Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As our chairman indicated, we did defeat this amendment in committee.

Several days ago at the White House, the President illustrated quite well the cost of delaying these funds to those who are so desperately in need. As President Bush said, time is not on our side. Since the State of the Union address, he said that an estimated 760,000 people have died from AIDS, 1.2 million people have become infected and more than 175,000 babies have been born with the virus.

Imagine how many more will die and become infected if we accept this amendment and deny the $1 billion in funding this year to those who desperately need this help? Clearly we cannot wait. There are programs out there that can use our funding immediately. Even the executive director of UNAIDS, Dr. Piot, has said Africa could absorb $6.57 billion in AIDS funding without any improvements toward infrastructure.

Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to vote against this bill and to maintain the compromise that we worked so hard to negotiate with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Early on in the drafting of this bill, we decided really not to let ideology drive the process and drive the contents of this bill. I believe, as our ranking member said, that the language we worked on and negotiated in committee addresses the issues and concerns raised in this amendment, and it addresses it quite well.

Now, it seems to me, quite frankly, that social conservatives are looking at a way to carve out a specific exemption. All of us support faith-based organizations, but it looks like one group of individuals in this country wants to carve out for religious organizations a specific exemption. The amendment looks tame on its face, but I really think there is another motive behind this amendment.

I do not believe that we should subject this very important piece of legislation to the ideological whims of either side. The compromise that we negotiated in the bill was specifically intended to avoid this. Both sides made some major concessions with an understanding that the needs of those who are living and dying with AIDS would trump our political differences. It appears now that this amendment would give an organization the ability to affirmatively tell those suffering and dying of AIDS not to use one method over another. This could be deadly.

Now, there were several amendments that I would have offered to shape the bill more to my liking, more to many of my colleagues' liking on our side; but we refrained from doing this because we felt quite strongly that the delicate balance established in the bill should not be upset. So I would encourage Members to oppose this amendment. The language in the bill is very clear with regard to faith-based organizations, and I ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank the gentleman for his comments, but let me just say that the language that was negotiated that is in the base bill, in the bill before us today, takes care of all of the issues that we care about in terms of allowing for a multifaceted, multisectoral approach to addressing this pandemic.

What we do not want to do, and what I believe will happen with the gentleman's amendment, is that organizations now will be allowed to say ``do not use one method versus the other.'' We crafted the language in a way that would allow organizations, if for whatever reasons decided that they were not going to promote abstinence, to be faithful, or condom use, that they would not necessarily have to promote it.

But what I believe the gentleman's amendment will do will be to allow organizations to tell individuals that one approach is not going to work, or there is danger in an approach that allows for the distribution of condoms. I think that is downright wrong. The ABC approach is the approach that works. Organizations can choose whichever approach they want to address.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong and very vigorous opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Again, we see attempts to unravel the delicate compromise established by our negotiations on this bill. We have already dealt with this issue in another forum in the Committee on International Relations when the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pushed for the prioritization of abstinence over condom use in the ABC model of prevention. Abstinence, fidelity, and the use of condoms should all be placed on equal footing; and that is what we agreed to in committee. So I hope that we similarly defeat this amendment. Even the Washington Times, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) points out, agrees that a balanced approach should be implemented and should be part of this bill.

The Uganda model is based upon the ABC approach, which is prevention, abstinence, and condoms. In fact, the former director of the largest organization in Uganda dealing with HIV and AIDS treatment says that that is what has worked and that it is wrong for those who want only one approach to pull out one element of a bigger picture. And she said this is a very small percentage of the whole picture. What works is what worked in Uganda, and that is abstinence, be faithful, condoms; and that is the only strategy that makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, tonight is another opportunity to once again highlight the on-going humanitarian crisis in Haiti and the urgent need for action.

Many of us together have worked to send a message to this administration that it is time to revisit the United States policy toward Haiti. We have become increasingly aware of the humanitarian crisis which is brewing in Haiti. Much of this crisis can be directly pinned to the fact that the United States' eight financial institutions which we are part of are blocking social sector resources from reaching that small island nation. In fact, the United States representative to the Interamerican Development Bank directed the bank's president to block disbursal of four social sector loans to Haiti. These loans had already been approved by the bank's board of directors and were ratified by the Haitian parliament over 3 years ago.

Now, considering Haiti's current crisis, this action is inexcusable. While our government levies our political weight with the international financial institutions and the Organization of American States, Haitians continue to suffer. Further, this delayed delivery of international humanitarian aid to Haiti is fostering instability and anarchy in their struggling democracy.

