Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, Secretary Rumsfeld's announcement a few months ago that the war in Iraq would be won by the application of ``shock and awe'' was not the revelation of a new and innovative weapon. Shock and awe has always been the dominant feature of war. Indeed war itself is inevitably traumatic; when there is death and killing there is automatic and excruciating shock and awe. Part of the power of the early witch doctors was derived from the grotesque mask they wore. Roman armor was designed not merely to protect soldiers but also to frighten the enemy. Viking ships had monstrous images carved on their masts to terrify their victims before attacking. Hitler's Luftwaffe planes from the air with bombs slaughtered the Polish cavalry charging forward on their obsolete white horses. The Russians employed a monster tank that made even the cold blooded Nazis cringe with fear. And, of course, nuclear war is the ultimate shock and awe. When we announce shock and awe as a great accomplishment there is a danger that we will grossly mislead our youth. There is nothing glorious and splendid about shock and awe. War is at best a necessary evil. The war against Iraq is an unnecessary evil. The following Rap poem seeks to expose the horror of Shock and Awe:

Shock and Awe

See the devil's claw--

Thunder lightning death!

American Satan certified,

Fiery werewolf's paw,

Welcome the witch's law.

Shock and Awe!

God gave Lucifer

The outrage sign--

No more floods,

Generals in charge this time.

Military hi-tech games

Smoke and flames

Tomahawks never error

Now the screech of terror!

O say can you hear

Like hysterical chickens

Enemy families scrambling

With their foreign fear.

Target with the drone

Then melt the ancient stone;

Ignore the pope

Burn infant hope.

Apologize for the human stew:

Brains fried

Glands crisp dried

Ears toasted

Thighs roasted

Blood and skin

For savage sausage;

Barbecue ageing sages

Too old to flee,

Dracula's banquet served free.

America stands by what it said--

Every Iraqui orphan will be fed;

Salute the red white and blue--

Liberation will surely come true.

With Shock and Awe

We decree new orders--

We reserve the right

To draw new borders.

Bagdad is burning,

For Damascus

We are yearning,

On the table Tehran too,

Salute almighty red white and blue.

Color the sky red

Pray for the collateral dead,

Ingest civilization raw,

Taste unpolluted steaming

Shock and Awe!

Entice priests away from popes,

Humiliate polyglot UN dopes;

Shove Paris onto the track,

Watch Moscow at our back;

Ambitious Shiites should cross no border;

Shock and Awe

Is the new world order!

See the devil's claw

Fiery werewolf's paw

Welcome the witch's law.

Shock and Awe!

Shock and Awe!

Mr. Speaker, there was a historic leadership summit held yesterday. Today is May 15. Yesterday, on May 14, there was a historic African American leadership conference held here in Washington. I want to salute the sponsors. It turns out that most of the sponsors, practically all the sponsors, are Republican. Every year the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation sponsors a legislative weekend where people in the African American community, certainly leaders from all over the Nation, assemble here in Washington; but they are nonpartisan. Republicans come, corporate heads, the labor people. It is wide open as a nonpartisan event. Everybody discusses common problems.

It is very interesting that this African American leadership conference, which is very new, I suppose I want to say at the outset, is certainly welcome. The attention African Americans are getting from Republicans is welcome. We have no problem with that. The myths that arise as a result of past Republican Party behavior, we would like to see put to rest. There is a myth that Republicans do not care at all for the concerns of the African American community, and, therefore, they are left to the Democrats who take them for granted because they are sensing or knowing that the Republicans do not care to be bored with the concerns of the African American community; the Democrats take us for granted, and they do not exercise themselves too much either over our concerns.

Those myths, neither one probably is true. Republicans are showing that they do care. They recognize simple arithmetic, that even if they got 15 percent of the African American vote, which would be unusual, it would be 15 percent taken away from the Democrats certainly in a national election, and it would go a long way toward guaranteeing victory. If they got 25 percent, of course, they would be unstoppable. So the arithmetic is understood by the Republicans as well as Democrats. If they did not understand it before, they understand it now. Democrats have never ignored taking African Americans for granted. The history of legislation, of positions and actions in the Democratic Party, when you look at them quickly, make it quite clear that they are very much concerned about African American concerns.

Democrats are concerned with things that benefit most Americans. What is good for most Americans is good for African Americans and vice versa. What is good for African Americans is good for all Americans. Attention paid by the Republican majority to African Americans will not only redound to the benefit of African Americans, but I expect it will help a lot of other Americans out there at the same time, because African Americans are on the cutting edge when it comes to suffering, when it comes to being at the bottom of the pile and receiving resources, when it comes to being at the top of the pile when it is time to lay off people and fire people. They are barometers.

We know what is coming with the larger community when we look at what takes place in the African American community. This is something that we have said for a long time. We had problems with diseases. The drug problem when it first arose was primarily in the African American slum communities where it could breed because people had all kinds of problems and the rackets could flourish; but it

got so powerful, the rackets flourishing in those communities, that they were able to branch out and swept all over America like an octopus that leaves no community untouched, the drug trade and all of the kinds of addictions and diseases that are spawned by the drug trade.

And so it is with any other problem. The health care problem is deepest and most egregious in the African American community. New figures have shown that instead of 40 million Americans not being covered by insurance, we are now at a point where it is more like 60 million Americans are not covered by any insurance. Among those not covered percentage-wise, within the whole African American community, a greater percentage of African Americans are uncovered, and they have been that way for a long time in terms of health insurance. So our cry for universal health care, health insurance for all is certainly good for the African American community, but it is good for all of America. Therefore, I welcome the African American leadership summit.

I am taking the time now to just tell my colleagues here who did not know about it that it did take place. It started Tuesday with a welcome reception in the Russell Caucus Room. Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison gave welcoming remarks at that session. And none other than Senate majority leader Bill Frist opened it up as a guest speaker, the keynote speaker. You cannot beat that in terms of the importance, the elevation of it in the priority scale of the Senate. You had the top leadership there.

Then they had a continental breakfast on Wednesday. You had Senators Hutchison and Santorum again, I guess they are the primary sponsors here, opening up. The African American leadership summit was addressed by U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige. That is quite a coup, because as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus education brain trust, I have been trying for 2 years to get Secretary Paige to come to our annual fall legislative conference, and both times I have gotten no response. He is the Secretary of Education. We wanted to hear from him and invited him just as we invited all previous secretaries of education, and he has never responded.

So this leadership summit for the African Americans yesterday pulled a coup. Secretary Paige was there. Of course he was part of a process which involved a panel of distinguished people: Ed Dorn, the dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas; Dr. Ernest Holloway, the president of Langston University; and the great Robert Woodson, Sr., founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, which usually focuses on problems related to African American housing. Then they had a health care forum after that and a luncheon with a keynote address delivered by none other than the chief of staff of the President, Mr. Andrew Card. Then they had an economic empowerment panel after lunch with the Honorable Johnny Ford, Alabama State House of Representatives; Kay Coles James, the director of U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Karen Johnson Street, Office of Entrepreneurial Development; and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans. Then later on they had an affirmative action discussion, ``Expanding Opportunity and Diversity,'' it was called, with HUD deputy Secretary Alphonso Jackson; Veterans Affairs deputy Secretary Leo Mackay; and Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele.

I have taken time to run through this schedule quickly because so many of my colleagues knew nothing about it. Many of them would have welcomed the opportunity to participate in a nonpartisan way, but let us salute the Republican majority for taking this initiative. There were a few other ceremonies, I understand, in addition to that, with the Speaker involved at the Frederick Douglass House. There was a ceremony at the White House, also. It is just important to note.

I would like to take that as my starting point by saying what is good for the African American community is good for America as a whole. If it is good for Americans as a whole, it is good for the African American community. Let us go back to the fact that Secretary Paige was there and they were addressing matters relating to education. Because I am alarmed, I am upset, I am angry about what is happening to education all across America. We have done a 180-degree turn in terms of the progress that was being made. After all the hype and the high pitch of success that we decreed after passing the No Child Left Behind legislation, we are now in worse shape than ever before, not only with respect to the Federal Government's support for education but also, in general, local and State support.

In this year, 2003, we have numerous States and local governments, local education agencies facing the situation where they are not sure they have the money to get through the school year. They are not sure they can pay their teachers and administrators and all the other costs. At a time when we expect education reform, education improvement to be going forward at a more rapid rate to meet needs that are definitely there in our society, we are going backwards. The Federal Government's refusal to live up to its promises, this administration's refusal to live up to its promises is complicating things.

We are not just not improving the situation; we are making it worse. We have mandates out there, requirements out there that require resources, dollars, to fulfill. In the absence of those dollars and those resources, we are putting an extra burden on the school systems. We have increased the bitterness and the cynicism. It comes down in very concrete terms in a system like New York City's large school system, where they are projecting the layoff of 1,000 or more teachers, at a time when we have worked hard to get more teachers and smaller classes, at a time when No Child Left Behind says that we require that every teacher be certified, that they meet certain standards.

It is imperative that the teachers really know what they are doing, especially those in the early grades who have generally been neglected when it came to certification and standards. We are in the situation now where we are laying off teachers. In the process, we increase the class sizes. In the process we make the job of teaching more difficult and we lose many talented people, who were interested in teaching, under this set of conditions.

There is no relief being offered in any way for the problems that plague schools in terms of facilities. No teacher relishes the idea of getting a bachelor's degree or a master's degree and going to work in a building which has safety and health conditions worse than the average factory. So many of our schools are more hazardous than the average factory. In fact, we would fine some factories if they had the kind of conditions that have existed in some of our schools. The buildings get older every year. In big cities, especially like New York where many buildings are more than 100 years old and many more than that over 75 years old, there is almost no turning back renovations, and various attempts to maintain these buildings is a losing proposition. But there are no new buildings on the horizon for most of these communities. Many of those that were on the horizon, in a building program, now are forced to step back because the funds are not there.

What does all this have to do with the Federal Government and the budget-making process here? What does it have to do with the African American leadership summit? The African American leadership summit, the people there ought to know that of all the communities that are suffering most from the dearth in resources in respect to education, the minority communities are suffering the worst situation. As we strive to improve the Federal performance in the area of helping African American schools, schools where most of the students are predominantly African American in the inner cities, some rural areas, we will also raise the level of assistance for other schools.

