[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5654-H5660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALL POLITICS ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERWOVEN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, most of us returning to our districts have
had an inordinate amount of inquiries and complaints, I am sure, from
constituents about local developments and problems. Local hardships are
the first things on the minds of my constituents, and I am sure many of
my colleagues have experienced the same problem.
People are concerned about the budget cuts at the city and State
level, they are concerned about layoffs of people, they are concerned
about the fact that there are property tax increases as a result of
trying to make up for shortfalls in the budget of a State or of a city.
So local hardships are on folks' minds.
I try to get them to understand that, okay, let us talk about it. You
have your city councilman, you have your State officials. I certainly
am concerned about the local hardships also. But I think it is
important for them to understand that it is all interwoven. All
politics inextricably are interwoven, and what is happening down here
in Washington has an impact on what is happening at the local level,
and the sooner we understand that, the better.
What we do in Washington generates a lot of local hardships and
suffering. National and international blunders create pain and
suffering in our neighborhoods. That is where the troops come from.
That is where the soldiers who are on the frontline come from. They
come out of our neighborhoods, and those blunders and things that we
do, like the war in Iraq, which I consider a blunder, and the fact that
the combat was successful has not made me a believer that that war was
necessary. It is a blunder. Every life that was lost was lost
unnecessarily, in my opinion. It will suck vitally-needed resources
from the war against terrorism. We are in for a much more serious
situation developing in Iraq, which I will talk about later.
The poor will bear the burden of the war in Iraq. They will bear the
burden. They have already borne the burden of the combat. A study by
the New York Times showed that the people who are the soldiers in our
military forces now are folks from the neighborhood. Members of working
families make up more than 90 percent of the forces.
We are proud of them. When there is a war that is really necessary,
we are proud of the fact that they are there to fight the war. We do
not want their lives to be lost unnecessarily. We do not want them to
find themselves sitting in Iraq for the next 5 years. We do not want
the terrible conditions to be foisted upon those who happen to be
there, and there is no rotation out because we do not have troops to
replace them with.
There are a number of problems which place the burden of the war on
Iraq on the backs of the poor. Those are my constituents, and those of
many of my colleagues. We want them to understand we are concerned and
are working to relieve those burdens here in Washington.
There is a scenario shaping up for bloody guerilla warfare in Iraq. I
am not a military expert, I am not on the committee, but I think there
is some sophomoric knowledge, some examples of immediate history, not
too far in the past, Vietnam, Chechnya, the Russian occupation of
Afghanistan, the suicide bombers in Israel. There are a number of items
there which should lead us to understand that we are in for serious
trouble as things are developing in Iraq, and, if we do not do
something quickly in Iraq more decisively, we are going to have many
more unnecessary lives lost, we are going to have to spend a tremendous
amount of resources. Dollars that ought to be going to make up these
budget gaps in the cities and the States, those dollars will be going
to fight a guerilla war in Iraq.
There is a way out of this. I was not for the war, but I certainly
would like to see a successful occupation. We are there now, and we
should pull out all stops and make certain we bring justice to the
ordinary people of Iraq. That is the way to avoid guerrilla warfare.
Guerrilla warfare will never succeed unless it has a base in the
population which is going to help hide it and nurture it and make it
difficult for an occupying force to deal with. We did not have guerilla
warfare to any great extent in Germany after the Second World War. We
did not have it to a great extent in Japan. Yes, there was some
guerilla warfare, and it is not talked about much, some holdouts, et
cetera, but their efforts were quickly undercut by the way the
population of Germany and Japan was treated by the occupying forces.
The same thing is true here, and we are in the process of failing in
our slowness in responding to the needs of the general population in
Iraq.
There is a formula for success, and I would like to see that formula
carried out, because I do not want more of my constituents stuck in
Iraq as an occupying power. It destroys their mental capacity after
being there under such tremendous strain for a long time. The weather
is 140 degrees. All kinds of things are taking place that impact on a
human being, and I do not want a situation where we are stuck there
with the poorest of the poor in the Armed Services having to carry out
unnecessary duties.
Let us go now into a situation which will correct the situation
properly and lead us to a point where we can declare success in Iraq
and leave.
The Marshall Plan model is there, the Marshall Plan model we used in
Europe. Why was it possible to overcome all the difficulties in Europe?
Why did the Soviet Union, who at that time was given an opportunity to
participate in the Marshall Plan, why did they refuse? It was because
they knew that the general population would benefit in a way which
would undercut their communist schemes and their own schemes for world
domination, and they did not want the population to be satisfied in any
way, a part of a partnership for progress and a partnership which took
care of meeting the needs of ordinary people.
So the Marshall Plan model to spend money, to use our resources, our
technical know-how, to improve the state of the lives of the people
there, is very much necessary. We could rebuild the infrastructure of
Iraq in one year. It may cost a great deal, but it will cost far less
to go in to rebuild the infrastructure of the water systems and the
electricity systems than it will cost us if the population becomes
alienated and supportive of guerilla warfare. We have what it takes to
do it.
I will come back and talk about the formula for success in the
occupation of Iraq in greater detail.