Haiti's miserable poverty is indisputable. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand on this issue. Without strong leadership, the crisis will continue to spiral out of control. Already, the national rate of persons infected with HIV and AIDS in Haiti has risen to 300,000, or 4 percent of the entire population, leaving 163,000 children orphaned. Haiti makes up 90 percent of all HIV-AIDS cases in the Caribbean. And Haiti's health problems go well beyond HIV and AIDS. The infant mortality rate has increased to 74 deaths out of every 1,000 babies born, and now five mothers will die out of the same 1,000 babies born.

We must remember that many diseases know no boundaries, so it is in our strategic interest to help Haiti heal itself. The doctor-to-patient ratio has fallen to 1 to 11,000, leaving very little chance that sick persons in the rural areas will ever get even the basic health care. 125 Haitians die daily of illnesses. While most of the western world has eradicated diseases like polio, health officials report that many Haitians do not have the resources to pay for life-saving vaccinations for their children.

This is just morally unacceptable. Together, we must urge the President to do the right thing in Haiti. Jared Johnson, the IDB branch director for Haiti, said you cannot run a country through non- governmental organizations. What does this mean? It means we cannot continue to funnel money into USAID and then blame the government of Haiti for lack of resources and poor social services.

Our government and the international financial institutions should

not continue to raise the political bar in order for Haiti to receive basic humanitarian assistance. It is unacceptable to simply stand by and watch a season of misery inflict pain, suffering and death on human beings right here in our own neighborhood.

We must address this injustice. We must release the IDB funds to Haiti and direct the international financial institutions to reengage and reengage now. It is our moral imperative, and it is our commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) a member of the Committee on Armed Services, a Member of the Haitian Task Force, and one who has led our efforts in terms of immigration issues and other issues that he so passionately cares for.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership and for participating tonight in highlighting the very discriminatory policies and the very inconsistent policies in terms of our immigration policies as they relate to Haiti, and also for his leadership on each and every issue that he is providing to this Congress during his first 2 years. I thank the gentleman for participating with us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my good friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance). The gentleman serves as a member of the Committee on Small Business and a member of the Committee on Agriculture and has been involved in many, many issues since he has been in Congress. He is a new Member who has hit the ground running.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for his very kind and generous and very humbling remarks, and also for his real leadership, and his real and honest commitment to those in need, whether here or abroad. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) whose leadership on the Committee on International Relations and on the Committee on Financial Services is making quite a difference in terms of the reordering of our domestic and our foreign policies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for his very eloquent statement and his kind remarks, and also for reminding us of the history in terms of the connection to our own country and the fact that we do have many Haitian Americans here in our own country who are concerned about their country and have such representatives as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) who so ably represents a diverse population of people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Southern California (Ms. Watson), who has a wealth of experience as an ambassador, as a Chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee in the State of California, and one whose wisdom and counsel we all look to on so many issues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her comprehensive statement, for her clarity on our government's policy as it relates to Haiti, and for bringing forth the facts of some very recent revelations with regard to the Attorney General which hopefully we will get some answers to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus who has demonstrated for many, many years prior to coming to Congress, and now here in the United States Congress, his leadership on a myriad of issues.

I thank the gentleman for pulling this Special Order together and for ensuring that the Congressional Black Caucus is central to all of the policy debates that we engage in here in the United States House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland once again for his leadership, but also for laying out the facts in terms of why we are here tonight. I thank the gentleman for putting his all into making sure that we understand that this is an emergency, that we should do the right thing, and that our policies are really resulting in the dire humanitarian crisis that we are seeing in Haiti.

I thank the gentleman again for his leadership. I appreciate his being here this evening.

I would say that $146 million is a mere drop in the bucket and would save many, many lives. It would get the country of Haiti back on track in terms of its development.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a leader on many, many issues; a woman who is a physician who chairs our Congressional Black Caucus Health Brain Trust, and who is leading the charge for universal health care.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for her very passionate and very clear statement, and also for making sure that on all of our HIV/AIDS initiatives, that the Caribbean is part of that effort. And it is because of the gentlewoman that now we hear the President and others talk about sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean and other parts of the world as being in need in terms of our resources and our assistance. So I thank her again. And, yes, we have done something, just our small efforts. We are going to move forward. Hopefully we can do more. And I believe tonight with her help and with all of those here, with the CBC and other Members of Congress, sooner or later the administration is going to wake up and realize that this is a political fight that they really do not need to have.

Haitian-Americans care about this. All Americans care about this and we have got to get those loans released.

Now, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Detroit, our dean and the chair of the Haitian task force, one who has provided leadership on so many issues and who has beat the drum for so many years on Haiti and our very cruel policy towards that country, the gentleman from Detroit, Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his statement and for providing this information with regard to another piece of legislation that we know will let Haiti live, and, hopefully, we will be able to build co-sponsorship and support for your legislation so we can have a hearing and move the bill to the floor and to the Senate and then to the White House.