Title I was primarily designed to help youth, children who are poor. The proportion of children in the African American community who are poor is greater than the proportion in the population as a whole. African American children and Hispanic children make up the bulk of the children who are eligible for title I funds. Title I funds were supposed to be increased, doubled,

over a 5-year period. That is what the administration promised. They backed away. In the first year, instead of getting $6 billion of an increase, we are getting $3 billion of an increase.

There are definite concrete dollars-and-cents reasons why the suffering that is setting in out there taking place, definite reasons why principals and teachers and education officials are feeling bitter, are feeling more overwhelmed, are feeling more cynical about the commitment of their Nation and their government and the leaders to education.

If we are not committed to education, what are we committed to? We are committed, very much so, to the expansion of our military might. We voted overwhelmingly for a $79 billion budget for the war in Iraq and the effort related to the war in Iraq. I am not going to discuss in great detail how much of that is going to be wasted, how it is going to be counterproductive, but the point I want to make is that if we can go further into deficit, and we do not have the money, it is going to be borrowed as part of the deficit financing, if we can go $79 billion into deficit related to the war in Iraq and related activities like bribing our coalition partners and making certain that they support us and numerous other activities that are not specified, if we can do that, we certainly could use deficit financing to come to the aid of the cities and the local education agencies and the States that now are faced with the prospect of not being able to finance the education system through the whole year.

Why not have a revenue-sharing bill which helps to close the gaps that the States and the cities and the education agencies are fielding? Why not go further? Let us take $79 billion and divide it over a 3-year period and phone it into the States and the cities for specific expenditures related to education, maybe half of it to go to education- related expenditures and the other half to go to municipal and State functions that are suffering as a result of the layoffs.

It is getting worse every day. New York State, New York City, has a huge budget gap between revenues and expenditures. At the same time they have a constitution, a charter, which does not allow them to go beyond the revenue collected. They have to have a balanced budget. Most States in the country are in the same position. They have to have a balanced budget.

The United States Government does not have to have a balanced budget. We are able to do deficit financing, and we have embarked on a course of deficit financing that is unprecedented under the Bush administration, the present administration.

There was a time when Mr. Gingrich was the head of the majority here that the great emphasis was on balancing the budget. We heard nothing from one end of the year to the other except the ideology of the need to balance the budget. Suddenly nobody talks about balancing the budget anymore, and I do not want to raise the issue. At this point balancing the budget is not half as important as coming to the aid of our cities and our local education agencies with Federal dollars. Where else will the dollars come from?

So I want to say to the African American leaders who gathered at summit that it is important for them to make a case with Secretary Paige and with the other hosts for the summit that there is an education emergency in the United States right now, and the worst part of the emergency is unfolding in the African American community.

A very interesting event occurred and was written up in the New York Times last week. The teacher of the year for 2001 was a black teacher from South Carolina, a young lady who was selected because of her outstanding performance in the classroom as teacher of the year, and she was given a $25,000 prize, given a fancy car by one of the automobile manufacturers to drive for a little while, lent to her, and showered with all kinds of accolades, et cetera. This year she is facing unemployment. This same teacher, the best we had in 2001, the system cannot find a place for her in South Carolina. When she came back from that 1-year hiatus she had, she was put to work training teachers because the model teacher, outstanding teacher, that is the best use for her, to train teachers, and she had a job that was very useful. She enjoyed it. They have eliminated the position now, and they are not sure they have a place for her, but they probably will find some teaching position somewhere for this exceptional teacher who has shown great leadership ability and the ability to train other people.

Is this going forward, or is it going backwards? That is going backwards in an obvious way. But the school system in South Carolina that she worked for is laying off quite a number of people. They have to balance their budget.

We are giving the American people the impression that America is almost bankrupt, that they should tighten their belts and go with it because what else can we do? Where if my colleagues would just open their eyes and our constituents would just open their eyes, what could we do? We could borrow money for education and for municipal services just the way we borrowed money for the war in Iraq or any other defense expenditure we want to make. We have already busted the budget. We are already into deficit financing during this period of recession, which everybody assumes is a temporary period of recession, and it probably will be. We do not foresee the collapse of the American capitalistic economy. We are going to come back, but this is a period of crisis. Why not in this period of crises come to the aid of our citizen States?

African American leaders should tell Secretary Paige that we are dying. A generation cannot wait until the recession blows over. We need to have the education there now. We need educated people everywhere more than ever before.

Even in our military there is a gross problem of education. In the first days of the war in Iraq, we were losing people to friendly fire and human error at a faster rate than we were losing them as a result of enemy fire, because we have a high-tech military. We have a high- tech apparatus that requires some very outstanding minds to operate. Even under on the ground at lower levels, there is a lot of need for a more educated population. That is going to get worse in terms of the need. I should say get better. There is nothing wrong with needing more educated people, but the society must rise up to the challenge and guarantee that educated people are there.

Most of the people in our Armed Forces, everybody concedes, more than 90 percent are people, men and women, from working class families, working families. They are from families that need public education. They cannot go to private schools. They are from families that need help from government in various ways, including housing. Too many of our military personnel are forced to utilize food stamps, and a small percentage are forced to go on welfare in order to maintain their families. That is a disgrace. That is not just.

One of the criteria for success in the war on Iraq and the surrounding occupation of Iraq and the creation of a democracy in Iraq is the degree to which we bring justice to Iraq. We will succeed or fail. And this war has not been won. The war has just gone through phase one. Phase two is can we occupy Iraq and really create a democracy as a result of our efforts there, or will we be consumed by something that gets totally out of control and we end up in a violent malaise with the people of Iraq in urban guerrilla warfare where all of our advantages of high-tech warfare go out the window because it is on the ground, man to man, bayonets, rifles, block-by-block fighting. I hope we are not consumed in that kind of quagmire.

But even if we do not go into that kind of quagmire, the question is will we be able to really convince the people of Iraq to go forward and establish a just and democratic society? The degree to which we succeed there will depend on the degree to which we bring justice to Iraq. One of the problems with our bringing justice to the people of Iraq is we do not know much about justice at home if we do not find ourselves able to create a healthcare system here that covers everybody. If we cannot find the money for a public education system that educates our children adequately, how are we going to bring justice to Iraq and provide those kinds of benefits? Justice in Iraq right

away means do we care about whether they have running water? Do we care about whether they have electricity? Simple matters like that are evidences of whether the occupying power cares about justice.

We secured every oil field. We boasted of that. It has been repeated over and over. Every oil installation in Iraq was immediately secured. We got the military to guard it, no looting, no abuse, no stealing of equipment and machinery, and we also got technicians in there right away as a part of Halliburton's $7 billion contract, technicians and people there on the ground to make sure that a speedy effort goes forward to get them running. In many cases they never stopped running. We want to maximize the output of every oil well. We care about oil wells, and we have let the whole population of Iraq know we care about oil wells because that is what we focussed on. We left the museums unguarded. They got looted, trashed. We left the schools. We left the hospitals unguarded. So the looters went in there and looted hospitals and looted whatever was unguarded because the occupying power showed those things were less important.

The New York Times had in the front page the day before yesterday a front picture of an insane asylum in Baghdad, a maximum security insane asylum which was set up to hold the most worst and the most violent people who were insane, and the story that the director told was very heartbreaking. The insane asylum was secure until the marines came with battering rams and knocked down the walls, and some of them were screaming, ``We are here to liberate you.'' I guess they did not know where they were, and they liberated all of the insane prisoners, insane inmates, and they are gone. They left the place unguarded, of course, and some of the patients there, particularly women patients, were greatly abused. They raped the women patients, and it is a nightmare, on the front pages of the New York Times.

We sent a message about justice that is the wrong message. We do not care about sick people. Hospital beds are still begging for security. They want somebody to come and guard the hospitals because they have rampant lawlessness in a nation of 24 million people that we expect to occupy on a shoestring. We say we have 150,000 to 160,000 troops there, but the military certainly never tells what it has. I am sure we have more than that. But even if we have 200,000 troops there, it is a nation of 24 million people, 24 million people. It is going to take more than 200,000 troops to establish order, for technicians and other kinds of people to get the electricity running again, to get the water system running.

All these things are doable. There is no magic needed to make the electricity flow again. We have the technicians and the people to make it happen, but we have to assign priority to it. Justice for the average Iraqi family is do we care enough to get their electricity back on? Do we care enough to have decent drinking water for their kids? Those are the first signs of justice.

Iraq sits on an oil pool that is second only to Saudi Arabia. So Iraq eventually will pump enough oil for whatever it needs. From beneath the soil of Iraq, with the more efficient, effective systems of modern oil pumping and production, they will be a rich nation on paper. All they need is there. The question is are we going to be just and make certain that the oil revenues that come from the soil of Iraq, the first priority is to go to people of Iraq?

They do not have to have aid from the United States. They do not have to raid our Treasury to pay for their education system or their healthcare system or anything else if we would just let them use the oil revenue from their own soil.

Justice means directing the resources of Iraq to help the Iraqi people. We are off to a bad start if we will not give them electricity, we will not give them water. There is great fear that the oil barons of the world would descend on Iraq with contracts and various schemes, are going to carve up the oil resources of Iraq, and the money flowing out of the oil wells will flow out of Iraq into the hands of others. That is a great challenge. I hope we meet it. I hope we do not make the error of assuming that we can use the resources of Iraq and expect the people to believe in democracy and capitalism as being a good system for them. We are going to have to have justice, or we are off to a bad start because we have not cared about electricity, water, food, basics.

So, I say all this to say that African Americans who went to the leadership summit who have the ear of this administration now, great, it is wonderful they are listening. Tell them that we need examples of justice here at home.

There are too many hungry African American children. There are too many situations where African American children go to schools that are more dangerous than their homes in terms of health hazards, because of the still existing problem of lead paint, of various erosions in the buildings, of situations in the wintertime where kids have to sit huddled in their coats and all winter long, are racked with colds, with situations that have a lack of appropriate ventilation, and asthma is exacerbated, and on and on it goes.