There is a formula for success to relieve the suffering and the
hardships in our States and our cities also, but it is all interwoven
with the kinds of resources we put into places like Iraq. We do not
have the money. We voted to appropriate $79 billion for the war in Iraq
and related matters, and there is no money to deal with the problem of
economic recession here at home. So we have to stop the blunders
internationally in order to be able to deal with our problems closer to
home.
All politics are inextricably interwoven. We must understand that
clearly ourselves, and we should also make sure that our constituents
understand.
In New York, I hear repeatedly complaints about, Congressman, why do
you not do something about the fact that we just got an 18 percent
property tax increase, an 18 percent property tax increase? On top of
that, there is a ticket blitz. The cops are being encouraged to write
tickets for everything. You drop a gum wrapper on the sidewalk, a candy
wrapper, and they rush to write a ticket because they need the money.
The citizens become the victims of the government to raise revenue.
[[Page H5655]]
Some of that is happening right here in Washington, D.C. also and
some other big cities. The citizens are the targets for the people who
are governing them in order to raise more revenue.
It is not funny at all. I had a lady come into my office crying
because she was in an intersection and happened to be caught in the
intersection when the light changed, and the policeman pulled her over
and gave her a ticket for a moving violation. Under normal
circumstances, that would not happen.
Layoffs are taking place in New York City and New York State,
certainly New York City. People who get laid off are the last hired, so
they get laid off, and inevitably they are the poorest people.
They laid off 1,200 paraprofessionals in the schools, the people who
are in the classrooms with the teachers and who help to monitor the
hallways and the lunchrooms. They are the people living in the
neighborhood, they are the people that know the families, they are the
people that know the children best. How are we going forward in our
education reform and education improvement if we are going to take away
that vital part as a result of budget cuts?
Budget cuts are reversing the progress that we were making in
education reform. ``No Child Left Behind'' is just an empty slogan now
because of the fact that the Federal Government is not following
through on its promises.
Even worse, what we had going at the State and local level is being
cut. You cannot talk about improving education if the budget cuts force
you to lay off teachers. Therefore, the ratio of children to each
teacher in the classroom inevitably gets higher.
One of the clear principles of reform that we have established is in
the lower grades, you need fewer children per teacher. That reform goes
out the window because of the fact you have no money to hire teachers,
quality teachers.
There is an acceptance of teachers who are not certified and hiring
teachers who are substitute teachers, because in many cases they are
cheaper. The budget can take them, but it cannot pay for quality
teachers. Quality teachers in some instances are being encouraged to
retire because they are at the end of the scale in terms of salary
payments and they drain more of the budget. Never mind the fact they
are the ones who know how to teach the children, that they must mentor
new teachers coming in, they are the ones that hold the system
together. No, let us get them out, because we want to lower the cost of
personnel.
So, these local hardships and cutbacks and raids on education
progress doom any forward motion. We can forget about it.
Then promises, of course, are being broken for education here in
Washington.
Local level problems are, in some ways, insoluble in terms of the
financing. At the local level, the State level, there are
constitutions, State constitutions, city charters, which say you cannot
spend more money than you anticipate taking in, in revenue. They are
bound by that and must operate within that stricture.
The Federal Government does not have to operate within that
stricture. In fact, several speakers today, and one in particular
tonight, pointed out the fact we are borrowing money on a wholesale
basis. We may be borrowing about $1 trillion over the next few months.
We are not bound by the revenue coming in. We are borrowing money, we
are using Social Security funds.
The things that are important to the powers, the majority powers in
Washington, the Republican majority, the things that are important to
them are being funded. They are funding the tax cut, they are funding
the war in Iraq, they are funding farm subsidies, which are far too
high and unjust, they are funding the things that are important, and
education happens to be one of the things not important enough.
{time} 1900
I suppose most of our colleagues are like me. They were anticipating
that if we follow the usual pattern, the Health and Human Services
markup would be taking place after we come back from the July 4th
recess and, in some cases, it would be one of the last of the markups.
But to my surprise and shock, I have received information which states
that we had the markup today, that the Health and Human Services markup
has taken place, and it is over, and the education portion of the
budget has been gutted in terms of promises made that are not being
kept. There has been a broken promise in terms of overall education
funding.
The majority party Republicans loudly proclaimed that they would
provide a $3 billion increase from the previous year, over the previous
year for the Department of Education. That $3 billion was cut down to
$2.3 billion, or a 4.3 percent increase in education, which is the
smallest dollar increase in 5 years and the smallest percentage
increase of money for education in 8 years.
Let us just stop for a moment and think about the fact that education
started way behind as a Federal expenditure, and over the last 8 years
we have had steady increases, as the American people have made it quite
clear to all of us. In every district I think it has been made clear by
the constituents that they want the Federal Government to do more for
education, even when ideologically, the majority of Republicans, the
Republican majority did not care for the Department of Education and
they tried to dismantle it, and they had to retreat. Not only did they
retreat on the effort to dismantle the Department of Education, but
they began to appropriate large amounts of funds for education in
response to their own constituency. Everybody sees the commonsense
wisdom of more support for education.
To go back to the war in Iraq for a moment, since the President
declared victory in Iraq, we have lost more than 50 lives. I think 14
of those lives have been lost as a result of hostile activities, but
the others have been lost as a result of accidents. What are accidents?
Why are accidents killing so many of our soldiers? What is the problem?
