have to have air transportation. The island is constructed such that the only way they can get to a school that is better than the schools in that locale would be to have planes to transport them. The cost of transportation is so prohibitive that the law has no meaning for them. She was angry because they were angry at her, but they have been stirred up by the promise that was offered by the No Child Left Behind legislation. I think that the next resolution that was offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, was in the same vein, concerned about the fact that we have reneged on the promises of the legislation that we all voted for, most of us voted for, in a bipartisan compromise. Patsy did not vote for it. She said we would regret the compromise, and now we are living to regret it. The Obey resolution was, resolved that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Congress should complete action on the fiscal year 2003 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and related agencies appropriation before recessing, and should fund the No Child Left Behind Act with levels commensurate with the levels promised by the act less than a year ago. Mr. Speaker, we are here. We should act now. Why have we defaulted on action to the point where there is a discussion of nothing significant is going to happen until after the election. Nothing significant is going to be done about any appropriations issues until after the election. That is a swindle. We owe it to the American people to take action on critical activities and demonstrate what we are made of. Let us have a record. Let us go forward and not play with the public opinion polls where we know that the great majority of the American people rank education as a major issue. Education is ranked as a major issue, and, therefore, we pay lip service to education, but we do not want to really doing anything. The indignation shown by these resolutions, the attempt to force some action or at least to dramatize it, the mobilization of one party to make certain that this issue was on the floor I think Patsy Mink would be quite proud of. Patsy was always concerned about the fact that education was so highly publicized by both parties. Patsy was concerned about the fact that there barriers put up about education costing too much, although in America we are only spending in terms of Federal funds, we only pick up 7 percent of the cost of education. There is a continued drumbeat that education costs too much. The Federal Government should not be more involved in education. Our answer was, what activity is it that the American government is involved in that does not need education as more than a footnote? Education is a force in whatever activity we are engaged in and, therefore, what fools we are to continue to ignore education when we talk about critical issues. The Homeland Security Act, for example, the creation of a homeland security agency does not talk in any significant way about the role that education will play. The Education Department is barely mentioned. Yet the Homeland Security Act is a complex mechanism which will not work unless it has very educated people. It will not work unless it has cadres of people who are well trained in various ways. Homeland security will not work unless we train tremendous numbers of people in the cleanup of anthrax or the cleanup of biological warfare materials. We are preparing for that. We are discussing each day how we have enough vaccine to vaccinate our whole population in 10 days. There are a number of things happening, but we are not discussing who is going to do it. Where are the people who will give the vaccinations? We have a shortage of nurses. We have a shortage of basic technicians in our hospitals. We certainly cannot deal with complicated biological warfare as exhibited by the way we handled the anthrax emergency here in Washington. What happened in the anthrax emergency here in Washington? I will not go through the whole scenario, but Congress was threatened and the focus of attention of all the experts was on Congress. The post office, on the other hand, where the anthrax had to come through, was ignored. Even when they discovered that there was anthrax in the post office, all of the personnel were still focused here, all the expertise. So we had two people die here in Washington. They were postal employees, postmen, who died, because we did not have enough personnel to do the total job and the total job was not really of epic proportions. The anthrax attack, whoever did it, they still do not know who did it, of course, it was small in comparison to what terrorists could do. I fear anthrax more than I fear nuclear weapons. After watching what happened here in Washington, after having been locked out of my office for several weeks, even now we have to irradiate our mail, after watching it take 4 months to clean up the anthrax in one building, Senate building; and the experts, the hygienists who handle anthrax, whoever the experts were, were so limited, the technicians so limited till they only focused on the Senate building. There were not enough to go around. We could not deal with the post office. We still have not dealt with the cleanup of post offices the way we should. So we have a shortage of people who can deal with anthrax; and that is a clear and present threat, or something similar to anthrax. But in the Homeland Security Act, there is no provision for the training of more people in this area. There is no provision for dealing with the fact that we have a shortage of nurses. Who is going to do all these vaccinations in case we have an epidemic as a result of a biological attack? We have shortages of people who are going into police departments. We have shortages in fire departments in big cities like New York, for example. They are working madly to recruit people to replace the numerous firemen who lost their lives, but in general there has been an attrition over the years of applicants in terms of these agencies. Many of these positions do not require a Ph.D., graduate education; but they do require some education. Getting people to pass a basic test involving literacy and simple calculations, getting graduates of our schools who can pass those simple requirements has become a big problem. We need to invest whatever is necessary if we are serious about homeland security, or if we are serious about fighting terrorism. One of the factors that keeps coming up is the very embarrassing fact that we had a lot of data collected. Many of the facts that had been assembled by our reconnaissance agencies, by our satellites in the sky, picking up electronic communications, many of those items were there which told things that would have been very useful in counteracting what happened on September 11; but we did not have Arab translators. We did not have enough translators. I have said here on the floor many times, that is inexcusable, that there were not enough Arab translators to stay current with the great amount of data that was being collected from Arab sources. Arabs have been terrorists for quite a long time. Since Ronald Reagan's reign when they bombed the barracks in Beirut and killed 200 Marines, on and on, every major