We need justice for the children of America. I heard a speech by the President early in the war where he said, do not worry, we will guarantee that every Iraqi child has a good education, that every Iraqi child will have a textbook. Well, I hope so. But I would believe it if we had guaranteed, first of all, that every American child, African American and others, had the textbooks they need. So justice at home here has to be practiced before we can really believe that it is going to happen abroad.

We are going to fail in Iraq, we are going to have a monumental failure, if we do not bring justice to that foreign land. With all of its various problems, its violent history, its different religions, all the things that are there, they cry out for the maximum effort being made by the occupying power to convince people that we are indeed a just society. MacArthur did it in Japan, the Marshall Plan did it in Europe, in Germany. It is not undoable, it is not impossible, but it has to have leadership that understands and is committed to justice.

It is very interesting, at the end of World War II, the people who were able to succeed so marvelously in occupying Japan and Hitler's Germany, what was left of it, were all people who favored Social Security here; people who created Social Security, people who created social programs here; people who led the government into an unprecedented commitment on safety nets; people who created the first farm subsidies. The administrations of those people were in power when we occupied Japan and Germany. So it was not by accident that they were able to bring a sense of justice and move on from justice to create a democracy that the people themselves in Japan and Germany could take over.

I say to the African Americans who have the ear of the administration, please send this message: We have an education crisis. We also have a health care crisis. There are individuals out there dying who should not be dying, because we have the modern science, the modern pharmaceutical tools, we have everything it takes to keep those people alive. But they are dying because they are poor. It just comes down to that.

You may have countries in the world with far less wealth than the United States of America who are providing decent health care systems. I hope that on economic empowerment, there was a special panel for the African American Leadership Council there, I hope they understand economic empowerment means, first of all, creating jobs for people on the bottom.

Henry Ford was not a great lover of poor people necessarily. He was not a great lover of his workers. He fought them tooth and nail in their attempts to unionize his plants. He looked out there and said, if I pay these guys a better wage, they can buy my cars. He had common sense.

There is nothing sounder in economic theory than the simple Henry Ford theory. If I pay these guys a better wage, they can afford to buy my cars. The American consumer has become the engine of the economy because we pay them well, because we fought to get decent wages, we fought to have leverage implemented, executed, by our labor unions.

We have a situation where people are making a decent wage. They can buy the products, and, boom, we took off. Nothing in the history of the world has existed like the American economy. At the heart of the economy is the consumers.

The heart of the recession is the consumers have run out of money, and it is now snowballing because of the increasing automation, because of high-tech production. You can produce products without human beings. You can produce products by using foreigners.

We even have listening complaint setups in the health care systems now, where you are an HMO in New York or New Jersey, and if someone calls to complain, if the person calling has a problem to be resolved, the person who answers the phone sounds like they are from Brooklyn, New York, or New Jersey, but it is an Indian young woman. The Indians speak English, and they study very carefully the accents in America, and we have contracts with groups in India answering our telephones. The cost of high-tech transmission from the U.S. to India is so low that you can let young ladies from cities in India take over the job. They get paid in 1 year what the same American operator on the telephone would get paid in 1 month.

That is the kind of undercutting of the economy that is taking place. You are wiping out the consumers. The Indians will be paid less, but they will spend their money in India. They will not spend it in the economy of the United States. On and on it goes with examples of that kind.

So, African American leaders who were at the Economic Empowerment Panel, creating jobs and wealth, will you please try to get the ear of the Republican host and make them understand that a stimulus package advocated by the Democrats, advocated by the Congressional Black Caucus, advocated by the Congressional Progressive Caucus still is a package that puts people to work by establishing public works projects, by creating revenue-sharing.

That stimulus package would revive the economy at a far faster rate than a tax cut of billions of people for people who already have plenty of money. If you give them more money, they are not going to spend it in this economy in the way the people at the bottom will, the consumers who are forced to, who have needs and have to meet the needs.

The suffering can be brought to a halt with simple, time-honored measures. We have had public works projects in the past. We have had revenue-sharing in the past. Nothing proposed by the Democratic minority or the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Progressive Caucus is radical and new. We have had it before.

So, Mr. Speaker, I submit this draft timeline of the African American Leadership Summit for the record. It is an historic document, and it ought to be part of the Record.

African American Leadership Summit

tuesday, may 13, 2003

3:30-5:30 p.m.: Early Bird Registration--Hyatt Regency.

5:30-7:00 p.m.: Welcome Reception--Russell Caucus Room, 325

Russell Senate Building.

5:40 p.m.: U.S. Sens. Rick Santorum and Kay Bailey

Hutchison welcome remarks.

6:15 p.m.: Guest Speaker: Senate Majority Leader Bill

Frist.

wednesday, may 14, 2003

8:00-8:20 a.m.: Continental Breakfast.

8:20-9:15 a.m.: Opening Briefing: Sens. Hutchison and

Santorum (15 mins each w/25 mins Q&A).

9:15-10:30 a.m.: Education: Raising American Achievement.

9:15-9:55 a.m.: U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige (15

mins w/25 minutes Q&A).

9:55-10:30 a.m.: Panel: (5 mins each w/20 mins Q&A). Ed

Dorn, Dean, LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of

Texas; Dr. Ernest Holloway, President, Langston University;

President's HBCU Board of Advisors; Robert Woodson, Sr.,

Founder and President, National Center for Neighborhood

Enterprise.

10:30-11:35 a.m.: Health Care: Ensuring Affordable Access

and Quality.

10:30-10:45 a.m.: Panel: 4 mins. each w/15 mins Q&A after

Dr. Carmona speaks). Harry Alford, President, National Black

Chamber of Commerce; Renee Amoore, Founder and President, The

Amoore Group; Dr. Natalie Carroll, President, National

Medical Association.

10:45-11:20 a.m.: U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona,

M.D., (15 mins w/20 mins Q&A).

11:20-11:35 a.m.: Balance of Panel Discussion (Alford,

Amoore, Dr. Carroll).

11:35-11:45 a.m.: Transition to Lunch in another room.

11:45-1:00 p.m.: Luncheon with Keynote Address.

11:45-12:15 p.m.: Lunch.

12:15-1:00 p.m.: Keynote Speaker: Chief of Staff to the

President of the United States Andrew Card.

1:00-1:15 p.m.: Transition back to General Session room.

1:15-2:30 p.m.: Economic Empowerment: Creating Jobs and

Wealth.

1:15-1:50 p.m.: Panel: (5 mins each w/20 mins Q&A). Hon.

Johnny Ford, Alabama State House of Representatives, 82nd

District; Kay Coles James, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel

Management; Kaaren Johnson Street, SBA, Office of

Entrepreneurial Development.

1:50-2:30 p.m. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans (15

mins w/25 mins Q&A).

2:30-3:45 p.m.: Affirmative Access: Expanding Opportunity

and Diversity.

2:30-3:45 p.m.: Panel (7 mins each w/45 mins Q&A). HUD

Deputy Secretary Alphonso Jackson; Veterans Affairs Deputy

Secretary Leo Mackay; Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele.

3:45-4:00 p.m.: Summit Wrap-Up/Adjournment. Sens. Hutchison

and Santorum.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just continue for a moment by saying that there are solutions. We went from an April unemployment rate of 5.8 percent to 6 percent. It is going up. Things are not getting better as a result of the first tax cut that we have given, and are not likely to get better at this point when we are talking about more tax cuts. And, even if we achieve them, it is not likely to get better.

The reality is that we are in a recession that will exist until jobs are created. So I want everybody, my colleagues and everybody, the African American Leadership Summit folks, to understand that the simple matter of creating wealth through providing means to earn high income has to be on our agenda first.

Just one final note on the African American Leadership Summit. I wonder if they discussed the fact that a recent report of the Federal Reserve showed that in the African American community, the median family wealth was at $17,000 per family, versus the median family wealth for white families being at $120,000; $120,000 versus $17,000. There is a great gap there that I hope the African American Leadership Summit people will suggest to their Republican hosts as rapidly as possible.

One solution I would propose for the immediate situation is an old, time-honored solution. I have introduced a bill which I would call on my colleagues to think very seriously about, because it is an old- fashioned remedy to the problem. I am introducing this bill, and another one next week, a companion piece, called the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804. I welcome all of my colleagues to join me in getting on H.R. 1804. H.R. 1804 is legislation that will raise revenue and reduce increasing budget deficits which are due to the cost of the war in Iraq.

Beyond the $79 billion we have already authorized, increased defense spending for the Iraqi war and occupation and rebuilding of the country will grow rapidly and uncontrollably. Nobody should be fooled by the fact that $79 billion has been appropriated. That is not going to be the cost. It will be far greater than that. Collected revenues will continue to be substantially less in this country than projected Federal expenditures, placing strains on the budget appropriations process.

Vital federally funded programs are already facing devastating financial assistance cuts. Education, public housing, Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, these are only a few of these programs. Currently the proposed budget cuts over a 10-year period, Medicaid will be cut by about $93 billion, Medicare has no protection, $28.3 billion in veterans' health care benefits, $38.5 billion from education, training and Social Service programs. All these cuts are leaving the American family behind at a time when 90 percent of our troops in the field are from working families.

Historically a special tax placed on the profits of the Nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S. war effort. I repeat, historically a special tax placed on the profits of the Nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S. war effort. The Domestic Budget Protection Act follows in these historic steps, and it offers a solution to increased assistance to domestic programs by placing a surcharge on corporations with assets greater than $10 million.

This special revenue will be used to fund the war and the occupation, and

because it will be used to fund the war and occupation, it will free up revenue to fund domestic programs.

In the last 25 years, corporations have borne less and less of the overall tax burden. Their share, while dropping as low as 6 percent within the last 20 years, is currently 8 percent of overall tax burden. Corporations are paying only 8 percent of the overall tax burden.

On the other hand, individual income taxes as a share of the overall burden has risen from 13.6 percent in 1940 to the present level of 46.3 percent. So individuals and families who can afford to pay income tax the least are paying more, and corporations that are very rich, you look at the Fortune 500 list, you know corporations are not suffering at all, they are paying less and less income taxes.