The problem is, I think, that we have a high-tech operation with
respect to our military, and too few of our soldiers really know how to
operate all of the equipment and the weaponry that we have. Helicopters
in particular need to be investigated because a large number of
accidents happen there. But just the rapid movement of vehicles and
collisions on the ground seem to be a major problem. So education in
our military to produce a better-equipped military is as important as
education anywhere else.
Returning to our education appropriations process, the No Child Left
Behind Act, which had great fanfare when the President signed it, he
promised America's school would now be on a path of reform and a new
path of results. Our schools now would have greater resources to meet
those goals. That is what the President promised. He stated that we
have accountability from all 50 States now. But the problem is, where
are the resources? This bill provides, the markup today provides an
increase of only $381 million, or 1.6 percent over the current funding
level for the No Child Left Behind Act. That is a freeze in real terms.
We can provide $1 trillion in tax cuts but, at the same time, this bill
does not even come close to meeting the funding levels authorizing the
No Child Left Behind Act, which would require another $8 billion in
fiscal year 2004.
In the case of special education, we have made promises and have a
$1.2 billion shortfall. I think it is important for all of our
colleagues to wake up to the fact that this is on the table right now,
it has been done, decided in the markup in the Committee on
Appropriations responsible for Health and Human Services; and we should
move now if we are going to have any effective counterattack before
this appropriations bill hits the floor.
Title I funding, we have a shortfall there. We are $334 million
short, since it provides only a $666 million increase requested by the
President instead of the overall amount originally contemplated.
College education, the increase there is another broken promise.
In the agencies under the Health and Human Services appropriation
subcommittee, the Institutes of Health have received a great decrease
after having 15 percent annual increases over the last 5 years. We
recognize the need to deal with the use of science, the best
[[Page H5656]]
science in the world to come to grips with the more rapid-reaching of
ways to contain diseases and to provide cures for the incurable items
that are still on the agenda, but that 15 percent increase has now been
cut to a mere 2.5 percent increase.
The health care safety net is not taken care of. Bioterrorism, a
concern that the Department of Homeland Security has talked about quite
a bit; bioterrorism preparedness under the Republican bill received $94
million less than they received this year.
The Department of Health and Human Services asked for $100 million to
get the Nation better prepared for an influenza pandemic, and the bill
provides only half of that amount.
The nursing shortage is not dealt with properly and, of course, when
it comes to unemployment insurance to deal with the most important
factor in our recession, a the fact that people have no money to spend,
that is underfunded too.
Low-income heating assistance was greatly cut also. Promises have
been broken. Why? Because when it comes to the domestic budget, we
plead bankruptcy. We do not have the money. We have enough money in the
domestic budget, of course, to provide the biggest tax cuts in history.
We have enough money in the overall budget to provide a $79 billion
special allocation for the war in Iraq and related matters. What we
want to do, really, we can find the money for.
So the local hardships and the immediate problems faced by education
are not unrelated to our blunders at a national and international
level. The tax cut is a national blunder. It is a great economic
disaster that we are going to suffer for, not only nationally, but
it is going to create pain and suffering in our neighborhoods.
The war in Iraq is a blunder because it will suck a large number of
vitally needed resources. Human life is sacred, and every human life
lost in the war in Iraq is the first problem that I have, the first
problem that anybody who believes in the sacredness of human life has.
Soldiers have to die; military activities are necessary. But only when
they are necessary should they be conducted, only when they are
necessary. Only when they are necessary should we place the life of a
soldier at risk. Only when it is necessary should soldiers have to die.
I am not a pacifist. I was in favor of immediately going to stop the
Taliban in Afghanistan and to extract from them al Qaeda and Osama bin
Laden. They were immediate enemies. They made no effort to hide the
fact that they were there in Afghanistan. So it is not a pacifist
sentiment that drives me; it is a reverence for human life that only
when it is necessary, as it was in that case, and as military action is
in many other cases, should it happen.
Was it necessary to lose lives in Iraq? And we have lost relatively
few, and we like to boast about that; but there will be more lives
lost, I assure my colleagues, in Iraq. And it is not necessary.
A lot of focus has been turned in the direction of the weapons of
mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction are thoroughly being
analyzed, and the case for that, whether they exist or whether we
deliberately oversold the existence of weapons of mass destruction or
not, all that is being very well aired in the press. I think in many
cases the media got in bed with the war; and ``embeddedness'' had
really a double meaning. The media that got in bed with the war and
praised it and covered up certain kinds of things are feeling guilty
now, and they are going to extremes to examine the whole question of
weapons of mass destruction. When did we know what we know, who
exaggerated, how incompetent is our military intelligence? Was it the
incompetence of our military intelligence, or was it the White House
insisting that the facts be twisted?
I am confident that we are going to come out with some real answers
there, but we are focusing so much on that, we are losing sight of the
fact that there is a situation developing in Iraq which is dangerous
and will engulf us in a war that is going to take a lot more lives, a
lot more resources.
The war in Iraq already has pinned down, we say 150,000, of our
troops; but we never give the correct figure. I am sure we have at
least 200,000 there already, but we are going to need more. We cannot
occupy a country of 24 million people with 150,000 or 200,000 troops if
that population is hostile. We are making that population more hostile
because, of course, we are zeroing in now on the neighboring nation of
Iran.