Let me, in closing, just reiterate some of the facts we heard tonight and why members of the Congressional Black Caucus and other Members of Congress want to see Haiti live and want to see Haiti move forward into the 21st Century as a new democracy who we can support in a way that we know we should.

First of all, Haiti is the most impoverished nation in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti accounts for 90 percent of all HIV/AIDS cases in the Caribbean. HIV and AIDS infections have approached epidemic proportions. Over 300,000 infected people have been identified and deaths from HIV and AIDS have left 200,000 children orphaned. It is estimated that over 12,000 people in Haiti are living with HIV/AIDS. Between 150,000 to 350,000 children are AIDS orphans.

Haiti's infant mortality rate is staggering. It is 93 deaths per 1,000 live births. For every doctor in Haiti, there are 10,000 people. Tuberculosis remains a major cause of adult mortality. Cases of TB in Haiti are more than 10 times as high as those in other Latin American countries. Only 40 percent of Haitians have access to clean water, drinking water. The life expectancy rate which we heard earlier, I believe from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), is 49 years of age. More than 75 percent of the population lives in abject poverty. The unemployment rate is approximately 60 percent. The literacy rate is approximately 45 percent. And half of the population of Haiti earns $60 or less, that is $60 or less per year, not per day but per year. The total expenditure on health per person is about $54 compared to about $4,400 in the United States and $483 in Mexico.

So with those kind of statistics, there is no way that our country can morally do what it is doing in terms of blocking the release of the $146 million. There is no way with these kinds of numbers and this kind of data, this kind of human misery and tragedy right next to us, that our efforts should be about blocking the release of loans that had been negotiated 3 years ago. That is outrageous. I do not even understand how we can believe that could even be half way right to do.

I think I have a couple more minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) who has an additional statement he would like to make in the short time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, we are turning the heat up on this. We have been nice and we have played many, many roles in trying to let Haiti live. And we are going to become even more aggressive on this because I think after what we have heard tonight, I think the people in our country are going to begin to question our policies and why we are holding up $146 million. What that means in light of the fact that we are, yes, we should be doing this, building a universal health care system in Iraq and providing quality public education for people in Iraq. And yet, here in a country right next door and in our own country we cannot find the resources to help people of African decent. And that is a very important point, I think, that I want to leave tonight with in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my great appreciation for and admiration of the late Congressman Phillip Burton. During his two decades in the House of Representatives--from 1964 to 1983--Congressman Burton was a great champion for the interests of the people of the Bay Area. Time and time again, Congressman Burton fought for the little people, ranging from the underprivileged to seniors to workers. His voice was loud and strong for these people. And his voice was persuasive in bringing people of all backgrounds and different ways of life together.

I had the privilege to know Congressman Burton while serving as a Hill staffer to Congressman Ronald V. Dellums. He was brilliant, compassionate, and a political whiz. During a reapportionment year, I remember Phil explaining to Ron the rationale for the boundaries of Ron's proposed new long District, and he said, ``Don't worry, Ron, you are in your brother's arms.''

Powerful voice that he was for his constituents, Congressman Burton will probably best be known for his respect for the environment. His record of establishing and preserving parks, wilderness areas, trails, and rivers may be unparalleled in the history of this country. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, the Congressman did everything that he could to protect our precious natural resources. His National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 represents one of the most sweeping pieces of environmental legislation ever to pass Congress. That legislation doubled the national wild and scenic rivers system, tripled our national trails systems, and, by adding more than 2 million acres, doubled the wilderness acreage in the National Park Service.

In California, the Congressman's legislation ultimately protected nearly 5 percent of the state's land, including Redwood National Park. Even closer to my 9th Congressional District, Congressman Burton strengthened the beautiful Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Congressman Burton's contribution to our state and country has become recognized as an impressive legacy in the two decades since his death. Our appreciation of Congressman Burton and his efforts will no doubt grow only stronger in the coming decades as we struggle to preserve our precious, finite resources.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to submit the following interesting and insightful article for the Congressional Record.

Why the Crackdown in Cuba?

(By Wayne S. Smith)

Various newspaper articles reporting the deplorable

crackdown on dissidents in Cuba have correctly noted that the

situation there earlier had seemed to be inching toward

somewhat greater tolerance. During his trip to Cuba in May of

last year, for example, President Carter met with Cuban

dissidents and in his televised speech to the nation spoke of

the Varela Project, an initiative of theirs calling for

greater political freedoms. And both before and after

Carter's visit, many other Americans, myself included,

regularly and openly met with the dissidents as part of a

broad effort to expand dialogue and improve relations between

our two countries.