On the back of my ``Dear Colleague,'' I have some excerpts from my Domestic Budget Protection Act, and I quote:

``The Congress finds that there is an established precedent for the long-term financing of a U.S. war effort. A special tax on the profits of the Nation's largest corporations would be in accordance with previous precedents, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam.

``The Congress finds that in the last 25 years corporations have borne less and less of the overall tax burden, and, therefore, the corporate share of tax burden has dropped, while the individual's has gone up.

``The Congress finds it is necessary to suspend further reductions in assistance to domestic programs, and it is also imperative that any increases in revenue be utilized for assistance to these vital domestic programs.''

In other words, if we take away the competition of the military budget for Iraq and have the corporations finance that through a surcharge on their profits, we would be able to have the vital domestic programs funded at a higher level, minus all of the cuts that are taking place at this point. The profits of some of our corporations are mind-boggling.

If you look at the Fortune 500 report, or the Forbes 500 report, corporations like Wal-Mart, $8 billion in profits last year; Exxon Mobile, $11 billion in profits; General Electric, $14 billion-plus; Citigroup, $15 billion-plus. On and on it goes. Microsoft, $7 billion- plus. So long before you get to those little corporations down there who have assets of $10 million, you would be able to fulfill the need to fund the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record at this point in its entirety my letter to my colleagues, which is entitled, ``You Are Invited to Cosponsor the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804.''

Invitation To Cosponsor the Domestic Budget Protection Act--H.R. 1804

While the Congress has allocated 79 billion dollars for the

Iraq War and occupation, unprecedented hardship devastates

state, local, and education agencies.

Thousands of teachers and government employees are

threatened with layoffs.

Since the Bush Administration offers no revenue sharing

relief, taxes are being increased in states and localities

across the nation.

During past wars a surcharge on corporate profits has

lessened the competition of the military budget with domestic

budget priorities.

Dear Colleague: I am writing to ask for your support in

cosponsoring H.R. 1804, legislation that will raise revenue

and reduce increasing budget deficits due to the cost of war

in Iraq. Beyond the 79 Billion already authorized, increased

Defense funding for the Iraqi War, occupation, and rebuilding

the country of Iraq will grow rapidly and uncontrollably.

Collected revenues will continue to be substantially less

than projected Federal expenditures placing strains on the

Budget/Appropriations process. Vital federally funded

programs are already facing devastating financial assistance

cuts. Education, Public Housing, Medicaid, Medicare and

Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) are only a few of

these programs.

Currently, the proposed budget cuts over a period of ten

years; Medicaid by $93 billion; no protection for Medicare;

$28.3 billion in Veterans' health care and benefits; $38.5

billion in education, training and social service programs.

We are leaving the American Family behind at a time when 90

percent of our troops in the field are from working families.

Historically, a special tax placed on the profits of the

nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S.

War effort. (See findings on back) The Domestic Budget

Protection Act follows in these historic steps and offers a

solution to increase assistance to domestic programs by

placing a surcharge on corporations with assets greater than

10 million dollars. This special revenue will be used to fund

the war and occupation and thus free up revenue to fund

domestic programs. In the last 25 years corporations have

borne less and less of the overall tax burden. Their share,

while dropping as low as 6 percent within the last 20 years,

is currently 8 percent. On the other hand, individual income

taxes as a share of the overall burden has risen from 13.6

percent in 1940 to the present level of 46.3 percent.

Cosponsoring H.R. 1804 sends a clear message to American

Families as well as their relatives on the front lines. We

continue to support them here at home. Please join me by

supporting the Families who need vital domestic programs. To

co-sponsor H.R. 1804, ``The Domestic Budget Protection Act of

2003'' please contact Mary S. Anderson at 225-6321.

Sincerely yours,

Major R. Owens,

Member of Congress.

Excerpts From Findings of the Domestic Budget Protection Act

The Congress finds that there is an established precedent

for the long-term financing of a U.S. War effort. A special

tax on the profits of the nation's largest corporations would

be in accordance with previous precedents: World War I, World

War II, Korea and Vietnam.

The Congress finds that in the last 25 years corporations

have steadily borne less and less of the overall tax burden.

The corporate share of the tax burden has dropped from a high

of 35 percent in 1945 to a level of 8 percent in the year

2002. At the same time the individual income share of the tax

burden has grown from 13 percent in 1940 to 46 percent in

2002.

The Congress finds that it is necessary to suspend further

reductions in assistance to domestic programs. It is also

imperative that any increases in basic revenue be utilized to

increase assistance to vital domestic programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the voodoo economics of the Republican 550 billion dollar tax package. I support the more practical and better targeted Democratic alternative legislation. We are taking action today; however, the quest for a meaningful tax policy for our nation must continue with the widest possible participation in the debate. One constructive component of a new and fairer tax policy must be a greater allocation of the tax burden to the corporate sector. We must have less pain for individual and family income tax payers and more responsibility shouldered by profit making corporations. This process should start now with a surcharge imposed on corporate profits to pay for the Iraq war and occupation.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804, which will eliminate the Iraqi War competition for federal funds and allow the Congress to resume the necessary funding for vital domestic programs. The following important facts must be considered:

While the Congress has allocated 79 billion dollars for the Iraq War and occupation, unprecedented hardship devastates state, local, and education agencies--

Thousands of teachers and government employees are threatened with layoffs--

Since the Bush Administration offers no revenue sharing relief, taxes are being increased in states and localities across the nation--

During past wars a surcharge on corporate profits has lessened the competition of the military budget with domestic budget priorities--

In H.R. 1804, the following is cited: The Congress finds that there is an established precedent for the long-term financing of a U.S. War effort. A special tax on the profits of the nation's largest corporations would be in accordance with previous precedents: World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam.

The Congress finds that in the last 25 years corporations have steadily borne less and less of the overall tax burden. The corporate share of the tax burden has dropped from a high of 35 percent in 1945 to a level of 8 percent in the year 2002. At the same time the individual income tax share of the tax burden has grown from 13 percent in 1940 to 46 percent in 2002.

The Congress finds that it is necessary to suspend further reductions in assistance to domestic programs. It is also imperative that any increases in basic revenue be utilized to increase assistance to vital domestic programs.

Historically, a special tax placed on the profits of the nation's largest corporations has been used to fund the U.S. War effort. The Domestic Budget Protection Act follows in these historic steps and offers a solution to increase assistance to domestic programs by placing a surcharge on corporations with assets greater than 10 million dollars. This special revenue will be used to fund the war and occupation and thus free up other revenue to fund domestic programs. In the last 25 years corporations have borne less and less of the overall tax burden. Their share, while dropping as low as 6 percent within the last 20 years, is currently 8 percent. On the other hand, individual income taxes as a share of the overall burden has risen from 13.6 percent in 1940 to the present level of 46.3 percent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize the fact that the Republican Majority is determined to hide: America is the richest nation that ever existed on the face of the earth. We have the resources to do whatever we decide is important. Our greatest untapped pool of wealth is the pool of corporate profits which grow boundlessly as a result of the favorable economic, political, and militarily security environment maintained by the American people. We must have less pain for the family taxpayers and more revenue responsibility by corporations. Members should begin by supporting the Domestic Budget Protection Act--H.R. 1804.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is faced with a few simple facts that are awesome indeed. Unemployment has risen to a high of 6 percent nationally. In New York it is 9 percent. States throughout the Nation are faced with large deficits. States and cities are being forced to lay off government workers. Since the year 2000, more than 600,000 youths have lost their jobs. The economic downturn appears unlikely to end any time in the near future, according to the majority of the expert economists.

Added to this is the fact that 90 percent of the troops on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan are members of working families. They come from working families. They are out there on the front lines. But nevertheless, here in America the Republican majority wages a relentless war against working families.

I call on the Republican majority to call a truce. Stop your war against working families. You started this administration with a repeal of the ergonomics laws. That was a slap in the face of all working people. You have continued by ignoring the question of raising the minimum wage. You have launched a new assault on cash payments for overtime. You have launched a new assault against OSHA.

Please, call a truce. These are working families who are as important in America as anybody, probably more important. Those are the people who supply the troops out there on the front lines.

We are totally insensitive to the fact that the Nation is diminished by the way the workers are treated. We have very serious problems that are not being addressed by the Workforce Investment Act. More money should be invested in training the workforce needed to make homeland security more than a joke. There are lots and lots of types of expertise needed that we do not have that we ought to be training for.

Let us, please, call a truce. Stop the war, stop the hostilities, against working families in America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the following brief statement speaks for itself with respect to my appreciation for the State of Israel. Israel is presently in the midst of an intense violent struggle which has led to the accumulation of many progressive critics. While I sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people, I am also convinced that they are primarily the victims of their own leaders--and the jihad fanatics around the world who insist on the use of savage violence to achieve their goals. Israel has no choice but to meet the fanatic violence with violence. Arafat and the Palestinian leadership have set the stage and made the rules for this ongoing destructive engagement. Even if you accept the assumption that the Palestinian people have some legitimate grievances, one can still not condone the method they have chosen to seek solutions. For any group confronted by an overwhelming governing power, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have shown the way. The use of nonviolence to petition for the redress of assumed grievances was and still is a choice for the constructive forces among the Palestinians. On the other hand it is a certainty that Israel will never negotiate any change while confronted with the savagery of suicide bombings. We would all like to see this kingpin conflict in the Middle East resolved. I am convinced that it can be resolved permanently and peacefully because Israel is not just another government held together by greed and military power. Israel is the democratic nation guided by a long history of suffering and inspiring human spirits that I describe in this speech at the AIPAC Capitol Club Dinner on March 30, 2003:

I consider it an honor to have an opportunity to reaffirm my unconditional support for the State of Israel. On any major matter involving Israel my vote is always there. I believe firmly and fervently that the salvation of the kind of civilization I want my grandchildren to inherit and enjoy cannot be realized unless we establish many more truly democratic nations all over the globe. Those who believe that more democracy is the answer should also automatically be advocates for Israel. Starting with a constitution which is probably more thorough and more practical than even the United States Constitution, Israel is a model democracy. And woven into the tapestry that makes Israel a great nation are the spirits of Golda Meir, David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and other similar great sages. These spirits accomplish for Israel what the spirits of Jefferson, Lincoln, Truman and others contribute to the definition of America as a nation. We all agree that a nation is more than anyone administration or one set of policies and diplomacy postures. Founding principles and ideals interwoven with the great spirits permanently define a nation. Those who say that Israel is a Middle East outpost for the U.S. or that the

enduring interests of Israel are inextricably interwoven with the interests of the U.S. may not be correct in a formal and legal sense, but the spirit of these positions should be welcomed and appreciated. From the ashes of any temporary crisis or stresses we expect Israel and the U.S. to emerge strongly, fighting together for the same long-term principles and ideals. Temporary disagreements about strategy and tactics must never be allowed to separate us. Based on our individual perceptions and interpretations some of us oppose the war in Iraq; and some others support it. This difference does not break out along any clear ethnic, racial or religious lines. What we must jointly never forget during this current crisis is that there are hostile enemies of democracy and that Israel must be kept strong in order to remain as a model on the front lines fighting to save the kind of government which Abraham Lincoln said should never perish from the earth.