Why is activity in Iran going to impact on what happens in Iraq?
Because the majority of the people in Iraq are Shiite Muslims. Shiite
Muslims are the predominant group in Iran. And one of the alliances
that we expected to form was, with our liberating troops, was the
Shiite population that had been exploited, oppressed under Saddam
Hussein, because Saddam Hussein is Sunni. The Sunnis had oppressed the
Shiites. Well, the Shiites, we say, did welcome us in places where
there were large Shiite populations. We had the least amount of trouble
in the heated combat and even now in the occupation.
But if we are going to go into a situation now where a great deal of
pressure is being brought on Iran, and it may be necessary, Iran may be
the real problem, and we should not be in Iraq; if we are looking for
nuclear weapons, it may be that Iran is far closer to building a
nuclear weapon, buying parts maybe from North Korea than is acceptable.
But the Shiite population in Iraq will not be an ally. So we are going
to have to worry about the guerilla warfare problem even more if we
lose the loyalty and the support of the Shiites.
We are neglecting some other things, as I said before, while we pour
our resources and our troops into Iraq. We are neglecting Pakistan. I
have said many times that I know a little bit more about Pakistan than
I do most of the Muslim nations because I have a Pakistan population in
my congressional district. They are major allies of the United States.
They were in the Cold War; they were in the war against the Soviets in
Afghanistan. Pakistan has always been with the U.S.
But in my opinion, we have always given Pakistan very second-class,
shabby treatment. The amount of aid presently going to Pakistan from
the United States is less than $500 million at this point. Yet Pakistan
is a major ally of ours. Pakistan, its government, put itself on the
line from the very beginning in the war against terrorism. They allowed
our troops in, they have cooperated in many ways, but we still are
neglecting Pakistan. We are so preoccupied with focusing on Iraq that
we are ignoring a major ally.
What is the danger of this? The danger is that Pakistan's government
is on our side, but Pakistan is still a Muslim nation. Pakistan is
still the home of the Taliban. The Taliban were created in the
religious schools of Pakistan before they marched into Afghanistan and
united to take over that country. This is not a great secret. One does
not need the CIA to tell us this; it is well-known. So the pressure on
the Pakistan Government is enormous, and there were parts of the
Pakistan military that helped to train the Taliban, the parts of the
Pakistan military that is very sympathetic to al Qaeda and the final
situation is Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.
{time} 1915
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and we know that. Everybody knows that.
They are right there, available. If al Qaeda, the Taliban, the forces
inside Pakistan were to pull a coup and take over the government of
Pakistan, I think we would be forced to react militarily immediately.
We would be forced into a situation which is very dangerous for a long,
long time to come, with the bomb in the hands of terrorists for sure.
No speculation.
So why are we so reluctant to maximize our resources in Pakistan? If
ever there was a nation that deserved to have a massive Marshall Plan
model, it is Pakistan. We should go in to help the economy of Pakistan,
to help the education structure of Pakistan. We should see that
expenditure as being far more worthwhile and productive in the fight
against terrorism than many of the expenditures we are making in Iraq.
In Iraq, the poor will bear the burden of the war. As I said before,
people from my district, the working families, produce the soldiers.
The winds of war are blowing and we are ignoring them. We do not seem
to talk very much about the fact that guerilla warfare is a
possibility, because every day there are more incidents taking place of
attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. More incidents
[[Page H5657]]
take place every day. We have decided to have some counteroperations,
to sweep through certain areas and intimidate certain folks, and even
round up certain operatives who probably are getting ready to launch
guerilla warfare, if they are not already involved.
All of that is necessary, but I do not see any overall plan that
says, look, we do not want to have guerilla warfare break out in Iraq;
we do not want a guerilla warfare situation. And the worst element in a
guerilla warfare situation is a population that is friendly to the
guerrillas; the population that hates the liberators. That plan is not
there. The understanding is not there.
I think that it is not required that you have a great deal of
military experience in order to understand what is going on. A group of
sophomores huddled around a table at lunch time could see the unfolding
of the situation, it seems to me, and understand where it is going. A
group of sophomores could say, look at the situation that took place in
Afghanistan, when the Soviets tried to occupy Afghanistan. They won the
comeback, then they tried to occupy the territory, and their losses
were so great until they finally just gave up and pulled out because
the guerilla warfare was unbearable.
Now, I mentioned to an expert 2 weeks ago, I said, do we not have to
worry about the escalating guerilla activities? These incidents that
are spontaneous right now, but they are probing and they are
experimenting and they are finding out certain kinds of weaknesses. Do
we not have to worry about something like a Tet offensive that took
place in Vietnam in the City of Saigon?
For those of you too long to remember the Vietnam War, the war in
Vietnam was declared a success and was moving along at a jolly pace
when suddenly there was a big offensive launched by the Viet Cong. The
Viet Cong are a guerilla operation, of course. And this primarily took
place in the City of Saigon. From the destruction that was wrought on
the day of the Tet offensive, from that day on, we know now that our
military understood that the war was lost. They would not give up. They
would not admit certain things. But that Tet offensive of guerilla
warfare sort of sent the signal of how powerful the forces were.