Oswaldo Paya, the principal architect of the Varela

Project, was even recently allowed to come to the United

States to receive the W. Averell Harriman award from the

National Democratic Institute in Washington, and from there

he went on to Europe. The Cuban government may not have liked

what he had to say while abroad, but he wasn't punished for

it when he returned home. It did indeed seem that things

might

slowly be moving toward somewhat greater tolerance of dissent

on the island.

Why then the recent arrest of dissidents? Is it, as some in

the United States quickly posited, that Castro was simply

hoping the rest of the world was so distracted by the war in

Iraq, that no one would notice or react to the detention of a

few dissidents in Cuba?

No, that explanation simply doesn't hold up. First of all,

no one in his right mind (and whatever else he is, Castro is

that) would have expected the arrest of over 80 dissidents,

many of them well-known international figures, to go

unremarked. The Cubans expected a firestorm, and they got it.

Second, the timing could hardly be worse from Castro's

standpoint. The UN Human Rights Commission has just begun its

annual deliberations to decide, among other things, whether

to condemn Cuba for violations of human rights. Given the

greater tolerance discussed above, there had seemed a good

chance that Cuba would not be condemned this year. The

crackdown, coming just now, makes that far less likely.

Given all that, why the crackdown and why now? To answer

those questions, we must first note that the greater leeway

for dissent noted above came in response to the overtures of

groups in the American Congress and the American public, not

to any easing of the hard line on the part of the Bush

Administration. Quite the contrary, its policies and rhetoric

remained as hostile and as threatening as ever. It ignored

all Cuban offers to begin a dialogue and instead held to an

objective of regime change. As Mr. James Cason, the Chief of

the U.S. Interests Section has stated publicly, one of his

tasks was to promote ``transition to a participatory form of

government.''

Now, we would all like to see a more open society in Cuba;

that indeed, is what we are all working toward. But it is not

up to the United States to orchestrate it. In fact, it is not

up to the United States to decide what form of government

Cuba should have. Cuba is, after all, a sovereign country. To

the Cubans, for the chief U.S. diplomat in Cuba to seem to be

telling them what kind of government they should have seemed

a return to the days of the Platt Amendment.

The Bush Administration was uncomfortable with signs of

greater tolerance on Castro's part, for that simply

encouraged those in the United States who wanted to

ease travel controls and begin dismantling the embargo.

New initiatives along those lines were expected in the

Congress this spring. What to do to head them oft?

What the Administration did is clear enough. It ordered the

Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to begin a

series of high-profile and provocative meetings with

dissidents, even holding seminars in his own residence and

passing out equipment of various kinds to them. He even held

press conferences after some of the meetings. The

Administration knew that such ``bull-in-the-china-shop''

tactics would provoke a Cuban reaction--hopefully an

overreaction. And given that the purpose was ``regime

change'', the Cubans came to see them as ``subversive'' in

nature and as increasingly provocative. Those arrested were

not charged with expressing themselves against the state, but

with ``plotting with American diplomats.''

The circumstances are different, but to understand Cuban

sensitivities in this case, let us imagine the reaction of

the U.S. Government if Cuban diplomats here were meeting with

members of the Puerto Rican Independence Party to help them

promote Puerto Rico's transition from commonwealth to

independence. Perhaps the Attorney General would not arrest

everyone involved, but I wouldn't take any bets on it.

And the beginning of the war in Iraq did play a role in the

crackdown. The Cubans saw it as a signal that the United

States was determined to throw its weight around and to blow

away anyone it doesn't like through the unilateral use of

force. As one Cuban official put it to me recently: ``This

new preemptive-strike policy of yours puts us in a new ball

game, and in that new game, we must make it clear that we

can't be pushed around.''

It was this kind of mind set that led to the crackdown and

that turned the latter into a massive overreaction. The

Cubans did exactly what the Bush Administration had hoped

they would do. Virtually the whole active dissident community

has now not only been arrested but put on trial (or notified

that they soon will be) and given extremely heavy sentences.

Tragic. This is a blot that will not be easily erased and

that will impede any significant progress in U.S.-Cuban

relations until there is some amelioration of conditions in

Cuba. The Bush Administration meanwhile will certainly

continue the pressures, and the provocations, so as to

prevent any such amelioration.

It has been argued that Castro simply saw this as a

propitious moment to halt dissent in Cuba, and there are

doubtless some elements of truth to that argument. Castro has

never liked to be criticized. Still, over the past few years,

he had tolerated criticism of the system. All things being

equal, he might have continued to do so. But the situation

has changed, not just between the U.S. and Cuba, but

internationally, in ways that the U.S. public is just

beginning to understand.