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

Mr. Speaker, the shock of the hot war now raging in Iraq has traumatized many Americans who oppose this war and are ready to fight harder for peace. The dogs of war are growling louder as they seek to intimidate all peace seekers with charges of treason. The warmongers charge that those of us who oppose the war are abandoning our troops in the field. On the contrary those of us who oppose the war value all human life greatly including the life of each American soldier. We support the troops and we want to see them return home as soon as possible not in body bags but smiling on their own two feet. Although we are presently in the minority, the advocates for peace are the Americans with the correct vision and the right blueprint for the future. Despite the world outcry against it, the U.S. has launched the war in Iraq. Peace at this moment is not possible; nevertheless, the struggle to return to a state of peace as soon as possible must continue. Without a doubt, the U.S. military will overwhelm the Iraqi military and the long occupation will begin. The challenge for peace advocates is to make the occupation not a continuation of the evils of the war. A strong peace movement in America has the potential to turn the occupation of Iraq into a major component of a larger world peace blueprint. Instead of allowing the oil resources of Iraq to be plundered and divided among the oil barons of the world, peace advocates must build a multilateral alternative governing structure to confront the U.S. master plan for looting. In the long term war for a world peace Iraq will be only a starting point. There will be no rest for those who dare to stand up to the architects of a new world order which camouflages dominance by a new world elite of the greediest. Peace advocates must conjure up the same fervor and determination as our adversaries. We must plan, work and act with relentless vigilance. This is a call for an army of ``fanatics for peace''. The following Rap poem sets forth the credo of the Fanatics for Peace.

We Are Fanatics for Peace

We citizens volunteer to do our part--

Never mind the military purple heart,

We are fanatics for peace!

Our holy assault must never cease;

Forward to the civil liberty lines,

Blast the voting fraud mines,

The constitution light still shines,

Launch spit into the fascist face

Our maneuvers will save the human race.

Against warmongering lies

A truth revolution will rise;

Deep wells of anger

Pump bitter tears into our eyes;

Fervor for the future,

Democratic civilization fanatics

Wrestle with partisan acrobatics,

Smothered in its star spangled bed

Voter apathy is now real dead.

We are fanatics for peace!

For perpetual war

Dig wide trenches deep

Victims come fight with us

Before you weep.

Contempt is heaped upon the humble,

Wise men merely sit and grumble,

Only we thugs for freedom

March to the never ending front lines.

Pledge Allegiance

To the human race,

Military machines

Are an obsolete disgrace.

Commanders of abuses

Must face the Nurenberg nooses.

We are fanatics for peace!

Pledge allegiance

To the civilization

Our children deserve,

This is the cause

We swear to serve.

Victory without blood

In Gandhi's name,

Celebrate Mandela's fame,

The spirit of Martin King,

Again will reign,

Resist a government

Now gone insane.

Commanders of abuses

Must face the Nurenberg nooses.

We are fanatics for peace!

Run and broadcast the brave news,

Divine mobilization we choose,

Surrender we unconditionally refuse,

Our vision will not decrease

Our passion will never cease

We are fanatics for peace!

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order. I think all Members should be listening and should get the kind of education we have just gotten from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

We have, the Congressional Black Caucus along with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, produced a budget, an alternative budget, to guide our people into understanding what the priorities should be. This is a budget which we call Leave No Family Behind because it addresses the needs of working families.

The New York Times just this past Sunday said that the military, the people who are fighting in Iraq right now, mirrors a working-class America. New York Times, Sunday, March 30, 2003. I urge all Members to get it and read it. It goes into an analysis of who is in the military in great detail. It is working families, representatives of working families. Those are the people who are fighting for America. It is our country as much as it is anybody else's country, and certainly the budget that the Republican majority has put forward starting with the president does not mirror a concern for working families. The concern is not there.

We have heard from my colleagues quite a number of examples of items that are being cut. I will not go through all of that again, but the fact that food stamps for low-income families are being cut drastically, temporary assistance to needy families is being cut. The members of these families are out there fighting. Student loans are being cut. Schools are going to have to close early in some States because the States are running out of money, and they should be the beneficiaries of revenue sharing which is proposed in our budget.

The Federal Government would give the States money to help them make up some of the gap in their budgets. We need a budget which reflects a concern for the working families, members who are out there fighting in Iraq for our country. We need to let them know that this country cares about them and appreciates them and the benefits of the Federal Government certainly are going to be there for them when they come home. That is not true in the President's budget proposed by the Republican majority. We need to make certain that between now and the time we pass the appropriations, we correct this great injustice, this great gap between what is needed for working families and what is there.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of statistics which show how grave the problem is. Last fall, I had a town meeting of veterans in my district, and those were some of the angriest people I have ever seen. These are members of our society who have been betrayed, and who are continuously betrayed. Those who are fortunate enough to come back, there are 58,000 who died in Vietnam, 300,000 were wounded, and some of the wounded were in that audience, and on and on it goes with the insults they have to endure, like the long waiting lists.

It is important for us to note that those of us who are against war are not against soldiers or veterans. Anybody who places his life at risk, whether as a volunteer or drafted, deserves to have the medal of greatness placed upon them. Out of the nearly 300 million people in our population, those few people become great people. There is no such thing as a greatest generation just because they fought World War II. All veterans, Vietnam, Korea, whoever was able to come back, deserves the maximum that we can do in terms of housing, education and certainly medical benefits.

It is a commentary, which I think has been pointed to several times here, on the heartlessness of this administration that at a time like this they would dare have a $28 billion cut in the benefits for veterans over a 10-year period. Veterans deserve all we can give them. They are all part of a great generation no matter which war they have fought in.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to first congratulate the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus for the agreement to produce this joint budget.

Our troops are in the field now, and we are going to support those troops. The best way we can support our troops is to try to bring them home by policy changes, not in body bags, but bring them home smiling on their feet. We also would like to support their families. This is a budget which we call ``Leave No Families Behind.''

Mr. Chairman, 35 percent of the members of the Army are African American. Two-thirds of the fighting force in Iraq, on the borders of Iraq, are members of working families. We want to take care of the families of the people who fight for America, and that is the gist of this budget. It is a budget for working families.

We have stayed within the requirements of the majority. Our current budget is $1.836 trillion. We have begun by adopting the Rangel shared sacrifice freeze on tax cuts, and this generated a revenue base of $1.5 trillion. This has allowed the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to offer our current budget of $1.8 trillion. Our budget projections reached a low deficit of $72.9 billion in the year 2011, and we offer a surplus of $87.7 billion in the years 2012 and $127.7 billion in 2013.

It is the strong and overriding belief of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus that the budget and appropriations processes are the highest importance to our constituencies who make up the great majority of Americans. Budget priorities speak in a language of numbers and dollars that tell the people we represent how important their concerns and their welfare are to us. This budget was prepared against the backdrop of a recession at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is greater in the United States than in any other Nation.

A recent report of the Federal Reserve states that the median net worth of white families went up 17 percent to $120,900, while the median net worth for minority families during the same 3-year period went down 4.5 percent to $17,000. The difference between $17,000 and $120,000 is a stark difference. Working families of all ethnic groups are included in this great gap between rich and poor, the white working families as well as minority working families.

A key component of this budget is a stimulus package which addresses the needs of all working families with proposals for extended unemployment and health care benefits immediately, and also for creating jobs as rapidly as possible. This budget also continues to focus on certain unique needs of African American and minority communities.

Mr. Chairman, I thank all Members and staff, especially Jacqueline Ellis of my staff, who worked so diligently on producing this alternative budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for presiding over this Special Order on Iraq. We cannot say too much at this point about America's preemptive strike on Iraq. We are the greatest Nation that ever existed in the history of the world. We are the richest; we are the most powerful. We are also the most democratic. Never have so many people enjoyed democracy and never have so many people had an opportunity to help make decisions. We should not throw away our opportunity to help make this decision. We should not assume that it is all over, that decisions have been made and we cannot stop the war at this point. Or if the war should occur in the next few hours or the next few days, we should not assume that we cannot shorten it, we cannot do the best for our soldiers. The best thing to do for our soldiers is to bring them home safely, to get them out of conflict's way.

War is hell. War is hell. The question is, Do we have to plunge into hell in order to accomplish what we are seeking to accomplish?

I want to go back to where I was last fall when we considered the President's resolution, the resolution authorizing the President to go to war. At that time I said that I still believe that every step we take toward a war with Iraq makes us less safe, not more safe. If we get involved and obsessed with Iraq, it is a bottomless pit that makes us very much more unsafe than we were before. I said at that time that there are other situations existing in the world which we should spend more time on and take care of before we plunge into any kind of long- range involvement with Iraq, and I still say the same is true.

Most people have not bothered to observe the situation closely in Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be off the radar completely, off the agenda. Nobody talks about it. Pakistan is a nation of 180 million people. Most of them are Muslims. Officially they are a Muslim nation. They see themselves as a Muslim nation. Pakistan already has the nuclear bomb. They have nuclear weapons because we trained the Pakistani scientists in this country, and they now have nuclear weapons. They have nuclear weapons. A Muslim nation has nuclear weapons.