act of terrorism, sabotage, Arabs have done it. So surely Arabs should have been high on the radar screen and the number of people who interpret Arabic should have been great. But it is not there. I heard advertising on the radio and television in New York a couple of months after September 11 advertising for people who might want to be Arab interpreters. On and on it could go, including the fact that in the field in Afghanistan, where our troops have been victorious and conducted a high-tech war in a very effective way, nevertheless, the casualties, if you look at the casualties that we have suffered, the majority of them have been from friendly fire as a result of human error. We have suffered casualties ourselves as a result of human error and friendly fire. We have had a couple of embarrassing incidents with respect to the Canadians and with respect to some tribal groups as a result of human error. So as war becomes more high tech, education becomes an even more important factor. There is a recognition in the military world of the value of education. I would like to juxtapose the fact that they place a great deal of value on education on specific things related to the military while at the same time ignoring the greater funnel, the mass education that has to funnel people into the military. For example, we have quite a number of military academies beyond West Point. Most people only think of West Point, the Navy at Annapolis, the Air Force Academy; but we also have an Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National War College, Army War College, Naval War College, Naval Post Graduate School, Air War College, Air Force Institute of Technology graduate school and long-term training arrangements and continued service arrangements which allow members of the military to go to graduate schools anywhere when needed. There is a great deal of understanding in the military of the value of education. Their personnel are constantly being put through a process of improving their education. The military is not afraid to spend money, also. It costs money to educate youngsters in this day and age. I hear complaints that education costs too much, that when I was a kid we were only paying teachers so much and school costs were at very low levels per child, but now teacher salaries are too high, and we want computers. That is the way of the modern world. When World War II started, we only had four or five vehicles in the Federal arsenal of transportation. Roosevelt had a car and four or five other Cabinet members. We were at that stage. Now we have a whole fleet of cars. We have a fleet of planes. The world has changed. If it has changed in every other respect, then surely it has changed in respect to education. But we do not recognize that when it comes to education. We do not look at the fact that our military academies are spending tremendous amounts of money. I have only got figures for way back in 1990. They do not let you have current figures. In 1990 we were spending tremendous amounts of money for the Army academy, which is West Point; Naval Academy, et cetera. But more important than what they were spending overall, which is hard to deal with, as of 1996, the budget office study showed again with 1990 figures, that the amount of money being spent per officer, that is where we can make some comparison. They say right now at Harvard and Yale, Ivy League schools may cost you between $40,000 and $50,000 per student per year now. In 1990, the cost per officer commissioned in the Army was $299,000. $299,000 per officer commissioned. In the Navy it was $197,000 per officer commissioned. In the Air Force, $279,000 per officer commissioned. We are willing to spend tremendous amounts of money when it involves personnel serving the military directly. If we are willing to spend $299,000 per officer commissioned, surely we can spend more than $8,000 per child in the New York City school system and understand that modern costs are such that $8,000 per child is not going to get you very much in terms of what is needed in this day and age. I checked before Ron Dellums left as the head of the Armed Services Committee. I did get some figures which showed that the cost at that time, I think that was about 7 or 8 years ago, was down to $120,000 per cadet at West Point, if you left out the actual cost of the military training and just the academic training. The academic training at that time was $120,000 per student while Harvard and Yale at that time were estimated to be about $30,000 in the Ivy League. So either way you can see the difference. We are willing to spend tremendous amounts of money when we think it is important. Patsy Mink and I used to talk a great deal about the great hypocrisy of American policymakers. In private schools, the cost per child is far higher than $8,000 per child, as it is in the New York City schools. $8,000 per child is what the average is in New York City, because it has so many different schools. There is a low end in my district. There are some schools where they are spending only $4,000 per child; and there is a high end where they are spending $12,000 per child because the expenditure costs are driven by the personnel costs. The greatest cost of personnel, the more experienced teachers and administrators are in certain schools in certain districts that they consider highly desirable places to be. So their salaries raise the cost per child in those districts, while the poorest schools suffer from too many substitute teachers and uncertified teachers and you have a very low cost. But what I am saying is that as a Nation, we are investing very highly in a well-qualified, well-educated military. We are blind to the fact that all the other sectors must go along. A complex, modern nation, the leader of the free world, needs to have a comparable concern about education across the board. All of these Department of Defense graduate institutions, is there a single peace initiative we have which has Federal funding for graduate institutions? Is there a single graduate institution that we know of? There is a peace institute which you can hardly find in the budget, it is so small; and it is very cautious about what it does. But there is no place where we are training diplomats. There is no plan to make certain that the greatest Nation on Earth, the last superpower, has knowledge of all the other societies on Earth. We not only have a shortage in people who can translate Arabic but in Pakistan and some other countries, they speak Urdu. In Afghanistan they speak Pashto. We have more than 3,000 colleges and universities in this Nation. If you have a plan, if the Homeland Security Act cared about really dealing with terrorism across the world, you would have a plan which showed that somewhere in America there is a college or a university that has an institute or a center which is not only learning the language, teaching the language, but also teaching the culture of any group of people anywhere on the face of the Earth. Certainly any nation in the United Nations, we should have a program which has people who are studying it. We can afford to do that. By chance we have experts probably on everything, but single people who decide they want to