In the dark days that lie ahead, people of good will in the

United States who want to see a more normal relationship

between our two countries, and to see a more open society in

Cuba, should hold to the demonstrable truth that the best way

to bring about both is through the reduction of tensions, the

beginning of a meaningful dialogue and increased contacts. As

Elizardo Sanchez, Cuba's leading human rights activist, has

often put it, ``the more American citizens in the streets of

Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open

society; so why do you maintain travel controls?'' The

policies followed by one administration after another over

the past 44 years have accomplished nothing positive. True to

form, the policy followed by the Bush Administration, and the

clumsy tactics of the U.S. Interests Section, have produced

only a crackdown. Exactly what we should not want!

Wayne S. Smith, now a Senior Fellow at the Center for

International Policy, was Third Secretary of Embassy at the

American Embassy in Havana from 1958 until the U.S. broke

relations in January of 1961, and was Chief of the U.S.

Interests Section there from 1979 until 1982.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and also for his leadership.

I rise today in opposition to the Wilson amendment and in strong opposition to this energy bill. Our national security depends on energy security. We all know that. But instead of investing in the future by developing new, cleaner forms of energy, this bill tells us the answer to America's energy problems lies in the Arctic Refuge. Well, if we drain every drop of economically recoverable oil out of this wilderness, it will be consumed in 6 months. So that is hardly the answer.

We have all heard that drilling in ANWR will create thousands of new jobs. But investing in innovations and energy technology and improvements in energy efficiency could produce hundreds of thousands of new, good-paying jobs that are a lot closer to home for most of our constituents than the Arctic tundra.

The question of drilling in the Arctic is also a question of environmental justice and native rights. Many native tribes oppose drilling. They know this land is sacred and they know what drilling will do to it.

The Arctic Refuge is a fragile ecosystem. If we allow drilling, we will not be able to go back and make it whole. This amendment opens the door to drilling and destruction that will expand far beyond 2,000 acres.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in advocating human rights throughout the world and also for making sure that this is a bipartisan bill.

I rise today in support of the Clean Diamonds Trade Act. Finally, Congress, the international community, and the various grassroots organizations' efforts to sever the link between diamonds and war has come to the floor for a vote. So I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and again our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as well as the chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and our ranking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for their continued commitment to this issue. I encourage all Members to support this bill.

Some have argued that regulating the global diamond industry should not be Congress' responsibility, but I argue that promoting peace over conflict, supporting our international communities' efforts to clean up the global diamond system, and introducing ways to support the people in Africa, who have not been able to benefit from their own resources, should be our goal. This legislation transforms diamonds into a commodity from which all communities can benefit, not just a chosen few.

H.R. 1584, the Clean Diamonds Trade Act, provides a long list of overdue regulation on conflict diamonds. The bill requires United States compliance with the Kimberly Process certification. It imposes costly, very costly, civil penalties and jail time, which is very important, jail time for those who willfully violate the act, and incorporates oversight from our Customs Service and other key agencies which oversee international trade.

I believe each component is essential to ending the sale of conflict diamonds. And, further, I hope that we will find a way to incorporate more Africans into the diamond industry itself to promote more entrepreneurship and sustainable development.

In closing, I would like to thank several organizations, including Amnesty International, World Vision, Physicians for Human Rights, Oxfam America, and World Relief for their continued support of conflict diamond reforms. Over 65 percent of these conflict diamonds, Mr. Speaker, were sold to people in our own country. So I want to thank our constituents for pushing for reform instead of accepting this unjust trade.

I urge all our colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and the passage of H.R. 1584, and I want to thank once again the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) again and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, knowing full well that it will pass today.

Like many of you here in Congress and like millions of Americans across the country, my hopes and prayers go out to our troops. I want to see them safe at home as soon as possible. I deeply admire their courage, mourn their losses, and honor their sacrifice and commitment.

I cannot, however, endorse the decision to send our troops into harm's way by launching a first strike against Iraq. I fear we are witnessing the first chapter of the Doctrine of Preemption. This Doctrine of Preemption is taking us more deeply into uncharted waters. No one knows where this will end.

There is also no end in sight to the costs of war and to the price we will pay here at home in the America we will not be able to build. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us, ``In the wasteland of war, the expenditure of resources knows no restraints.''

Thus, I cannot support the $75 billion down payment on this war that makes up the bulk of this supplemental while under-funding homeland security by $4 billion. With those facts, in mind, I must oppose this appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), our outstanding and very dedicated and very brilliant chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for his leadership and for his vision and for organizing once again this Special Order to really discuss the disastrous Republican budget and to examine the terrible toll it will take not only on communities of color but on our entire country as a whole.

As we support and pray for our troops, for their speedy and their safe return, I have to ask tonight what kind of America, what kind of opportunities and support will we provide for them upon their return? Our troops and our veterans deserve a sense of economic security. This Republican budget, however, demonstrates nothing less than a very profound disregard for the majority of Americans and for the future of

this Nation. It sacrifices our children, our seniors, our security, our veterans, our environment, and our economy in order to advance special interests and promote tax breaks for the wealthy.