Pakistan has always had a positive relationship with the United States, but it has always been a strained relationship. Pakistan has always supported us throughout the entire Cold War. Pakistan supported us against the Russians in Afghanistan. There is a long history of Pakistan's loyalty to the United States.

Yet Pakistan has always been treated like a second-class partner. Pakistan has never been rewarded for its loyalty. When the Cold War was over, we just pulled out. The Afghanistan war, they were very much involved with, and after it was over, we just picked up and left. We have never given them the kind of aid economically that we should have provided. We have never offered them a Marshall Plan. We, at this point in history, even after al Qaeda, and Pakistan has now played a major role in al Qaeda, in the pursuit of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, they played a major role. But after all the negotiations of how we are going to go about doing this and what the alliance means, we have ended up giving Pakistan only $300 million in aid. Mr. Speaker, $300 million in aid to Pakistan, already fighting with us against Osama bin Laden, on the border of Afghanistan. On the border of Afghanistan, in great harm, harm's way, $300 million.

Now we are discussing packages with Turkey for $6 billion, just to let our troops pass through to go to Iraq. What do we think the Pakistanis think when they look at that?

Here is why I ask the question: What do you think the Pakistanis think? Because the other element in this is that this Pakistani Government, who has always been our friend, also teeters on the edge of dissolution. The Pakistani situation is very, very tenuous. They have a President who took over as a result of a military coup, but this same President was part of the military that helped us in Afghanistan. This same President presides over a Pakistani secret service intelligence agency. They are the ones who created the Taliban. They created the Taliban as a way of conquering Afghanistan. They are very close to the Taliban.

So when we had the invasion of Afghanistan, there are elements of Pakistan's military and Pakistan's intelligence services who are very unhappy about it, and as Muslims also do not like the idea of Muslims fighting Muslims.

The present government is very anxious. The President and the top officials go nowhere except with top security. They are very aware of the fact that they are in jeopardy. In other words, a coup could take place at any moment in Pakistan, and if a coup takes place and the right wing there, the people who are pro-Osama bin Laden, win, they have the nuclear bomb. Osama will have the nuclear bomb. It is just that dangerous.

Why do I talk about a coup on the eve of attacking Iraq? Because there is a fanatical element involved here which will be triggered at the invasion of Iraq all over the Muslim world. There is a fanatical element which the Pakistani Government may just not be able to contend with. We are in danger of having a coup take place and the nuclear bomb is the worst thing that could happen, nuclear bombs put in position where Osama bin Laden could get them.

I need not talk about the other critical situation in the world: North Korea. That is on the radar screen. People talk about that. We have in North Korea a dictator less known than Saddam Hussein. We do not even understand the machinations of this man's mind and the whole regime that he has managed to perpetuate all of these years. But people who have been there say that the population is fanatically behind him.

This is a population extremely intelligent; they have mastered modern technology. They have some of the best rockets in the world, and they are going on to fashion their own nuclear industry. They already have, they say, a couple of bombs and they are going to start making more. At the same time, they cannot grow enough food to feed their people. What kinds of monsters are these, and what kind of situation do we have when they have the technological confidence that great, but they are not able to feed the people? The people in charge do not even care enough to feed the people, obviously. That is another problem.

So we have those dangers in the world; and as we get obsessed with Iraq

and involved with Iraq, which is a problem, Saddam Hussein is a monster. Saddam Hussein is a threat to world order. But Saddam Hussein is not an immediate threat to the United States and probably not an immediate threat to any country because he knows if he attacks anyone in surrounding Arab countries, he will have the whole world come down on him again.

Saddam Hussein, I have no case to make for. The man finances suicide bombers in Palestine. The big question is why? Why did we let him continue to sell oil all over the world so that he could finance suicide bombers in Palestine and continue building his arms industry? Where does he get the money from to continue to build up his arms industry? We talk about weapons of mass destruction. He has a big army. He has a big army with conventional weapons. The money to buy those weapons and to keep that army going has continued to flow, despite the fact that we have sanctions imposed on Iraq. Why did we not enforce the sanctions? What oil barons did we bow to to let them make a profit by not enforcing the sanctions? Why did we not, if France was trafficking in oil and Russia was trafficking, why did we not come down on our partners and really make the sanctions stick? They have never stuck. He has continued to get money, as much as he wants, to do what he wants to do.

People say, well, we are responsible for a lot of deaths of children in Iraq. No. That is ridiculous. He has the money. He does not spend it for the nutrition of children; he does not spend it for medicine. He spends it on building up his weapons and his power, and we let him do it. Why do we have to go all the way to a war, mobilizing 300,000 American troops, when we did not bother to do what we could have done on the seas? We control the sea lanes. We could have stopped the oil from being sold and transmitted all over the world, but we did not.

So there are other solutions, is what I am saying. Why do we have to go into hell? War is hell. If we did not know it was hell, if our imaginations did not tell us that, reading the ``Iliad'' did not tell us, when I read the ``Iliad,'' I wondered why Homer went to such great lengths to talk about how the spear was plunged in mightily and the blood flowed like rivers, and he had four great descriptions of the horror of war. Well, in those days they did not have any movies. He did not have Spielberg to show him in ``Saving Private Ryan.'' If he did not read the ``Iliad,'' if he did not read any books and could not have his imagination telling him why war is hell, if he did not believe in Nikita Kruschev and the defense of Stalingrad, the facts of history, then we can see Steven Spielberg. It is right there on the screen in ``Saving Private Ryan.''

Our boys landed at Normandy under those conditions. It is not an exaggeration. War is hell. War was hell in a lot of other places too. War was hell at Gettysburg. The greatest number of American lives lost was lost in the Civil War; 600,000, at Gettysburg, thousands died, the largest number came from New York. But they died; they died for a noble cause at Gettysburg. They died for a noble cause at Normandy. They died for a noble cause in Korea. The North Koreans came brutally down on the South Koreans, and within days they wiped out the city of Seoul, a brutal onslaught. Millions of people died in the Korean War before the United States forces got involved.

Our armed services and our military might can be put to good use. I like to think of myself as a follower of Martin Luther King. But I am not a pacifist in the sense that I think military force is necessary. There are times that military force is necessary. Thank God we have force. Our professional soldiers are the best in the world. My brother was a sergeant major in the Army for 20, 26 years. We have a very professional group of people now that run the military, and they are determined to do a good job for our Nation. We cannot fault them for the decisions that were made.

The problem is at the top; and the White House and the decision- making here in Washington, it is all wrong and dangerously off course. We are at a pivotal moment in American history, and instead of going one way with our military might and our wealth and our power, and our influence, most people in the world love us. I do not believe Americans are hated by ordinary people anywhere in large numbers.

They think we are as close to heaven as we are ever going to get here on Earth in terms of our way of life, including the political institutions, as well as the supermarkets and the joys of life and so forth.

I would like to conclude with a little piece of poetry here. We have faced difficulties for a long time, since the beginning of the country, of various kinds. We have always overcome those difficulties. Thank God we had Thomas Jefferson to help us get off to a good start. Thank God we had Abraham Lincoln at a critical moment when our Nation was about to fall apart. There is no reason to believe that we will not overcome this time.

All of the Members of Congress and all of our constituents should not throw up our hands in despair and give up. Let us keep talking. Let us keep trying to arouse the public to understand that this is a war we do not need. By going into preemptive war, using our wealth and military power in the wrong way, we are going to set history against us. Instead of guiding history and being the force and civilization which carries mankind to wonders never dreamed of before, we will become the enemy, with a lot of people sniping at our heels, and finally they will put together coalitions and bring down the great American empire. Rome fell because it was arrogant and thought that it could go on and on throwing its power around.

We have at various times in history been delivered from this kind of arrogance and these kinds of mistakes. There was a man who wrote to Thomas Jefferson early in the history of the country who saw what happened when the Constitution was generated. It was always a miracle to him how these savage men, these people in the wilderness, could come together and put together a magnificent government.

His neighbor wrote and said that there was an angel over America. There is an angel in the whirlwind taking care of us. I think we ought to remember that as we go into this difficult, very bloody war. War is bloody, it is not what Good Morning America has been showing us. War is hell. We would like the angels in the whirlwind to come out and deliver us.

Some time ago, I think it was February 28, I do not remember what the occasion was, I wrote Angel in the Whirlwind, actually as a result of a quote that President Bush had made in his inaugural address.

Angel in the Whirlwind,

Tell us where you've been;

Come steer us through the storm,

Halt all this public sin.

Angel in the Whirlwind

Blow forth great truths;

All men are born equal,

Some men die great;

Profiles in courage

Never come too late.

Lincoln in the whirlwind

Blew powerful justice down;

Emancipation Proclamation,

Magnificent declaration,

Plain ordinary sensation,

Transformed to noble creation.

Sailors in the whirlwind

Forsake all ease,

Typhoons still lurk near,

Patriots must not fear.

Angel in the whirlwind,

Jefferson at your side,

Ships ashore at Normandy,

In every boat you ride,

Protect our future fate,

Martin King's posterity

Is waiting at the gate.

Angel in the whirlwind

Wrestle with the terror;

Tornado twisted greed;

Volcanoes belching

Ashes of indifference;

Human kind's highest hope

Strangling on a golden rope;

Merciful empire

That might've been,

Critically infected now

By the virus of public sin;

Giant graves reserved for midget men.

Merciful empire that might have been, or we could still be

the merciful empire that saves civilization.

Angel in the whirlwind

Stay to save the brave and free,

Bring back judicial integrity,

Point us toward eternity,

Come steer us through new storms

Angel in the whirlwind.