I raised that issue with this expert at a meeting a couple of weeks
ago and he said to me, well, the Vietnamese had jungles to hide in. The
Iraqis do not have any jungles. It is wide open desert. So we do not
have to worry about that kind of guerilla warfare. I did not press the
point, but the Tet offensive took place mostly in the City of Saigon.
In the city. And it is in the city, in urban warfare, where our high-
tech weaponry and equipment has the least advantage. We are at a great
disadvantage with high-tech warfare in urban warfare, in house-to-house
warfare. You are so close to the enemy that blockbuster bombs do not do
you any good because they will kill you as well as the enemy.
We are in a situation where the enemy knows the terrain better than
we do. We are in a situation where the enemy will have the support of
the local population, unless we take steps to end that. So we ought to
fear and we ought to be very worried about a massive, bloody war, a
guerilla war, developing in the next 6 months in Iraq. And when that
develops, great amounts of human lives are going to be lost. And to
restore and get back to where we should be is going to be very costly.
We ought to look at it now and look for solutions now.
I believe in peace because I think human life is sacred, but I take
off my hat and I salute our men and women in our Armed Forces. I think
every soldier is a hero. I take exception to some people who would make
these gradations and degrees. This veteran did not see combat,
therefore he does not deserve the same benefits as the guy who saw
combat. This veteran did not even go overseas or this veteran went
overseas but he spent all his time behind the lines, he was in a unit
that buried soldiers.
Anybody who puts on a uniform is a hero, because once you put the
uniform on and you take the oath, your life does not belong to you. You
go where you are sent. And it is only by the grace of God or by
accident or whatever that you do not end up in a place where your life
is more at risk than another. Nobody chooses where they go once they
become a soldier. So every soldier, every person in the military ought
to be saluted as a hero from the time they put the uniform on.
Let us not degrade them by saying, you did not see enough combat, or
some guys saw a whole year of combat so they deserve more benefits than
the guy who saw one week of combat. Everybody is a hero and ought to be
treated that way. Certainly the people who see combat deserve to be
treated as heroes.
I like the model established by the Vietnam Memorial Wall. For the
first time, the Vietnam Memorial Wall made us look at every soldier who
got killed as a hero. Their names are on the wall. I think that is a
great monument, one of the greatest war monuments ever created, and I
think it is a peace monument. Because when you have to look at human
beings individually, then you know the horror of war. I have gone to
that wall with people looking for their relatives or friends. I went
with my young brother, who not so long ago was a sergeant major in the
Army, 20-some years. I went with him to look for a friend of his that
he went to high school with. And I saw the tears in his eyes when he
found the friend's name on the wall. Just a friend.
Think of all the mothers and the fathers and the relatives who go to
that wall and cry over lost loved ones, 58,000 now. But I think it is a
monument that lets us know that war is hell, war is horrible, and not a
single life should be put at risk and lost unnecessarily.
They used to have tombs of unknown soldiers. They still have them.
All over the world you will find these tombs of unknown soldiers. Well,
I hope that there will be no new tombs of unknown soldiers. Soldiers
should be known. The names of all the soldiers who died should be
known. All the soldiers who put on a uniform and were available to die
should be known.
All human life is sacred, and until we recognize how sacred it is, we
will not have the national policies or international policies which are
worthy of the people who make up the Nation. The people who make up the
Armed Forces, as I said before, 90 percent are from working families.
Everybody should realize the importance of working families to America.
If you did not realize it before, realize it now. It should have an
impact on our policies.
We should look at the minimum wage that is $5.15 an hour for the last
3 or 4 years. Working families are not given an opportunity to earn a
decent living. We should look at OSHA, at health and safety
requirements in the workplace. There are a number of programs for poor
children that we should look at.
We have been struggling this week in the Committee on Education and
the Workforce with Head Start. Head Start is a successful program. They
have not been able to malign Head Start or discredit Head Start.
Despite the great success of Head Start, there are people who still
only want to nickel and dime Head Start. They do not want to raise the
amount of money we appropriate for Head Start so that Head Start can
hire decent teachers and keep them.
One of the biggest problems with Head Start is they cannot keep any
teachers. Because the teachers are paid so poorly, they are always
moving on to some other school or education arena. So we get only new
teachers in Head Start, teachers who cannot teach anywhere else. Same
thing is true in poor schools.
We have had two bills in the last 10 days in the Committee on
Education and the Workforce where we have tried to raise the amount of
forgiveness on student loans so that people who teach in poor areas
would have their loans forgiven if they teach for 5 years. We tried to
raise the amount of loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers. We tried
to have some Federal incentive and this would show that we have placed
our priorities in the right place. But we lost. The only budging that
we got, the only movement we got from the majority of Republicans was a
forgiveness of the loans for math and science teachers, which is a
victory still, but not nearly enough.
Math and science teachers have their loans forgiven if they teach for
a 5-year period, up to $17,500. That is in the bill that will be coming
to the floor, and we
[[Page H5658]]
would like to make another try to expand that so that at the very
bottom in early childhood and Head Start so that we also try to
encourage teachers with that kind of incentive. We do not have the
money. Those are poor children. They need a good start in life. We
forget that they are going to become the soldiers who go off to fight
the wars. They are going to become the heroes whose names are listed on
another Vietnam Memorial Wall, or whatever the next wall will be. I
hope in the future, all our heroes are honored in a similar fashion;
that somewhere their names are known.