This is a national mistake, and the repercussions of it will be felt in cities and rural communities and towns across America. They will certainly be felt in my district in northern California, where the high-tech economy has struggled, where housing costs are sky high, where seniors and veterans are struggling to pay medical costs and grocery bills, where seniors sometimes have to choose between their medication or buying food, where school infrastructure is crumbling, and where the State budget is reeling from the body blows struck by the recession.

In the last year, we have seen rising unemployment, escalating housing costs, and a floundering economy. We have seen, however, tax cuts for the rich that the President wants to make permanent, forever protecting the richest 1 percent at the expense of the rest of us. That is wrong. And now we see $1.6 trillion in additional tax cuts for the wealthy. Those tax cuts and those misplaced priorities help explain why this budget falls $4 billion short of the money we need to invest in homeland security according to nonpartisan experts. They help explain why this budget underfunds education, shortchanging special ed, gutting after-school programs, freezing Pell grants and ultimately leaving millions of children far, far behind.

With the struggling economy and millions of Americans unemployed, this budget cuts spending for job training and employment programs and does nothing, absolutely nothing, to create new jobs. It also cuts funding for environmental programs, including badly needed enforcement programs at EPA that will safeguard our water supply and our children's health. Communities of color will continue to pay the highest price for pollution. This budget will only increase environmental injustices and the health costs it exacts every day.

In terms of energy, the budget reinforces our dependence on fossil fuels by cutting energy efficiency programs and assuming drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In energy, in education, in security, and in so many other areas, we should be investing in our future rather than bankrupting our children. With this budget, we will be spending as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. But, Mr. Speaker, $400 billion plus for defense that underfunds homeland security will not make us any safer.

We could put some of these resources, and we should put some of these resources into health care, but the Republican plan is not designed to expand health care access. For example, seniors would be herded into HMOs and forced to abandon their own doctors if they want prescription drug coverage. This budget threatens Medicare without offering real coverage. And again it will hit African Americans, Hispanic Americans and other minorities especially hard.

We have enormous health disparities in this country and this budget just makes them wider. Most of the 9 million children who lack health insurance in this country are minorities, children of color. Under this budget they remain uninsured. It even cuts Medicaid coverage for children. Cuts it. And it slashes funding for minority health programs.

Instead of spending billions on a faulty and unproven missile defense system, we should put more resources into housing, which is a national emergency and a national disgrace, but this budget cuts funding for public housing. It eliminates funding for the HOPE VI program to replace public housing structures that are in terrible condition. I ask you, without HOPE VI, what hope will those residents really have?

The credibility gap between the administration's rhetoric and its budget grows each and every day. The President promises an economic stimulus but offers tax cuts for the wealthy that leaves small business out of the picture, even though small businesses are the real engine for economic growth in this country. The President promises to leave no child behind, but then cuts nearly $1 billion of funding, $1 billion, Mr. Speaker, for elementary and secondary education. The budget cuts teacher quality programs and after-school programs for our kids and slashes Pell grants and Perkins loans that can transform college from an impossible dream into an actual diploma.

The President praises our troops, as we all do, but then decimates veterans programs, enacting cuts that will reduce cost-of-living increases for the veterans who are with us and who have served our country well. What a shame and what a sham. Our veterans deserve better. Again, rhetoric versus reality.

Look at the budget. It is about choices. We could choose to invest in our future, grow our economy, enhance our security, look out for our children, our senior citizens and those who are struggling economically, or we could, as the Republican budget has demonstrated, provide tax cuts for the multimillionaires and special interests.

I hope it is not too late to wake up America to the damage that is being done to our country, to our children, and to our future. That is the choice that the Republican budget offers. Once again, America, wake up to what is going on in Washington, D.C.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and, yes, I think this really highlights the credibility gap, this increasing credibility gap of this administration.

And as I say, with regard to our veterans, it is really a shame and a sham that this administration is cutting their benefits, cutting out their economic security that they so deserve. They have served our country well. Our troops deserve better upon their return, and we are going to fight this to the end, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what kind of message it sends, and also I do not think this administration remembers that we have many homeless veterans now who are just seeking shelter and a place to live. That, again, is a disgrace that we need to address in this budget. We need to address their access to health care and to housing and to all of those support services which they need. They fought for us and they deserve a decent life. They do not deserve to have their funding cut, as the President intends to do in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray for the safe return of our troops, and I pray for peace. I know that many other Americans do as well. I do not believe, however, that it is the place of government to tell Americans how or when to pray. Matters of faith are deeply personal, and it is one of the founding principles of this government that the state should not intrude upon them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of our troops.