Madam Speaker, we are about to begin the process of passing a budget. There are other matters on the agenda here in Washington, of course. We have just heard one, the medical malpractice and the capping of awards to patients. That is important. There are not many important things that we have considered so far this year. There are a few, but nothing is more important than the budget. The budget is part of a bigger process. The budget and appropriations process are inseparable. They go together. It is as if the appropriations process, which is the final allocation of funds for functions of government, begins with the budget. The budget is going to set the parameters. The budget is going to outline where the appropriations process can go. It is important that as many of our Members as possible focus now on the preparation of the budget. The budget is a moral statement. It is a moral statement of what the values of a nation are at a particular time. There may be some nations which cannot make such a moral statement with their budget. If it is Bangladesh or Haiti or a number of very poor countries in the world, they may have high moral values, they may want to educate all of their primary school children and high school children, they may want to send all their children to college for free, but they do not have the resources, they do not have the funding, so the moral choice is not theirs. In the United States of America, the richest nation that ever existed on the face of the Earth, we make moral choices because we have the resources. We can do whatever we want to do with our resources, but we choose to do in some cases outrageous things with our resources and neglect very important matters, such as education, such as health care.

You cannot separate the budget from the discussions of war and peace either. We are slowly proceeding at an escalating pace toward a war with Iraq. The war with Iraq cannot be dealt with and discussed and value judgements cannot be made about that war without also considering the budget and appropriations process. It is the budget. How much will the war cost? Can we afford the war at the same time we provide for the needs of our own people in a reasonable manner? How much will war and peace affect the decisions that are made by the Members of Congress from here until we end the final appropriations process?

It is very interesting that the President, who starts the budget process by submitting his recommended budget to the Congress, has chosen not to include in the budget figures any recommended budget for the war in Iraq. Everybody knows that we are preparing for war. We have nearly 200,000 troops already in the area of Iraq, more specifically in Kuwait just across the border from Iraq. It is pretty clear that the policy of our administration wants to move us toward war, despite the fact that the rest of the civilized world, or large parts of the civilized world are raising their voices in protest. We are moving in that direction, but it is not in the budget. What kind of moral statement is it that we do not even bother to mention the war in the budget? Is that a statement that it should be a secret document, that whatever the budget for the war in Iraq might be it is going to be too outrageous to discuss in public? That will be a bit un-American. There is no way you can appropriate large amounts of funds without coming here to this floor through the Congress. So eventually we are going to have a budget for the war in Iraq on top of the present budget.

The present budget already is a budget that has gone into deficit. We are going to expend more money, if we follow the President's recommendation, than we take in. So war and peace considerations will have to be a part of this process of deliberation about the budget. I do not want to spend the time today discussing the war. I want to talk about the budget. But I must say that an activity which will drain such a great amount of money from the coffers of the American people, an activity which will put a strain on the budget-making process for all other functions, must be dealt with to some degree here.

I am against going to war with Iraq. I think that we are less secure. Every day we move toward a war with Iraq makes us less secure, not more secure. I think we are as a people more in danger every day we move toward the war with Iraq. I made that statement back in the fall when we had on the floor consideration of whether or not to give the President the approval to go to war, knowing that the consideration was war in Iraq. I made that statement. I said that North Korea and Pakistan are two priorities that we should look at before we consider war in Iraq.

Most people do not know that there is a great danger lurking in Pakistan along the borders and in the whole country. There is a danger that a nation that already has nuclear weapons, that is our ally, that that government may be overthrown. That government teeters on the edge of disaster because there are a tremendous number of people in high places in the military establishment, in the intelligence apparatus, who are pro-al Qaeda. There are a tremendous number of people who are pro-the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban that we just defeated in Afghanistan was created in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani military. There are tensions seething, there is fanaticism there with respect to the battle between India and Pakistan over Kashmir that warps the reasoning of lots of people. And it is possible that fanatics, assisted by professional military people and the fervor of the al Qaeda movement, could overthrow the government of Pakistan, our ally, our biggest Muslim ally in the world.

Pakistan has always been our ally. Throughout the Cold War it was our ally. It is our ally now at a time when it is very dangerous for the Pakistani government to be our ally. But they are there. They have the courage, they are supporting the effort, the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and in that region, and it appears they may support the President in his quest to make war on Iraq. But this ally is in danger. I think that I am one of the few people who would put them first on the list of dangerous situations that confront America. They have nuclear weapons already. They have nuclear weapons. They are a Muslim nation. Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization will have nuclear weapons if they capture the government or take over the government of Pakistan.

Moving beyond Pakistan, of course, everybody is aware now--they were not aware last fall to the extent they are now--that North Korea poses a threat and every day we move toward Iraq, obsessed with attacking Iraq, we are ignoring the danger in North Korea. North Korea is a mystery. The leaders there are unpredictable, unknown. This is a nation that defies reason in that they have the technical know-how, they have a very educated population, a population that is able to produce high technology. They have some of the most efficient rockets in the world. They are in the position now to create nuclear weapons. In fact, it is predicted soon and they may have two or three nuclear bombs already.

They have that kind of technology, they have that kind of capability, they have that kind of know-how. At the same time, they cannot feed themselves. The government cannot run a country which will provide food for the population, and the population is like captives to a government that cannot provide enough food for them.

This is a situation probably unprecedented in history, and unpredictable; and we should pay much more attention to it. We should be watching it much more closely. We should have our resources poised to deal with the unknown, the dangerous unknown, that exists in North Korea.

As far as Iraq is concerned, Saddam Hussein certainly is a person that should be dealt with. I think the fate of Milosevic, who is now on trial in the world court, indicted as a war criminal, that is the fate that should await Saddam Hussein; and we should push in every way possible to get that accomplished. But going to war with the people of Iraq in the manner we are proposing will not accomplish that task in a way which leaves us covered in dangerous spots elsewhere in the world. It

also alienates. Because of the fact that we are about to wage a full scale attack on a whole nation, it alienates large numbers of allies that we may think we do not need; but we do need those allies.

So war and peace considerations are as much a part of the budget considerations as any others, because we are already in a situation now where a new Department has been created, Homeland Security, and the Homeland Security budget is a new strain on the total nondefense budget.

We will find in the President's budget a number of cuts in a number of proposals and propositions that move in a way which will place the burden of this war on the backs of the poorest people. We have proposals under way now which are outrageous with respect to robbing the poor to pay for our government. We have a recession. We have the impact of September 11. There are a number of forces in motion that keep the recession going, and it is getting worse.

I am not in a position where I have the expertise to explain why the recession is moving the way it is totally, but we know some of the factors. I just mentioned two of them.

We have serious problems with respect to budgeting for every State and every city across the country. Certainly in my home State of New York, we are deep in a situation where the expenditures loom high over the expected revenue in New York State.

In New York City, there is still a $2 billion to $3 billion gap in the budget. It is very serious across the Nation, of course, as I said before. There are many cities and States in the same position.

There are cities where the local education agency within the city is projecting cutting the number of days that children will be allowed to go to school. There are other cities that are projecting deep cuts in education and health care. There are cities where health care cuts are already taking place in large amounts.

In my City of New York, the mayor was criticized by the establishment press for allowing the Medicaid costs to increase. The mayor has merely done his moral duty and allowed the agencies responsible for providing Medicaid to give Medicaid to those who are eligible for Medicaid.

Our previous mayor had gone to great lengths to knock people off the welfare rolls who really had a right to be there. They were eligible. But in addition to knocking them off the rolls, our previous mayor would not counsel and pressured the departments responsible for administering Medicaid and food stamps, to the point where they would not tell people who were knocked off the welfare rolls that they still had a right to Medicaid or still had a right to food stamps. So at this point, half of the people eligible for food stamps in New York City are not receiving food stamps, on the one hand. On the other hand, the food pantries and the soup kitchens have long lines of people who need food, many of whom are eligible for food stamps, and they do not know it because of the oppressive policies of the previous administration.

The administration in power now says we should do the right thing. People who qualify for Medicaid should get Medicaid. They are under attack for raising the cost of city government. By raising Medicaid and dealing with people's health care, we are threatening the budget; and that is a reason the press considers it a legitimate reason to criticize the mayor.

``Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' is not just a loose statement made somewhere by the Founding Fathers. Life comes first, before liberty, before the pursuit of happiness. Life is related to health care. You have to be healthy; you have to stay alive. We are last among the industrialized nations. I understand that has to be translated into the provision of the best possible health care for every citizen.

If Canada can afford a plan which takes care of all the citizens of Canada, surely the United States can afford such a plan also. If Germany, France, if all the industrialized nations can afford to provide health care for all, surely the rich and powerful United States could also provide health care for all.

In this budget process that we are about to undertake, proposals are being made by the White House that Medicaid will be treated the way we have treated welfare reform. We are going to use Medicaid dollars to bribe the States. We are going to use Medicaid dollars in the same way that welfare reform dollars were used.

How were they used? In the Welfare Reform Act we offered every State funding at a certain level for their program for the poor people. At the same time, we gave them the leeway to keep all the funds that they were able to garner as a result of people who were taken off the welfare rolls. If you drive down the welfare rolls in whatever way, it was assumed it would be legitimate, that you would really check the eligibility of people, that the welfare rolls would go down, because we had programs that would help poor people, help them to get jobs, help them to find other means to sustain themselves. But in most States there was a reckless move to knock off as many as possible.

So many people were knocked off the rolls in New York City that we had to go to court and get a court order to force the city under the previous administration of Rudy Giuliani, force him to allow people to have a fair hearing. At one point the requirement that before you were pushed off the rolls a family had a right to a fair hearing, that was just pushed aside; and we had to get the courts to order that the fair hearing would be reinstated. The city dragged its feet and did as few fair hearings as possible.

Welfare rolls went way down. It benefited the State and city, and it was a way to fill the petty cash drawers of the city and the State on the backs of the poor.

They did that most successfully in the State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is the home of the present Secretary of health and welfare. Wisconsin was one of the worst in forcing the welfare costs down and transferring the funds that were supposed to be used for the poor into other functions.

For that, the Governor of Wisconsin was rewarded and brought to Washington. So now the Governor of Wisconsin presides over a new proposal to take Medicaid and conduct the same kind of swindle with Medicaid that was conducted with welfare reform dollars. It is Robin Hood in reverse, robbing the poor to take care of the well-off or to take care of the governments of the States and the localities.