go off and study and are ready when we need them for these kinds of assignments, that number is decreasing. Why not have a plan which guarantees that we will always have enough people who speak Urdu to deal with increasing our friendship with Pakistan? Pakistan is a friendly Muslim Nation. Pakistan is our ally in the fight against terrorism. We need to know more about its culture and be able to deal with it. If we are going to have nation-building, that is a word that was trivial, used and ridiculed a few years ago, but now it is understood that we cannot fight terrorism without nation- building. We do not invest a large amount of energy, time, lives, effort in a nation like Afghanistan and then walk off and leave it to crumble back into the kind of primitive savagery that existed under the Taliban. If we do not stay and we do not do nation-building, we will have to do it all over again in 10 or 20 years. So nation-building is part of a process that we should have in our overall plan to fight terrorism. Homeland security, military readiness, all that, we should look at education first and foremost. The funnel which feeds everything we do has to come up through our public school system. Fifty-three million children are out there in our public school system. They could supply every expert we need, every category of technician, but they are not doing it when they come out of high school, and they can only barely read and write properly, when calculations are minimal. A large part of public school is inhabited by minorities, and one of the problems is, which Patsy and I talked about many times, as the minority population has increased in certain school systems, the big- city school systems in America, the commitment of the locality and the commitment of the State government has gone down, and we cannot get away from an observation that racism is at work in decision-making. Doing less for the schools has happened as the population has changed, but let us take a look at what that means for America in one area. In our military those same minorities who are being neglected in our public schools make up a large part of our military relative to their percentage of population. African Americans are considered by the Census Bureau to be about 13 percent of the total population. In the Army African Americans total 25.5 percent of the Army population; 480,435 people are African Americans. Hispanics are 9.3 percent. In the Navy African Americans, which are only 13 percent of the population, are 18.9 percent of the Navy. African Americans, who are only 13 percent of the population, are 16 percent of the soldiers in the Air Force. In the Marines African Americans are 18.9 percent. These same African Americans who are in the inner-city schools predominantly, the supply that goes into our military, is jeopardized if you do not provide appropriate education now. What would it be like in a few years? What is it like now? Is the quality of the soldiers declining at a time when the high-tech complexity of the military is increasing? We should take a hard look at all the various activities of our society and how they complement each other. Patsy Mink, as I said before, had an encyclopedic mind when it came to looking at human resources and looking at the various missions of a civilized society like ours should have. Patsy Mink and I have talked about the fact that it is ridiculous to have a homeland security program which allocates no significant role to the Department of Education or to the universities and colleges in America. It is sort of doomed to failure. I would like to conclude by just refocusing on one particular project or program that is identified most immediately and specifically with Patsy Mink. That is Title IX. Many women who are doctors and lawyers, who had a basically equal treatment in the university system and graduate schools, have no idea what it was like before. I think one of the women on the Supreme Court told a long story about how she was denied access to decent jobs in the law firms when she first came out of college and later denied promotions, et cetera. So there are individual stories that can be told, but the figures were outrageous before Title IX. Title IX has made a big difference, but Title IX has been fought step by step all the way. It was signed into law in 1972, and Patsy had to go to war and fight the Tower amendment in 1974. She had to fight certain other Senate amendments that were attempted by Senator Helms and S. 2146 in 1976 and 1977. On and on it goes. There have been attempts to gut Title IX. So Title IX, the welfare rights, the welfare reform, all of it was part of why I say that Patsy Mink was a role model for decisionmakers of this Congress, and she is a role model for decisionmakers in the future. Compassion and riotous indignation are still vital qualifications for the leaders of a Nation. Patsy Mink was a great leader of this great Nation.

Mr. OWENS

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

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, Patsy Mink will be remembered with a broad array of accolades. She was a warm compassionate colleague, civil and generous even to the opponents who angered her the most. For me, she will be remembered as my friend, mentor and personal whip on the floor. At the door of the House Chamber she would often meet me with instructions: ``We'' are voting No or ``We'' are voting Yes on this one. I consider it an honor to have been invited to function as an ideological twin to Patsy Mink. In the Education and Workforce Committee as well as on the House Floor, I was always inspired by Patsy's convictions. She was always an independent spirit and she pursued her causes with total dedication. She was not just another advocate for education, for women, for job training, for welfare mothers. Patsy Mink was forever a fiery and intense advocate on these issues. She frequently exuded an old- fashioned righteous indignation that seems to have become extinct. For Patsy there were the right policies and laws which she pushed with all the zeal she could muster. And there were wrongheaded, hypocritical, selfish and evil policies which had to be confronted and engaged to the bitter end. When colleagues spoke of bi-partisan compromise negotiations, Patsy would quickly warn Democrats to beware of an ambush or a trap. Her profound wisdom on all matters related to education and human resources resulted from her long years of service on the Education and Labor Committee which later became the Education and Workforce Committee. Too many of us have forgotten the value of the institutional memory. While the House is filled with members who speak as experts on education, Congresswoman Mink was among the few with hard earned credentials. She was a part of the development and nurturing of Title I to the point where it has become the cornerstone of federal education reform. Title IX as a landmark reform to end the gender gap in school athletics was conceived and defended by Patsy right up until the recent skirmish in this 107th Congress. In this Congress, Patsy also declared war on the oppressors of welfare women. No one was more incensed and outraged that the member from Hawaii when the so called welfare reform program of President Bush threatened greater burdens and smaller subsidies for welfare recipients. All of Patsy's proposals in the House were voted down. But briefly Patsy Mink stirred up a long dormant conscience among Democrats which produced a continuing debate in the Senate. That fight still goes on. Patsy Mink was a role model for decision-makers of this Congress and for the future. Compassion and righteous indignation are still vital qualifications for the leaders of a great nation. Patsy Mink was a great leader for this great nation.