We have a scenario for a bloody warfare about to happen in Iraq. We
ought to take a hard look at it. I am concerned because I do not want
the members of my district telling me that I did not do what is
necessary, all that I could do to protect their relatives, their
children who are over there. Many went in the National Guard not
expecting ever to see combat. National Guard units have been called.
Many are in the regular service because they wanted to be all that they
could be and come out and get an education using the benefits promised
by the services, which is great for a young person who has reached a
dead end, who cannot afford to go to college, who cannot afford to pay
tuition.
There are many motivations. But once they are in the situation, they
certainly should be treated like the heroes that they are.
We had a rotation system in Vietnam. It was not passed by Congress,
it was a matter of common sense which was finally figured out by the
military in Vietnam so that the system did not leave anybody in combat
for more than a year. In the last 2 years of the Vietnam War, you did a
year and you were out. There was a rotation. There is no such rotation
that has been established in Iraq. So we have 140 degree temperatures
over there. No beds for them to sleep in.
My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson),
went to visit, and she talked about the horrible situation that both
men and women have to live in in Iraq. Those soldiers. And the most
terrible thing is that once you have a hostile population, every time
you step out on the street, you do not know when a sniper is going to
be shooting at you or you will confront a group of people you do not
know is friendly or might be a suicide bomber.
Can you imagine how nerve-wracking that is, and how many nervous
basket cases we have if people have to stay there and have no idea when
they are going to be leaving because we have no rotation system? Why do
we not have a rotation system? Because the administration is blundering
again. They are determined not to admit we need more forces there.
{time} 1930
We need more troops there. We need more troops, period. We may have
to go into a draft to get those troops. That is the last thing that the
powers that be in Washington want to admit, that we are in a war now
requiring large amounts of personnel, and they may have to draft
people. It is better to admit it sooner and have less deaths than to
wait until later and be forced into it.
We have scenarios, as I said before. We know what happened in
Vietnam. The Tet Offensive showed us how effective guerrilla warfare
can be in the city, not just the jungle. And the Russian attempt to
occupy Afghanistan is another obvious example of what guerrilla warfare
is like and how difficult it is to handle it.
Right now Chechnya, a relatively small province in Russia, will not
be subdued. Hatred can reach a level, fanaticism can reach a level
which makes it almost impossible to get back to peace. And the suicide
bombers in Israel are another example of a level where it is difficult
to get back to establishing peace.
But what it says in those situations, great harm can be done and we
are placing our personnel at great risk. We need to do whatever is
necessary to establish some new security.
First, the formula for success in the occupation of Iraq has to begin
with the establishment of proper security. Proper security means if
more troops are needed, we need to establish proper security. Before we
can do anything else, we need to block the escalation toward guerrilla
warfare with the support of the population. Do I sound like a war
monger? No. I was against the war in Iraq. I want to save lives. I do
not want one blunder to lead to the loss of more lives than the
original blunder took.
I would like to see us have more troops in Iraq to secure it. Once we
secure it, let us institute a Marshall Plan. What is the element of the
Marshall Plan that is the most important? Let us give people
electricity. Let us give the populous water. They had electricity and
water before; they do not have it now. Is it so difficult to get
electricity and water? If the soldiers and the local population cannot
do it, we should form a corps of plumbers and electricians. We may need
to pay them double for leaving their families and traveling across the
ocean and going into an area that is not secure, but pay them whatever
is necessary. In less than a year, we could reestablish all of the
electricity that existed before with a corps of plumbers and
electricians.
It is not a great undoable task. It requires money. Spend the money
that way instead of spending it fighting guerrilla warfare that is
going to be endless. It is a slow period for the sheet metal workers;
let them form a corps. Let us let the iron workers, the people who tore
down the wreckage at the World Trade Center, let them go, organize
them, and do what has to be done to restore the infrastructure in Iraq
and win the hearts and minds of the civilian population. Let the
workers go to the aid of their fellow workers. We have the soldiers
over there; let the working families send the additional heroes to
restore electricity and restore water and other systems.
The problem is the way this administration operates, they would spend
a lot of time figuring who is going to get the contract, who is going
to profit from it, how much knowledge can you get from your
contributors, and a lot of other things that come into play. We need to
do this and do it fast.
I remember that the earthquake in Oakland devastated a part of
Oakland; and if the freeway and a number of things had been left that
way for a year, it would have wrecked the economy of that area of
California. We appropriated first $6 billion and later $8 billion, and
they marshaled all of the technology, engineering skills, and in less
than a year, the damage from that earthquake was restored and its
impact on the economy was nil. It can be done. We do not need to have
somebody come down from heaven and wave a magic wand. It is American
know-how. Let us spend it up front to bring justice to Iraq instead of
spending it in a bottomless pit, guerrilla warfare.
Finally, alleviating hardships here in the States does not require
heavenly intervention. I want to call Members' attention to an article
that appeared in The New York Times, Tuesday, June 10, issue which is
very revealing. I find it very inspiring. It is about a colleague of
ours, Bob Riley, before he ran for governor in Alabama. As a Republican
Congressman, he had a nearly perfect record of opposing any legislation
supported by liberal Americans for democratic action, or anything else
that was considered liberal.