But the amount of money involved in the Medicaid swindle is so much greater than the amount of money involved with the welfare reform; so that bribe, that carrot held out there, is quite tempting for Governors who are now suffering with tremendous budget problems.

I say, in our budget, why do we not follow the Democratic stimulus package? The Democratic stimulus package says let us give money back to the States in an honest revenue sharing program. In that revenue sharing program, our Democratic Caucus did not do it to the degree I wanted, but you would target some areas.

I would target education, I would target Medicaid, and say we are giving you the money back. It is your money. Really all money comes from localities and States. The Federal Government does not generate any money. It is the money that comes out of taxpayers that live in States and local areas.

So we are giving back the money, a certain amount of money, to help with the budget problems that you have at the State and local level; but a certain percentage must be spent on education, and a certain percentage must be spent for health care also.

But that is honest revenue sharing, with controls and monitoring; and it is up front. What we are saying instead is we will give you your Medicaid money at the level that you have now, and that is it. Once we give it to you at that level, it will never go up; but you can use the money appropriated, for the next 5 years at least, you can use that money that you do not need for people who are on Medicaid.

If you drive down the Medicaid rolls, deny care to people that need it, all that you save can be utilized in some other way. This is called block grants, and there are other names for it. But that is the Republican majority's way of dealing with a major crisis in the country in terms of States and local governments and their budgets.

There is also a proposal that section 8 housing, housing programs for the

poor, shall also be block-granted in the same manner. So you can take something from the pot for the poor people by taking from welfare reform, you can take some from the pot that is generated by Medicaid, you can take some from section 8, and on and on it will go, because obviously the Republican majority's philosophy of States' rights is being distorted to mean the States' rights to Federal dollars that are really intended for poor people.

So we are here considering the budget, and these are the kinds of overriding considerations that are taking place.

I have been appointed by the Congressional Black Caucus to coordinate an alternative budget. An alternative budget is an alternative to the Republican majority budget that is going to be presented here. It is also an alternative to what the President has presented.

Nobody knows exactly how much the Republican majority budget that will come to the floor of the House will look like the President's budget, but we assume that it will be very close to the President's budget.

I am not certain that this Republican majority will allow alternative budgets on the floor yet. I do not know whether that decision has been made or not. But I hope the decision is made to allow us to present alternative budgets on the floor.

Nothing is more important, as I said before, than the budget process, the budget process which opens up the appropriations process, the process that is the most important thing that government can engage in. And we need time to debate it; we need time to discuss it.

We among ourselves are overwhelmed by the complexities of our government, even before 9-11, even before the mobilization for the war on Iraq. This is a complicated era. We live in complicated times of governments. The functions of governments as big as the United States of America need deliberation. We need deliberations about function, we need debate, we need as much consideration as possible. So we should not rush through the process of the approval of a budget.

I think there are certain basic principles that we need to follow, and I set forth to my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus those principles. One is we stand for and would like to do everything possible to facilitate a smaller, streamlined, and efficient government.

That should be the goal of all lawmakers. However, there must be enough revenue and resources to carry out the vital functions of our complex American society. It is absolutely necessary that we maintain an adequate investment in human development.

The people who say that the policies of the Republican majority are fashioned in a way to squeeze, squeeze the dollars out of the Federal Government so that there will be no money, no funding available for social programs, they are correct. That is the way the Republican majority is proceeding, along with the help, of course, of a new administration. The Republicans, of course, control all of the apparatus of government now, and it will be more difficult than ever before to stop the march toward the movement of resources of the Federal Government out of the Federal Government and back to the States, to some degree, and the lessening, in the final analysis, to take away the safety nets, to take away the New Deal, to take away Lyndon Johnson's society; all of that is going to be reversed if these policies are allowed to endure in the name of making government more efficient.

I believe in efficient government. I want every dollar saved to be used for some good use. Over and over I have attacked the insufficient farm subsidy program. The farm subsidy program is one of the most inefficient programs in the civilized world. Huge amounts of money are poured into a program that is not a safety net program, but it is still a handout. The American people are giving money to agricultural businesses. In addition to giving money to the businesses, we have a farm loan, all kinds of loan programs that have existed over the last 50 years, and billions of dollars have accumulated where the farmers, the so-called farmers, the agribusinesses have not bothered to pay back the funds. So there are areas of waste which certainly should be looked at very closely. There are large numbers of areas of waste. I am in favor of an efficient, streamlined, smaller government, but not at the expense of meeting the needs of all of the people of the United States, especially those who are poorest and need safety net legislation.

A second general principle, a general priority that I would set forth, I have set forth for the preparation of our alternative budget, the alternative budget of the Congressional Black Caucus, is that Federal assistance for education, for health care, housing, child care, transportation, worker safety and protection, and business development is as vital as support for homeland security and defense. Now, here I want to make the case that inseparable, inseparable from the budget process is our security. Considerations of our security are inseparable from the budget process. Considerations of our prosperity, continued vibrant economy, are inseparable from the budget process. It is the budget, stupid. It is the budget. The budget, which is part of the beginning of the appropriations process, will determine whether we use our tremendous resources for the benefit of all of the American people, whether we make a pivotal decision and turn down the dark road of more and more to the people who already have the most and less and less for the folks at the bottom who need the most. That is what is at stake in this budget situation, and the fact that we must mobilize and finance a war only aggravates the situation much more.

A third principle is that the ability of the government to provide for the Nation's security can be effectively implemented and sustained only if all of the vital investments in human development are assigned priority on a continuing basis. Our security can be effectively implemented and sustained only if all of the vital investments in human development are assigned priority on a continuing basis. In other words, the first thing a nation of the size of the United States colossus, we are a colossus; nothing ever existed in the world like the United States of America. This colossus cannot function without a lot of educated human beings. In fact, the total population, as many as possible, must be educated; otherwise, we are going to grind to a halt. We cannot keep pace with all of the kinds of situations that are there without a tremendously educated population. We are already suffering greatly because of the fact that we have not sufficiently educated enough people to cover all of the fronts that have been exposed as a result of the al Qaeda attack on September 11.

One of the problems with the al Qaeda attack, and I have said it many times, is that despite the fact that we are very advanced technologically, we have satellite systems that cover the entire world, they can pick up telephone conversations anywhere in the world, any electronic mechanism can be picked up and recorded, and they did exactly that before September 11, and many of the messages that were picked up in Arabic were not translated in time to make the difference. I am not saying they could have totally prevented September 11, but it has already been admitted that some of the messages were picked up, but suffered from delayed translation, because we did not have enough Arab translators. We did not have enough Arab translators. Somebody in our government in high places failed in terms of his vision and his education to make certain that there was a comparability between the people who were able to translate messages and the volume of the messages coming in. Several months later, 2 or 3 months ago, a person was fired in the FBI apparatus because she blew the whistle and said we still do not have enough Arab translators. We still are not addressing the problem.

Now, Arab translators are just the tip of the iceberg. We had a problem here on Capitol Hill with that unknown person who sent out the anthrax, sent anthrax to one of our Senators, and that office had to be closed and the whole building shut down for 4 months. For 4 months we had to wait for the handful of people who have expertise in how to clean up anthrax to deal with the problem. For 4 months, for 4 months here on Capitol Hill, because of the fact that we did not have enough

expertise to spread around, right here in Washington. In the Post Office, they did not get the same amount of attention. The absence of that attention led to the death of the two casualties of anthrax in Washington. They were two postmen. The attention was triage, focused here on Capitol Hill. Some of our offices had to shut down for 3 weeks. Even now, the impact of the anthrax scare determines how fast we get our mail. We do not get it very fast because of the fact that it is screened.

But the absence of expertise, the absence of people who knew how to do it was a problem. What if the anthrax fanatic had struck at 10 or 20 places at the same time? Where would we be at this point? We obviously need a lot of people who know how to clean up anthrax, just as we need people to know how to handle the response to chemical warfare, biological warfare. We are talking about that, but when we look at the cuts in education and the way education is treated, there seems to be no understanding of the obvious. It is obvious that one cannot get the people to do these things unless we have a pool, a pool of educated people to draw from, bigger than the pool we have now. Because the pool we have now to create lawyers and doctors and engineers and masses in MBAs, businessmen, that pool will be drawn upon to create the traditional replacements for those areas. We need more educated people to take on all of these other specialties and to make certain that we never, we never lose a war, we never lose a battle, and maybe never lose a life because we did not have the expertise needed. So the investment in human beings comes first.

Why are we proposing these budget cuts in education? Why are we not maximizing the amount of money spent on education as part of our mobilization for a continuing war against terrorism? A war against terrorism is a serious war and there is a tendency to try to paint all of us who are against the war in Iraq as passivists, people who want to lay down their lives and let the fanatics trample over us, as people who are not smart enough to understand the nature of the enemy.

I am against the war in Iraq, as I said before. I do not think we should be preparing for war in Iraq because it makes the world more dangerous for us. I am against that war, but I assure my colleagues, like many of my colleagues who voted against giving the President the power to go to war, my colleagues voted to give the President the power to make war on al Qaeda and the Taliban. We applauded, we applauded the immediate response to go after the people who perpetrated the September 11 attack.

I want to say that nowadays there is a lot of talk back and forth among poets. I just heard, before I came to the floor, a McNeil/Lehrer presentation where they talked for a few minutes about how poets are getting involved in trying to stop the war on the one hand; on the other hand, how some poets are getting involved on the other side, criticizing the poets who want to stop the war. This poet was very much in favor of going to Afghanistan, of challenging the Taliban, of routing al Qaeda.

I am not automatically a knee-jerk passivist; I do not run from the fact that there are fanatics in the world. On February 14 of last year, February 14, 2002, I made the following statement here on the floor in the form of a rap poem called ``Let's Roll, America.'' I am not going to read it all, but I am going to read some of it to make it known that when it is time to mobilize, when the enemy is real, we should go forward.

``LET'S ROLL AMERICA!

Set the tracks of destiny straight,

Don't look back

But close the gate.

Toast the past

But change the cast.

In every language of the earth

To the country of all nations

We have proudly given birth.

At the Olympics of forever

We will win all the races;

We are Great Angels of tomorrow

With magic mongrel faces.