Today, American men and women are putting their lives on the line in the service of their country. I deeply mourn the deaths of our troops and hope and pray for the safe return of all of their comrades in arms. I mourn as well the deaths of innocent civilians, especially children, who have been or may be caught in the crossfire of this conflict.

Some Americans are now held as prisoners of war and they hold a special place in our thoughts and prayers.

As the daughter of a career army officer, my heart goes out especially to the families of our service men and women as they anxiously await word from their loved ones. That waiting is its own kind of torment.

Thousands of National Guards and Reserves are serving in the Middle East today, honoring their commitment and abandoning their civilian lives to answer this call.

We honor their service and sacrifice as well as that of all the personnel in our armed forces.

It is my deepest hope that our troops will soon be home with their friends and families. I wish them Godspeed and hope that peace is both rapid and lasting.

In closing, let me once again reiterate my support and admiration for our troops who are in harm's way.

Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership; also my colleagues the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich); and also to my staff, Julie, and all of our staffs who really worked many long hours to craft this very fair and balanced budget.

I rise in strong support of this budget, which really does provide a dramatic alternative to the Republican budget. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus' executive committee, and also as cochair of the Progressive Caucus, I am doubly pleased to be a cosponsor of this joint alternative budget, which, in my opinion, represents the best alternative on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, we are united today in our opposition to the irresponsible, unfair and warped priorities as expressed in the Republican budget. We cannot and we will not support a budget that spends more on defective technology than on school construction, safe drinking water, vocational education and the fight against HIV and AIDS combined. We cannot and will not support a budget that eliminates vital support for programs such as HOPE VI, the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program and brownfields redevelopment. We cannot and will not support a budget which slashes after-school programs, the school lunch program, veterans' benefits, housing programs, school loan programs, and ignores our Nation's vital need for a meaningful economic stimulus, including relief to the unemployed. Above all, we cannot and we will not support a budget that puts lavish and massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans above everything else, thereby mortgaging our children's future.

What we can and what we will support, however, is this reasonable and fair alternative. Our budget provides a real, fast-acting economic stimulus which includes $180 billion for payroll tax relief, $50 billion for Federal revenue-sharing with States, and $50 billion for infrastructure investment. Our budget provides health care for every single American, a benefit that no other budget offers.

Our budget also goes well beyond the Republicans' rhetorical commitment to education by providing serious resources. It fully funds the Leave No Child Behind Act, invests in substantial school construction, our Nation's teachers, vocational education and student loan programs. It also provides critical resources to our Nation's community development and housing programs. It creates a national housing trust fund, restores the administration's cuts to eliminate the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, and it provides over $1 billion for economic and community development.

In addition to funding critical programs at home, our bill also commits substantial increases in funding toward fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic abroad and commits $1.2 billion over the President's reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

How can our budget really afford to fund these priorities? It is really very simple. Instead of tax handouts to the wealthy, our budget freezes the tax cuts passed in 2001, closes corporate tax loopholes, and really does ignore President Bush's new tax cut proposals. In short, our budget has its priorities straight.

I encourage our colleagues to join me in supporting our budget. Let us support our troops tonight, Mr. Chairman, by passing this budget that says in no uncertain terms that we intend to bring you home to a country that places your economic security as our highest priority. I thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for this alternative and for their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise with a heavy heart in strong support of our troops. My thoughts and prayers are with them, and I pray for their safe return. As a soldier's daughter, my heart also goes out to their families. I know they anxiously await their return home.

America's Armed Forces put their lives on the line and their sacrifices should never be forgotten. That is why just 2 weeks ago I voted in favor of H.J. Res. 27, which recognized and commended the continuing dedication and selfless service of members of the Armed Forces and their families. In spite of our policy differences, I do support our young men and women in uniform.

But what I cannot support, though, is this resolution that endorses war against Iraq. I believed and still believe that diplomatic alternatives existed, the inspections process was working. Keeping our troops out of harm's way has been and remains first and foremost on my mind and in my heart. May God protect them and return them safely home.

Mr. Speaker, on March 18, 2003, during rollcall vote No. 65 on H. Con. Res. 26 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this Special Order and for his leadership, especially for giving us one more chance to discuss this march to this needless and dangerous war. This is a really sad and very somber evening for many of us.

Last September, the Congressional Black Caucus issued five principles on war with Iraq. The principles began by saying: ``We oppose a unilateral first-strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States.'' All these months later, Mr. Speaker, we still have no evidence of an imminent threat to our country. Even the CIA in a declassified report has said that Saddam Hussein is unlikely to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or our allies unless he himself is under dire threat of attack. We do not face an imminent threat.

The second principle reads, ``Only Congress has the authority to declare war.'' Congress has not declared war. And the Constitution is unyielding on this point.

