[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11978-11985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               CONCERNS IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chocola). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. OWENS. 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.

[[Page 11979]]

  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

[[Page 11980]]

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.

                              {time}  1715

  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

[[Page 11981]]

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.

                              {time}  1730

  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

[[Page 11982]]

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 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

[[Page 11983]]

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.

                              {time}  1745

  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.

[[Page 11984]]



                       CORPORATE PROFIT CHAMPIONS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Profits
     Fortune 500 rank and name of corp.       Total assets  before taxes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1  Wal-Mart.................................      94,552        8,039
2  General Motors...........................     370,782        1,736
3  Exxon Mobil..............................     152,644       11,460
4  Ford Motor...............................     289,357         (980.0)
5  General Electric.........................     575,244       14,118
6  Citigroup................................   1,097,190       15,276
7  Chevron Texaco...........................       77359        1,132
8  Int'l Business Machines..................      96,484        3,579
9  American Intl. Group.....................     561,000        5,518.9
10  Verizon Communications..................     167,468        4,079
15  Boeing..................................      52,342          492
19  Cardinal Health.........................      16,438        1,056.2
20  McKesson................................      13,324          418.6
22  AT&T....................................      55,272      (13,082.2)
31  Proctor and Gamble......................      40,776        4,352
34  Johnson and Johnson.....................      40,556        6,597
37  Pfizer..................................      46,356        9,126
38  Metlife.................................     277,385        1,605
44  Allstate................................     117,426        1,134
45  Walgreen................................       9,878.8      1,019.2
47  Microsoft...............................      67,646        7,829.0
49  United Technologies.....................      29,090        2,236
56  Lockheed Martin.........................      25,758          500
92  Coca-Cola...............................      24,501        3,050
98  Bristol-Myers Squibb....................      24,905        1,895
99  Northrop Grumman........................       39791           64
100  Abbott Laboratories....................      24,259.1      2,793.7
103  Wellpoint Health Networks..............      11,302.5        703.1
172  Eli Lilly..............................      19,042        2,707.9
252  Occidental Petroleum...................      16,548          989
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  As I said before, along with this domestic budget protection act, I 
am introducing a companion piece next week which is called The 
Emergency Revenue Sharing Act, and it simply states that during this 
period of recession, for the next 3 years, effective immediately, as 
soon as possible, we should have a revenue-sharing act which sends 
money back to the States and the localities from the Federal 
Government. A good figure to begin with would be $79 billion. We should 
have an amount equal to the amount of money we have appropriated for 
the war in Iraq and related activities. Why not $79 billion over a 3-
year period going to the States, going to the cities to make up these 
gaps so that we do not lay off teachers at a time when we are trying to 
improve education, so that we can go forward with the modernization of 
our schools, so that we can go forward with maintaining decent health 
care in our hospitals?
  We are not going to go backwards. Everybody should understand out 
there that America is not broke. We are not near bankruptcy; we are not 
paralyzed. It is only the will of the people reflected through the 
decisionmakers here in Washington that has to express itself 
appropriately to solve the problem. We are doing deficit financing 
anyhow; we can go forward and do more deficit financing to take care of 
the needs of the cities and the States.
  I have numerous people who are friends of mine who have been laid off 
already, paraprofessionals in the schools. They laid off 3,000 people 
in city government last week. Those people came half from the school 
system and half from other municipal services. Those in the school 
system were paraprofessionals, people who are not teachers, but who are 
classroom aides, lunch room aides, et cetera. Those are people who live 
in the community, those are people who are mothers and fathers and 
relatives of the poor children who attend our schools, and most of our 
children in our schools are poor children. The other people laid off in 
municipal services were sanitation workers. Large numbers of them live 
in our communities. They are people on the bottom. They are laid off.
  I think along with my other colleagues from New York, we want to join 
with our colleagues across the Nation to send a message that we do 
care. We are not impervious to the fact that this is going on. Tip 
O'Neill said, ``All politics is local.'' In the same manner, all taxes 
are local. Taxes do not come from Washington, D.C.; they come from 
localities, from States. They come here, so there is nothing wrong with 
sending some of it back and revenue-sharing. Revenue-sharing is a 
simple answer. We send it back, we might earmark it, we spend half of 
it for education and the other half we can spend on any other municipal 
State services. But that is a simple process of helping to close a 
budget gap. The budget gap in New York is not the largest. I think 
California is ahead of us there. There are some other States that do 
not talk much about it, and they are in such serious trouble that 
symbolically and proportionately they are in as bad trouble as we are.
  An article in The New York Times on March 25 I think expressed it 
very well. It is entitled, ``Budgetary Shock and Awe.''
  ``The American public transfixed by the unfolding invasion of Iraq 
may some day look up and discover too late what the Republican Congress 
did while the world's attention was elsewhere. Led by the Bush 
administration, the House and Senate are about to march under the 
public's radar screen and lead the Nation into a decade of budget 
disaster.
  ``The country is facing plenty of financial problems: the economy, 
the cost of the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Stunningly, 
Congress is preparing to make these far, far worse with more than $500 
billion in tax cuts for the upper 1 percent of taxpayers. To finance 
these spoils for the wealthiest Americans, House leaders, who have 
taken the lead in hammering a budget together, plan deep cuts in vital 
programs for the bottom 99 percent. These direct hits will raise from 
Medicaid to child care, education to food stamps, environmental 
protection to emergency doles for the poor.
  ``This plan, in the form of a budget resolution tied a firm tax cut 
mandate, is moving forward,'' et cetera. I will enter this editorial 
piece from The New York Times on March 25 entitled ``Budgetary Shock 
and Awe'' into the Record at this time.