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has managed to move the discussion off the table and stifle any discussions of the swindles that have taken place. However, the hurt, the pain goes on with respect to what has been endured by working families and hardworking employees of corporations that swindle them out of their pension funds. To go forward with the kind of ceremonial bill that was passed in this House perpetuates that swindle. We did not do anything significant. We did not deal with the situation that exists in terms of they have lost their money and no one has offered them ways to get it back, except I must pay tribute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the AFL-CIO. Despite the fact that Enron's employees were not unionized, several other corporations were not unionized, they have gone to bat with them, and they have got a settlement with them in the bankruptcy courts for some Enron employees to get some of their money back. We had an opportunity to be able to deal with correcting what the Republican majority started when they took control. They wanted to maximize deregulation from working conditions in the shops to the way corporations handle pension funds and anything else. They wanted to give the corporate bosses all the power they could give them and they did that, but in hindsight, after seeing the debacle that had taken place, we had hoped that there would be bipartisan cooperation, and small steps like guaranteeing that there be a representative of the employees on the pension committee were voted down by the committee, and the bill that left this House did not have that, very tiny steps like requiring that any executive who sold his stock would have to notify the public right away. Use electronic notifications, that is available now, that was voted down. So we are in a ceremonial situation that should not go forward. We would like real pension reform, and I hope that we have bipartisan cooperation to get real pension reform.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. I think my colleague has made a very good comparison of Afghanistan versus Iraq. Afghanistan, versus Iraq, you might say, is a rather primitive country. It was when the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan. But the Soviet Union found after 9 years that it could not subdue the people of Afghanistan. It had to give up. It lost a lot of lives. It brought the government down in the Soviet Union, also. Iraq has far more sophistication, is far more densely populated, will be impossible to occupy. The problem is not can you wipe out Saddam Hussein, can you wipe out his Republican Guard, his immediate military machine. That could be accomplished fairly quickly. But what do you do after that? Occupying the country is where you would have to draft thousands of American men to go in there. You are talking about hundreds of thousands who would be there for a long time and who would face guerilla warfare and all kinds of menacing situations from some of the governments and populations around Iraq as well as in Iraq itself. So you have no choice after fighting the war and losing lives but to try to finish it. Whether you are talking about nation-building or just occupying the territory, either way it will drain resources and it will drain lives away for a long, long time. It is going to be no easy matter.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, how we wage peace should be the agenda priority as we close out the 107th Congress. To attack or not to attack Iraq should not be the issue which dominates the final work of this Congress. To attack or not to attack should not be the question which overwhelms the minds of America at this critical hour as we move toward very important elections on November 5. If September 11, 2001, has made the American people preoccupied with security and safety from terrorism, then let us examine all of the components and elements of a program to make our Nation more secure and more safe: Action involving Iraq, whether it is United Nations inspections or military offensive, at the conclusion of either one, we will still face major questions of security and safety from terrorism. Only serious attention to the full agenda of the Congress can accomplish our continuing mission to make this Nation secure and safe. Our Nation is most secure not when we wage war but when we mount a sustained peace offensive. We must pass laws, we must appropriate money which supports the increase of prosperity and peace. Security and safety are enhanced when we have a foreign policy and a foreign aid program which promotes peace. Our Nation's security is threatened when we conduct silly and wasteful sessions of Congress like the present session. The present session includes days like today when we voted on three resolutions. One was Recognizing the 100th Anniversary of the 4-H Youth Development Program, another was on the Sense of Congress Regarding American Gold Star Mothers, and another was Welcoming Madame Chen Wu Sue-Jen, the First Lady of Taiwan, three resolutions that got all 435 votes, three resolutions which could have been handled with a voice vote of no substance, and we have been doing this for the last 3 or 4 weeks as we close out this Congress. We need to focus on vital programs, such as senior prescription drug benefits, an increase in the minimum wage, minimum funding for school repairs, pension reform which stops corporate stealing and retrieves the millions of dollars swindled from ordinary workers. If we spend the remaining weeks and days of this Congress with a total focus on Iraq instead, we will engage in a major betrayal of our constituents. I think the Iraq question is very important. I think we cannot escape a conclusion on the matter as soon as possible. But to attack or not to attack Iraq should not be the issue which obliterates all other discussion of all other issues, all of the other issues all very much related to the question of security and safety from terrorism. We should have learned from the past the lessons of the Vietnam War and previous wars. We should understand certain important matters that need to be put back on the table. We cannot have too much discussion. People have chosen to forget that there was a Marshall Plan which waged the peace where we took the initiative against forces that were gathering after World War II, forces that would have made for chaos and a lot of conflict between nations, forces that might have paved the way for a Communist takeover of bankrupt economies in Europe; and we waged peace and we won. If we wage the peace instead of waging war at this particular time, we might find we are more secure and we are more safe from terrorism. Let us just take two examples. If we focus instead of on the nation of Iraq and the need to attack Iraq because some say it poses some kind of danger to us, and I will come back to that later, if we focus instead on Pakistan, another Muslim nation, and looked at the fact that Pakistan, the leadership there, has taken a great chance in agreeing to serve as our allies in the fight against terrorism. Instead of spending 60 billion or more dollars in a war with Iraq, why do we not spend more money to improve the democracy in Pakistan? Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has, by the most conservative estimate, 150 million people, some say 180 million people. Pakistan has already declared as our allies in the war against terrorism as they were our allies in the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, as they have been in the Cold War over the years. So why not approach the present problem with an overwhelming embrace of a Muslim nation like Pakistan; and by doing great things for Pakistan, improving the education and a number of other things, we would do far more to secure the world against Islamic fanaticism than we will by attacking Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I have gotten quite a number of letters, as most of us have, communications from various constituents; and I want to read some of those tonight as well as talk about the need to wage the peace as an answer to those who want to wage war. I want to talk a little bit about who is going to fight the war if the war has to be fought. It is the young men and women out there who need the minimum-wage increase. Wars in America have always been fought by people in the low-income brackets. They are the ones who go out and die. We ought to take care of their minimum-wage needs. We ought to take care of their needs for safe places to work in. We ought to deal with the corporate empires that have been cheating them out of their pension funds. We ought to deal with the fact that many of our veterans are now suffering greatly because they do not have adequate health care. And among the items they need is some help with their prescription drugs. I am going to come back to that and talk about how we wage the peace, how we deal with making ourselves safe and secure from terrorism by waging that peace. I have no illusions about the menace that Saddam Hussein represents. I think Saddam Hussein has a lot in common with Hitler. Since he does not possess a German war machine behind him, however, he does not pose an overt military threat to America as Hitler did. But the same brutal egomaniacal mind-set is at work in Saddam Hussein and we can see that, so I think we need to find ways to deal with Saddam Hussein, but I do not think that going to war as is being proposed by our President is the way to do it. I think we run the risk of making matters worse. We could cause the evil that this tyrant represents to actually mushroom. An action against Saddam Hussein might unleash the dogs of chaos in a new world order of disorder. Any well-armed nation could target a weaker nation and charge them with menacing action before launching a preemptive preventive military attack. That would be the worst kind of world to live in. Before I go on, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. OWENS. Is my colleague implying that the British Prime Minister does not agree with the President? I think the Chancellor of Germany has gotten into serious trouble by not agreeing. Is it likely that there is going to be a falling out between the British Prime Minister and the President?

Mr. OWENS. There were people that counseled that, I am sure.

Mr. OWENS. You offer very strong and glaring examples. If we outlasted the Soviet Union and we outlasted China, all of these evil empires that it appeared we were going to inevitably have military conflict with are now, if not our allies, then certainly civil partners or neighbors. If we outlasted the threats that they posed, then surely we can outlast the threat that Iraq poses also. Yes, we are going to have to learn in this world to live with a new kind of threat, a new kind of risk. And getting rid of Saddam Hussein and Iraq will not free us from having to live with that risk, because there are nations like Pakistan, a friendly nation at this point, possessing nuclear weapons, and on very shaky grounds in terms of the turmoil in that nation could lead to an overthrow of the government. It could be in unfriendly hands tomorrow, so you could have the possibility of nuclear weapons being stolen from there or transmitted from there. Even if a nation does not have nuclear weapons, the possibility of a rogue nation selling it to them that we do not even know about, or the possibility of being stolen. The Soviet Union has lost a lot of nuclear materials through theft, or Russia, since the Soviet Union was dismantled. All these things exist. We have some threats and some risks that we are going to have to live with. So why do we suddenly consider Saddam Hussein an imminent threat that must be taken care of in an unlawful use of force?

Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentlewoman for making part of my speech unnecessary. I was going to deal with the question of have we done enough to confront diplomatically our allies and the people in the world who are furnishing Saddam Hussein with what he needs? The sanctions have not been carried out. We should have confronted France, the Russians and a number of other nations for not cooperating with the United Nations imposed sanctions. Iraq has continued to sell oil on the black market. Everybody knows it.

Mr. OWENS. Somebody is buying it. It is not just small countries, it is large countries. We have not confronted them. The rule of law, which we think is so important, the rule of international law is just as important as any other rule of law, but they are just thumbing their noses at the rule of law as far as the United Nations is concerned. We have not confronted these nations and demanded that they stop doing what they are doing. There is a lot of talk about children dying in Iraq because of the U.S.-imposed or UN-imposed sanctions. That is a lot of nonsense. Saddam Hussein is selling oil. He has billions of dollars to spend as he wishes to spend. He is spending it on trying to acquire weapons materials. He could buy medicine, he could buy food. If children are dying in Iraq, people are dying for lack of medicine, it is Saddam Hussein's fault, nobody else's, because he certainly has the money and resources, because the rest of the world has not bothered to enforce the law or to try to enforce the law as they should, the sanctions and the conditions that Iraq agreed to that were imposed on Iraq. Why is Iraq special and not different from any other nation with an evil regime, with a dictator? Because they agreed in order to save themselves to certain items and signed an agreement with the United Nations, and they have proceeded not to abide by that agreement. That makes them different and a special case. But the case has not been made for a military attack on Iraq.

Mr. OWENS. We did not go in alone. That was a resolution of the United Nations.