Why am I going to talk about Bob Riley? Because I think to relieve
the hardships in our cities and States, to stop the budget cuts, to
stop the cuts in education which force us to increase the size of
classrooms, to stop the cuts which force us to push the best teachers
into retirement, to stop all this, we need to marshal our revenue in a
different way and change our priorities, and in order to do that you
need a political base.
One of the big problems with taxes and tax policies in America is
that only the majority party, the Republican Party, has ever really
showed great concern about tax policy. I mean, the kind of concern that
it merits. I think the Democratic Party deserves to be chastised for
not really thoroughly exploring what the meaning of tax policy is in
the context of American politics.
Bob Riley, forced in a situation where Alabama is starved for
revenue, and he is now the governor, put aside any right wing ideology
and has come out with common sense that we all should take a hard look
at. Governor Riley has stunned many of his conservative supporters and
enraged the State's powerful farm and lumber lobbies by pushing a tax
reform plan
[[Page H5659]]
through the Alabama legislature that shifts a significant amount of the
State's tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and
corporations. And Governor Riley has framed the issue in starkly moral
terms arguing that the current Alabama tax system violates biblical
teachings because Christians are prohibited from oppressing the poor.
That is Governor Bob Riley who used to sit here in this Chamber on the
other side. I salute Governor Bob Riley.
If Governor Riley's tax plan becomes law, and it has to be ratified
in September by the voters, it will be a major victory for the poor
people of Alabama if it becomes law. But win or lose, Alabama's tax
reform crusade is posing a pointed question to the Christian Coalition,
focus on the family and other groups that seek to import Christian
values into national policy. The question has been asked, if Jesus were
active in politics today, would he be lobbying for the poor? This is
from a New York Times article of Tuesday, June 10.
Alabama's tax system has long been brutally weighted against the less
fortunate. The State income tax kicks in for families that earn as
little as $4,600. Even Mississippi does not tax income until it is over
$19,000. Alabama also relies heavily on sales tax which runs as high as
11 percent, and their sales tax applies to groceries and infant formula
as well as everything else.
The upshot is wildly regressive Alabamians with incomes under $13,000
pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in State and local taxes while those
who made over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent.
{time} 1945
I would like to read that again:
Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their
incomes in State and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000
per year pay just 4.1 percent.
A main reason Alabama's poor pay so much is that large timber
companies and megafarms pay so little. The State allows big landowners
to value their land using ``current use'' rules, which significantly
low-ball its worth.
Governor Riley's plan, which would bring in $1.2 billion in
additional desperately needed revenue, takes aim at these inequalities.
It would raise the income threshold at which families of four start
paying taxes to more than $17,000. Instead of having to pay taxes,
those who make $4,600, you would not have to pay State taxes until you
get to $17,000. It would scrap the Federal income tax deduction and
increase exemptions for dependent children. And it would sharply roll
back the current-use exemption, a change that could cost companies in
the timber industry a great deal of money.
Alabamians are used to hearing their politicians make religious
arguments, and Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that
Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system.
Let us understand what is happening here. This Governor--he must be
some kind of genius--has gotten this tax package through the
legislature already, but in Alabama you have to ratify it. The
ratification will take place in September, which means that the poor
people of Alabama will have a chance to vote to support what this
Governor is doing or not. In terms of votes, they certainly outnumber
the rich. It is something to watch.
Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that Christian
theology calls for a fairer tax system.
I repeat: Governor Riley thinks that he can convince the voters that
Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system.
Quoting Governor Riley, ``I've spent a lot of time studying the New
Testament and it has three philosophies: Love God, love each other, and
take care of the least among you,'' he said. ``I don't think anyone can
justify putting an income tax on someone who makes $4,600 a year.''
Religious groups could provide the margin of victory in September.
Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama tax professor with a
theological degree from an evangelical divinity school, caused a stir
recently with a law review article called ``An Argument for Tax Reform
Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics'' which makes an evangelical case for
making the tax system fairer. She plans to train speakers this summer
to take the theological argument to the grassroots. Kimble Forrister,
the State coordinator of Alabama Arise, a coalition that advocates for
poor people, expects the 100 church groups that are part of his
organization to hold church-basement workshops this summer to get the
word out to their congregations.
Many theologians argue that it is far easier to find support in the
Bible for policies that help the poor than for any cut in the dividend
taxes. If Governor Riley's crusade succeeds this summer, Alabama may
offer the Nation a model for a new kind of tax system, one where the
devil is not in the details.
End of quote from the New York Times article.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the New York Times article of
Tuesday, June 10, entitled ``What Would Jesus Do? Sock it to Alabama's
Corporate Landowners'' for the Record in its entirety.
[From the New York Times, June 10, 2003]
What Would Jesus Do? Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners
(By Adam Cohen)
Montgomery, AL.--If the religious right had called up
Central Casting last year to fill the part of governor, it
could hardly have done better than the teetotaling, Bible-
quoting businessman from rural central Alabama who now heads
up the state. As a Republican congressman, Bob Riley had a
nearly perfect record of opposing any legislation supported
by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action.