                        Budgetary Shock and Awe

       The American public transfixed by the unfolding invasion of 
     Iraq may someday look up and discover too late what the 
     Republican Congress did while the world's attention was 
     elsewhere. Led by the Bush administration, the House and 
     Senate are about to march under the public's radar screen and 
     lead the country into a decade of budgetary disaster.
       The country is facing plenty of financial problems: the 
     economy, the cost of the war on terrorism and the war in 
     Iraq. Stunningly, Congress is preparing to make things far, 
     far worse with more than $500 billion in tax cuts for the 
     upper 1 percent of taxpayers. To finance these spoils for the 
     wealthiest Americans, House leaders--who have taken the lead 
     in hammering a budget together--plan deep cuts of $475 
     billion in vital programs for the bottom 99 percent. These 
     direct hits will range from Medicaid to child care, education 
     to food stamps, environmental protection to emergency doles 
     for the poor.
       This plan, in the form of a budget resolution tied to a 
     firm tax-cut mandate, is moving forward on Capitol Hill even 
     as lawmakers' boilerplate speeches resound with calls for 
     shared wartime sacrifice by all Americans. How an average 
     $90,000 tax cut for each millionaire counts as sacrifice is 
     only one of many unexplained mysteries as Republican leaders 
     fiercely protect President Bush's second wave of tax cuts. 
     The gallant troops in Iraq who are being invoked daily in 
     speeches by members of Congress might be interested to know 
     that the array of cuts includes an estimated $14 billion 
     reduction in military veterans' programs.
       Last week, Senate moderates failed to pass what amounted to 
     an embarrassment-reduction plan to halve President Bush's 
     $726 billion tax cut. Now they talk of a last-ditch attempt 
     to revive that half-loaf approach this week, before the tax 
     cuts are written in parliamentary stone. But a few key 
     liberals are so far refusing, furious at approving any new 
     tax cuts that will increase the deficits of postwar America. 
     We sadly urge reviving the half-loaf strategy, if only as a 
     symbolic protest of the Republicans' shameful use of the fog 
     of war in their budget scheming. As for shared sacrifice, 
     tell it to the Marines.
  Mr. Speaker, the process that they talk about there is still moving 
forward. The House has passed a tax cut of $550 billion. The Senate is 
debating still, maybe they have passed it today, or they will pass it 
probably before the week ends, a tax cut bill. Thank God for the more 
sensible, commonsense advocates in the Senate who at least want to cut 
it back. At a time during the war in Iraq, there were some who said 
look, we have to make some sacrifices. Instead of going for the full 
$550 billion, why do we not cut it down to $300 billion, or $350 
billion. That makes sense.
  So probably what the Senate passes is going to have to go into 
conference in the House, and we should tell our constituents out there 
that here is the time for them to rise up and let it be known that they 
know America is not broke, not bankrupt and they would like to see a 
more reasonable, commonsense approach taken, because every dollar we 
give in our tax cut will have to be borrowed. It is borrowed. It is 
part of the deficit financing, which is the least productive part of 
it.
  If we were borrowing money to create jobs directly through a stimulus 
package which built bridges and schools and