Mr. OWENS. I thank my colleague from Texas for joining me and emphasizing again that we cannot have too much debate on this subject. When we talk about going to war, we say we are going to war, we mean not just the decisionmakers in the White House or decisionmakers here in Congress. We mean all of America is going to war. So we cannot take too much time to discuss this issue and look at all the ramifications. We cannot take too much time and review history, because some obvious lessons of history are being forgotten right now. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. We seem to have forgotten a lot of lessons of all the wars fought in America in terms of who fights them, who goes to war, who are the ones who die. Perhaps we should stimulate the discussion by making a whole new set of rules related to Selective Service, because inevitably there is going to have to be a draft. If you occupy Iraq, thousands and thousands of men and women will be needed. There will have to be a draft. We should make rules that nobody gets exempted from the draft except people who physically are disabled. Everybody else has to go. We should make a rule that everybody who is in the military must do a year in the combat zone. We should learn from the past lessons and not drop the burden of a war that is questionable on the backs of the people who have the least amount to say about it or do anything. We should not drop the war on the backs of people that we will not get passed the minimum wage increase for. If you look at the Vietnam Wall, and among the war monuments in the world there is none nothing greater than the Wall of the Vietnam Memorial. That wall lists every person who died, every soldier who died in Vietnam. There are no more unknown soldiers. You talk about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, wondering who the soldier is. Everyone gets listed. Let us name them one by one. They deserve to be listed, in order to develop habits which do not encourage war. If we have to see them named one by one, we understand that this is what war means. 57,000 almost are listed on that wall. In the Civil War we lost 600,000, more or less, on both sides. More lives were lost in the Civil War in America than any other. We lost enormous amounts of lives in World War II and World War I. All of the statistics will show when you break them out that the overwhelming majority of the lives lost were poor, rural, big city, young men who had to be the cannon fodder for the war. They deserve more than to have us callously make decisions about how their lives are going to be lost, and they deserve us to pay more attention to their needs right now on the domestic agenda of the Congress. We should deal with working conditions, we should deal with the economy, we should deal with the fact that the pension funds are cheating workers out of their rights. But let us get back to the war for a moment and hear the voices of some of my constituents. I think it is very important that, like many others who have received communications, mail, e-mail, and telephone calls is becoming overwhelming about this matter, and they will continue. But I like the quality of some of the communications that I received so much that I thought I would share a couple of them tonight. Here is one that is very simple. It is handwritten, but it gets right to the point, and I am going to read it and submit it for the Record when I finish. Dear Congressman Owens: As a constituent of your district, I urge you to oppose the war on Iraq. A strike on Baghdad is unjustified, illegal, and immoral. The issue of weapons inspectors can be handled by the U.N. in a peaceful and lawful manner. With a sinking economy, the American people cannot bear the burden of another war. Please focus on investing in people, not war. This is written by Michael Feldman and Jeanette Feldman, who are constituents in my district. A very simple statement, and I will enter the entire letter for the Record. One other letter which is not so simple, but written by one of my constituents and obviously she has given a great deal of thought to this letter, and I appreciate the thinking here; and I want my colleagues to hear the connection here with September 11 and how she weaves all of this together and understands very clearly the mood of America. The mood of America is anger; the mood of America is hurt; the mood of America is fear. But we should not let the mood of anger, hurt, and fear drive us into reckless actions that will make matters worse. Dear Representative Owens: I am writing to you because I feel so helpless to stop what seems to be inevitable: war with Iraq. Like you and every New Yorker, I tasted war on September 11. It wasn't pleasant, and I am not eager to experience it again. For hours I could not find my husband who worked across the street from One World Trade Center. Fortunately, he returned home safely after witnessing unspeakable carnage. But many of our friends and neighbors weren't so lucky. That evening I walked down 7th Avenue in Park Slope, Brooklyn, to get a handle on the losses. The stench from burning buildings, computers and bodies was pervasive and the smoke cast an erie haze over our little community. Everywhere I went I learned of more losses. Twelve firemen from squad one on my block, loved ones of students, and a teacher at the Park Slope Dance Studio, parents with kids at 321, Berkeley Carol, and St. Ann's School, members from church, a former colleague, and many of our neighbors were all among the missing. At 7 p.m. that day, we foolishly held out hope that some would be found in area hospitals, but unfortunately, they weren't. Weeks later I attended the memorial service for my friend Jeff Hardy, who was killed because he happened to be working on the 101st floor of Tower 1. Hours after I attended Jeff's service, a woman at 7th Avenue and Carroll approached me and asked me to sign a petition opposing the war in Afghanistan. I refused. I supported the war in Afghanistan and have been grateful that our allies have worked with us to round up terrorists worldwide. However, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with this attack. The rumor that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent has been denied by the Czech government. I am not aware of one Iraqi who fought with the Taliban, although I know the citizens of many of our allies fought with the Taliban or members of al Qaeda and were on those planes on September 11, and continue to threaten America and other foreigners every day, particularly in Pakistan. My hope is to destroy al Qaeda and stop the spread of Islamic religious fundamentalism and hatred for the United States, for Christians, for Jews. To fight the Islamists, we need the cooperation of all of our allies and all countries in the Middle East. I am afraid that this fragile alliance will dissolve if we attack Iraq without provocation and we may not get the help we need. Invading Iraq will only inflame anti-American rhetoric and could even jeopardize our friends in the Middle East. I am deeply worried about the welfare of President Musharraf and concerned that if anything happens to him, religious fanatics could take control of Pakistan, which we know has both nuclear weapons and al Qaeda members. Musharraf is already under attack in his country because of his support