But Governor Riley has stunned many of his conservative
supporters, and enraged the state's powerful farm and timber
lobbies, by pushing a tax reform plan through the Alabama
Legislature that shifts a significant amount of the state's
tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and
corporations. And he has framed the issue in starkly moral
terms, arguing that the current Alabama tax system violates
biblical teachings because Christians are prohibited from
oppressing the poor.
If Governor Riley's tax plan becomes law--the voters still
need to ratify it in September--it will be a major victory
for poor people, a rare thing in the current political
climate. But win or lose, Alabama's tax-reform crusade is
posing a pointed question to the Christian Coalition, Focus
on the Family and other groups that seek to import Christian
values into national policy: If Jesus were active in politics
today, wouldn't he be lobbying for the poor?
Alabama's tax system has long been brutally weighted
against the least fortunate. The state income tax kicks in
for families that earn as little as $4,600, when even
Mississippi starts at over $19,000. Alabama also relies
heavily on its sales tax, which runs as high as 11 percent
and applies even to groceries and infant formula. The upshot
is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000
pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes,
while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent.
A main reason Alabama's poor pay so much is that large
timber companies and megafarms pay so little. The state
allows big landowners to value their land using ``current
use'' rules, which significantly low-ball its worth.
Individuals are allowed to fully deduct the federal income
taxes they pay from their state taxes, something few states
allow, a boon for those in the top brackets.
Governor Riley's plan, which would bring in $1.2 billion in
desperately needed revenue, takes aim at these inequalities.
It would raise the income threshold at which families of four
start paying taxes to more than $17,000. It would scrap the
federal income tax deduction and increase exemptions for
dependent children. And it would sharply roll back the
current-use exemption, a change that could cost companies
like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade, which own hundreds of
thousands of acres, millions in taxes. Governor Riley says
that money is too tight to lift the sales tax on groceries
this time, but that he intends to work for that later.
Church and state are not as separate in Alabama as they are
in most places. (The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme
Court was in federal court last week defending his decision
to install a 2.5-ton rendering of the Ten Commandments in the
state's main judicial building.) Alabamians are used to
hearing their politicians make religious arguments, and
Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that
Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system. ``I've
spent a lot of time studying the New Testament, and it has
three philosophies: love God, love each other, and take care
of the least among you,'' he said. ``I don't think anyone can
justify putting an income tax on someone who makes $4,600 a
year.''
The state's progressive voters, including many in the
sizable African-American community, have backed tax-law
changes like these for years. And reform-minded business
leaders, who see such tax changes and improved schools as
crucial to the state's economic development, have promised to
spend millions of dollars on television ads in support of the
September referendum.
But religious groups could provide the margin of victory.
Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama tax professor with
a theological degree from an evangelical divinity school,
caused a stir with a law review
[[Page H5660]]
article called ``An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-
Christian Ethics,'' which makes an evangelical case for
making the tax system fairer. She plans to train speakers
this summer to take the theological argument to the grass
roots. Kimble Forrister, the state coordinator of Alabama
Arise, a coalition that advocates for poor people, expects
the 100 church groups that are part of his organization to
hold church-basement workshops this summer to get the word
out to their congregations.
The Christian Coalition of Alabama has not yet taken a
position on the September vote, but it has been speaking out
against the plan's tax increases. In an interview yesterday,
John Giles, the group's president, had trouble pointing to a
biblical passage that directly supported his opposition to
new taxes, but he referred to Jesus' statement about
rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The key question, he
argued, is, ``How much is Caesar's?''
As the Bush administration and the religious right fight to
put theology more squarely into public policy discussions,
they are going to have to be ready for arguments like the
ones coming out of Alabama. Many theologians argue that it is
far easier to find support in the Bible for policies that
help the poor than for, say, a cut in the dividend tax. If
Governor Riley's crusade succeeds this summer, Alabama may
offer the nation a model for a new kind of tax system: one
where the Devil is not in the details.
Why have I started my closing remarks with that article? Because I
think if ever there was a formula for success in relieving suffering
and hardships in the States and cities, it is an adoption of a simple
Christian ethic that those who have the least deserve the least amount
of taxes and the most amount of help from their government.
I have two pieces of legislation that I have introduced: One is
called the Domestic Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804. I have discussed
that previously on the floor. That calls for a situation which would
relieve the pressure on the domestic budget by forcing the
consideration of all future military actions, like the war in Iraq, to
be paid for by corporations. We once had a surcharge. During the war in
Vietnam, during World War I, World War II, the Korean War, we had a
surcharge on corporate profits to help pay for the war. We should go
back to that so that the payment for the war is taken out of the budget
as a competing factor for domestic programs like education, health
care, a prescription drug benefit, et cetera.
I have a second bill, H.R. 2335, which is called the Emergency
Revenue Sharing Act. The money we save should be spent in relieving the
burdens that the cities and the States are now forced to deal with
during this recession period. If we took the $79 billion, or an
equivalent amount of the amount that we appropriated for the war in
Iraq and related matters, and sent it to the States and the cities, we
would end the layoffs of school teachers and personnel in the schools,
we would end the pressure on our civil servants, and we would end the
kind of oppression of our taxpayers that has taken place through
property tax increases and ticket blitzes.
All politics are inextricably interwoven. What happens at the local
level is inseparable from what happens down here. What we do here is
inseparable from the hardships that are created at the local level.
____________________