[[Page 11985]]

renovated hospitals and gave jobs to people, then we would be feeding a 
process whereby the money returns to the economy. But what we are doing 
is giving the money to the richest people under the banner that they 
are going to invest. What are they going to invest in? Why are you 
going to invest more in the creation of products when there are no 
consumers to buy your products? Why are you going to invest more in 
services when there are no consumers who can afford your services?
  The simple law that Henry Ford understood, you first have to have 
somebody with money before your product becomes profitable, is not 
understood by the decisionmakers in the majority party here. We have to 
put aside our partisan blinders. Let us not have any more conferences 
with just Republicans or just Democrats. Let us put aside our partisan 
blinders for the good of the African American community, for the good 
of working families. After all, I cannot stress too much the fact that 
working families out there are on the front line in every respect. When 
it comes to homeland defense, it is going to be working families. They 
were there at the World Trade Center by the thousands. They are the 
ones who came in to do the rescue work. They are the ones who came in 
to do the wrecking and the clearing and so forth. The workers were 
there. The workers were there when we needed them on the front lines in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and, if necessary, North Korea. There will be people 
from working families. We cannot abandon those families with these 
myopic policies that only benefit the rich in America.
  The rich in America are rich because an order is maintained. A law 
and order society is maintained. And the Armed Forces protects them. If 
you get rid of what the working families provide, the rich certainly 
could not exist. So no rich person should assume that the money belongs 
to me and, therefore, I have no stake in trying to make certain that 
this economy works. I am not concerned about the emergence of America. 
I am not concerned about education. I am not concerned about the need 
to create more jobs. That is the most blind approach to their own self-
interests. But we are not going to sit still and wait for their own 
self-interests.
  The important thing is that this is a democracy, and I still have 
faith that if the facts are out there, if we continue to pound away at 
the commonsense, ridiculous position that the tax cut places us in, if 
we continue to insist that our cities and our States deserve to get 
some money back from the Federal Government in the form of revenue-
sharing to pay for the needs that are there because, after all, it is 
the people's money. It came from the cities, it came from the States. 
Now that they need it back immediately, let us take care of what really 
is a man-made disaster.
  In the past we have not hesitated to rise to the occasion if a city 
was wiped out by a tornado or if there was a hurricane that caused 
great damage or if there was an earthquake. We always rise to the 
occasion in Congress and go to the aid of places that are affected. 
Well, now we have a man-made disaster in terms of the economy; and in 
New York, it is even worse because of the recession on top of the 
recession when we had the attack on the World Trade Center, which 
dislocated a major part of our economy. The Federal Government should 
come to the aid of New York, not only in the same way it comes to all 
parts of the country with respect to the recession, but we still need 
help in building back what was taken away as a result of an act of war 
against the United States.
  Osama bin Laden and the terrorists did not attack New York City 
because it is New York City. They attacked it because it was a target 
in the United States. It was an act of war against the United States, 
and we deserve to have more help from the United States Government in 
the rebuilding of New York, just as we went to the aid of San Francisco 
and Oakland when they had a super earthquake. Billions of dollars went 
there. We have gone to the aid of islands who have had floods and 
natural disasters all over the country. Now is the time to go to the 
aid of our big cities suffering most from this recession in every way.

                          ____________________