of the U.S., and the New Yorker reported this week that a recent car bomb that killed 12 people was intended for him. I truly think declaring war on Iraq will put more U.S. citizen in harm's way. This is a letter from a constituent of mine. I would like to conclude the letter which I think is very thorough and thoughtful. Following the tragedies of September 11, we were a city in mourning. We spent months going to funerals in neighborhoods completely shut down when funerals for firefighters were held. The physical and emotional damage contributed to the economic downturn here. I run a small but successful public relations firm and I booked 93 percent of my revenues in 2001 on projects that were completed before September 11, and only 7 percent after September 11. My situation was not unusual. Small businesses, graphic designers, contractors, beauticians, photographers, everywhere in the metropolitan area, they suffered from the same fate. Large companies like my husband's were evacuated from lower Manhattan, never to return. His company had to rebuild complete systems within days to be able to compete with the markets open the following Monday and use AOL and other carriers to communicate by e-mail because the company's service was destroyed. We all limped along. Our woeful city tax revenues are enduring evidence of the economic damage we experienced. This country and especially this city have not yet digested the economic and emotional fallout from September 11. New York City is still struggling to get back on its feet and continues to get hammered by low tax revenues, the recession, stock market volatility and corporate scandals. The economy cannot take another shot like a war with Iraq and its unknown consequences. We have so much unfinished international business that to go forward with a war with Iraq right now would be irresponsible. I share the same concerns that King Abdullah of Jordan has that invading Iraq will lead to a further destabilization of the Middle East, including possibly a civil war, at a time when we need to be rebuilding Afghanistan and seeking a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian war. Even the Kurds are begging us not to invade. We still haven't found Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar yet. How are we going to round up Saddam Hussein and his secret weapons, particularly without the support of our allies? It's suicidal. I'm reminded of our many unsuccessful attempts to oust Fidel Castro. Besides the economic and diplomatic problems of a war with Iraq, I have a serious moral problem with killing innocent people in that country. I know what it feels like when innocent lives are lost. Even Representative Dick Armey was quoted today in the times as saying that an unprovoked attack would violate international law. However, this administration will not listen to its allies and is only fueling anti-Americanism worldwide. Mr. Speaker, I will place the entire letter from Gail Donovan in the Record. Mr. Speaker, my message is that we should wage peace instead of being overwhelmed by concerns with war. In this country we have a lot of mechanisms of war. We have West Point, we have several military universities, we have the Naval War College and the Army War College and several mechanisms for preparing the best minds in the world to wage war, and maybe that is as it should be. A great Nation leading the world should have the best minds and the best equipment, the best Armed Forces. But on the other hand, we do very little to prepare our population to wage peace. We have no equivalent to West Point where we train people in diplomacy and in ways in which to wage peace. We do not even bother to look closely at our successes in the world, like the Marshall Plan. With the expenditure of money that could have been spent fighting wars, we were able to stop the spread of communism in Europe and to rebuild prosperous economies in the nations of Europe. If we had a peace college or a peace university, peace universities, maybe they would look at questions like the relationship between war and those who make the decisions about war and those who fight the wars. It is worth examining. I have studied it and I have made speeches on this floor before offering the statistics related to the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War in terms of the number of people who died and where they came from. The pattern is clear. In the Civil War, if one was drafted or scheduled to be drafted, one could buy one's way out and somebody else, a poorer person, would take your place and die for you in that war. We lost the largest number of Americans in the Civil War, approximately 600,000. Modern weapons were not invented at that time, so more people got killed as cannon fodder in face-to-face, bayonet-to-bayonet contact, so on. In World War I, the same pattern: The people who died came from the rural areas and the big cities, the poorest populations in the big cities. In World War II, the same as in World War I; and in Korea, and in Vietnam. The names on that wall over there, two-thirds of them are from low-income communities. A disproportionate number on the Vietnam Wall are also minorities. The people who are going to die deserve to be included in this debate. If we attack Iraq, if we are successful, as we will be, in destroying their military forces, we will have to occupy Iraq. That is where large numbers of men and women will be needed to carry out such an occupation. We will have to have a draft, eventually. Let us take a look at that and see in a democracy how we might improve upon the process of making war by examining the process by which we draft people to go off and fight the wars. Maybe we should start talking, now, about changes in the Selective Service approach. If we reinstitute the draft, maybe there should be a definite qualification that nobody gets exempted, except only those who are physically disabled. Everybody who is eligible, who is in the category to be drafted, should be drafted. They all should serve the same amount of time in a combat zone. In Vietnam, the latter part of the Vietnam War, a man had to spend only a year, and after a year he was allowed to go home out of the combat zone. There should be some kind of understanding that one's life is at risk, and those kinds of rules and practices maybe should be made up ahead of time. Congress should take a close look at it. Everybody goes. The grandsons and great-grandsons of the people who make decisions to go to war must be on the front lines as well as the rest of the population. Also, the way we treat our population: If we are going to have a draft, then certainly the issues that are not being dealt with in this Congress are important for consideration. If we are going to have a draft, we have no right to draft men and women that we do not want to provide job opportunities for. Our minimum wage is such now that, at $5.15 an hour, one can work a 40-hour week all year long and make less than $12,000. No family of four or even three, barely two, can live off of that small amount of money. Yet, large amounts of Americans make only the minimum wage. This Congress has refused to address any consideration of raising the minimum wage. If we cannot raise the minimum wage for those young men and women who are going to have to go to war, if we cannot provide