The third principle states, ``Every diplomatic option must be exhausted.'' Our diplomatic options are not exhausted, although the President's patience apparently is. Through diplomatic engagement and inspections, we have successfully contained and restrained Saddam Hussein. The inspections process is working. It is just not finished yet.

The fourth Congressional Black Caucus principle states, ``A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the Mideast region, and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities.'' All of these concerns are still with us, Mr. Speaker.

The doctrine of preemption and the threat of preemptive war against Iraq do not make us safer. They make us less secure. This doctrine threatens to set a dangerous precedent that might then be cited by other countries, including other nuclear powers, to justify preemptive first strikes against perceived future threats. That is not a world we want to live in, and not an example we want to set. We also risk unleashing new waves of instability and destruction in the Middle East. And no one here questions for a minute that we have not met our priorities here at home. The Bush budget underfunds education, job training, health care, environmental protections, housing and a host of other critical and neglected priorities. And it underfunds all those programs without including one penny to cover the hundreds of billions of dollars that war and occupation in Iraq will cost. That is still to come.

The fifth principle of the Congressional Black Caucus document from last fall reads, ``Any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and would require a long-term commitment.'' Those facts are still very much with us today. A well-known Yale economist said that reconstruction and occupation in Iraq could cost well over $1 trillion. That is not something the President has acknowledged. It is certainly not in the budget that he has just submitted.

We issued those principles last fall, last September, when the President claimed the unilateral right to attack Iraq with or without United Nations' authority and talked a lot about regime change. After all this time, we have returned to our starting point.

Tonight we are on the eve of a war. We must take this opportunity, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland again for giving us the opportunity to make one last plea.

I want to read excerpts from a letter sent to President Bush by really a great religious leader, the presiding Bishop of the Church of God in Christ, Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson, and the General Board of the Church of God in Christ, which is the largest African American Christian denomination in the United States of America. Some of the excerpts are:

``Dear President Bush: We write to you as predominantly black clergy, intellectuals and informed laypersons of community-serving churches of the Church of God in Christ to address matters of the deepest gravity, namely, that of war and peace as presented by your statements and those of Vice President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld concerning a preemptive attack upon Iraq.

``We are mindful that war, should it come to pass, will directly affect the safety and well-being of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens in the Armed Forces, of whom significant numbers are ethnic minorities in the enlisted as well as the officers and noncommissioned ranks.

``Our thoughts also extend to the safety and well-being of Iraqi civilians who have not lifted a hand against the United States. We are deeply concerned that critical moral reflection on the prospects of war has been overlooked by some in your administration. We do not advocate a weak America, unable to defend the innocents from tyranny of attack, but a strong America must examine itself before setting off to war.''

Bishop Patterson goes on to say, ``We would agree that Iraq's President Saddam Hussein has demonstrated aggression against his neighbors in the past, some of which was unopposed, mind you, by the United States Government. We would also agree that if Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, this would be a matter of grave concern. In this regard, we believe that the United States' interests are best served by using the existing mechanisms of international law, collaboration and consultation with our allies, and the use of existing United Nations resolutions to support the work of weapons inspectors so they may detect and destroy any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

``However, we do not find any moral justification for a preemptive strike in the absence of an attack or a real threat of an attack against the United States of America. A military strike of this nature puts the United States in the posture of aggressive warfare, not defense, which is precisely the behavior that we, and your administration, deplore in the Iraqi regime.

``Surely our Nation and its leaders can examine their own intentions in light of Holy Scripture before setting their feet upon the blood- soaked path of war whose ultimate outcome is known with certainty only by the Maker of us all.''

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support our troops with all my heart. As a soldier's

daughter, I know what their families are feeling now. I hope and pray for the return, the safe return, of our Armed Forces and for the safety of Iraqi civilians who will inevitably be caught in the crossfire of any conflict. And I hope and pray that our Nation finds an alternative to war.

Once again, as Bishop Patterson said, money spent on war to destroy lives could instead be used to save lives by financing the alleviation of the impending famines in Southern Africa, or to provide clean drinking water to enhance the health of hundreds of thousands of poor, defenseless men, women and children throughout that continent. He said that these resources could also be productively directed toward providing treatment and prevention services for those afflicted by the HIV/AIDS holocaust in Africa, the United States and other countries around the world, not to forget the blight and ravages of economic depression in Appalachia and the inner cities of America.

Once again, I just want to say to the gentleman from Maryland and to members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to this body here tonight, that we still have a window of opportunity, a very short window. Tonight we are making one last plea not only on behalf of ourselves, but on behalf of millions of people in our country, millions of people throughout the world who want to see a safe and secure America, who want to see a safe and secure world, who want to turn over to our children a world that is more secure, not less secure.