decent working conditions in their places of work, instead of attacking OSHA as the first act of a the new administration, and eliminating the ergonomics regulations, we should have been bolstering the safety and health conditions of the workplace, because those are the men and women who are, in the ultimate defense of the country, going to be the ones on the front lines. We should pay homage to them. We should at least guarantee that when they grow old, as veterans of World War II and Vietnam are now old, they should not have to worry about prescription drugs. Why should a veteran who risked his life in Vietnam or Korea or World War II, why should they have to worry about having to not eat, to forgo a meal, in order to get the prescription they need to stay alive? A great nation should address the full agenda of items. We should not shut down this Congress and fail to address that agenda because we are considering a war that might secure us against terrorism and make the Nation safe. We are safe only when we do all of these things. We have to walk, chew gum, dance, and do a lot of other things at the same time. We are not secure unless we mount a sustained peace offensive. Our peace offensive must consist of passing laws and appropriating money which supports the increase of prosperity and peace. Let us just take the Muslim nation of Iraq versus the Muslim nation of Pakistan for a moment. Pakistan has always been our ally, always been our ally. In the Cold War, in the Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union, always Pakistan has been there. Again, in this very controversial and dangerous situation, the Pakistan administration has chosen to ally itself with the United States. We have given Musharraf and the government of Pakistan I think something like $800 million, not even $1 billion, but $800 million in aid. Pakistan has a population of no less than 150 million people, some say up to 180 million, but no less than 150 million people. If we were to make Pakistan a firm ally and make certain that everything is done that can be done to prop up that administration, to help our ally, to make sure that Musharraf and his government will survive, to make certain that a communication goes out to the whole Muslim world that we are not into fighting a religious war, we are not anti-anybody because they are Muslim. We can have strong Muslim allies as we have Muslim enemies, those who chose to make themselves our enemies. But instead, we are going to expend billions of dollars in the war against Iraq, instead of billions to help Pakistan. For very tiny amounts of money, more aid to Pakistan to help it get its economy on the feet, to help it provide a more legitimate education system, a lot of their youngsters were drained off into the al-Qaeda movement. They went off to Afghanistan and became part of the terrorist movement because they were hungry, and they were given three meals a day and fed hate and taught how to fight, and given some purpose in life. They should not have that as the only alternative. I happen to have a large Pakistani community in my district, so I am personally familiar with Pakistan. I went there and visited 2 years ago. Pakistan is not at all a backward Nation, backward-thinking Nation in any way. The fact that it is Muslim does not mean that it does not appreciate its women. I saw or visited several girls' schools. In one class, girls were taking a math exam. They were not just learning minor matters, they were learning science and engineering, just as the men were. It is a nation that needs more schools, and they need more help with their education system. So let us wage peace by getting closer to Pakistan, by embracing Pakistan. We have given the Pakistani-American population a very difficult time here in this country. They have rounded them up. A lot of Pakistanis have been put in detention as a result of immigration problems, and they have been treated as if they are enemies of the people. Not a single Pakistani has been identified at this point as a terrorist. They have not found a single Pakistani terrorist. They have found some al-Qaeda people in Pakistan, but they are not Pakistani. They have found no Pakistani-American who was involved in any way with money laundering or any aspect of terrorism; yet, the Pakistani community in America is under great pressure right now. We should embrace them, instead. We should wage peace by understanding who our allies are and by rewarding our allies, by appreciating our allies. I think we ought to have some kind of amnesty for the Pakistani-Americans who have problems with immigration. I think we ought to show some sort of special concern with respect to exchange students from Pakistan. We ought to go all out. Pakistan is not the largest Muslim nation; Indonesia is. Indonesia has more Muslims than Pakistan. Pakistan is in a transitional situation where it is receptive. Their graduate students, students of science and engineering, come here. I am certain the nuclear scientists who created the nuclear bomb in Pakistan went to American universities. We know who some of them are. They have the nuclear weapons capability now, Pakistan. The great danger is that if we do not embrace them, if we do not prop them up, if we are not capable of waging the peace by making them special allies, we may lose control of Pakistan, and the nuclear weapons that they have would fall into the hands of unfriendly people. We would have a clear and imminent danger then that we would have to deal with. So I want to conclude by saying that this debate deserves to continue and to include as many people as possible. The American people, those who lived through the war in Vietnam, some are still around from World War I, certainly World War II, the Korean war, we should not take their wisdom lightly. We should look at their contributions and listen to their voices. A war in Iraq would not be fought in the quagmires and jungles like a war in Vietnam, but it would be the worst human quagmire that we could possibly contemplate. We would not be going to war against Iraq. It would eventually be a war against the entire Muslim world. Through the gates that are open in Pakistan we could become allies, have allies and friends from the entire Muslim world. Why close that gate down and suffer from excessive preoccupation for the use of military force in Iraq? We have the United Nations. We have deliberations going on there. There is no great hurry. There is no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. However monstrous Saddam Hussein might be, he does not have the capacity to inflict any great hurt on America at this point. We have time. We have time to wage peace instead of rushing into war. I hope we will listen to the wiser voices among us and not rush into a war with Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the letters mentioned previously are as follows: Brooklyn, NY, September 3, 2002. Dear Congressman Owen: As a constituent of your district, I urge you to oppose a war on Iraq. A strike on Baghdad is unjustified, illegal, and immoral. The issue of weapons inspectors can be handled by the U.N. in a peaceful and lawful manner. With a sinking economy, the American people cannot bear the burden of another war. Please focus on investing in people, not war. Sincerely, Michael Feldman. Jeanette Feldman.