Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man whose commitment and dedication in the areas of health and community service warrant our utmost commendation. On Friday, Dr. Roger Boykin will be honored for his many years of community service in the City of New York at a celebration entitled ``A Salute to Our Very Own.'' I feel privileged to have known and worked along side Dr. Boykin, a long time resident of Jamaica, New York. On a first hand basis, I can attest to the fact that the quality of life in communities across the great State of New York has been enriched by the diligence and compassionate commitment of Dr. Boykin. Very early in his life, career and residency, Dr. Boykin demonstrated his singular purpose as care and concern for others. With patience and compassion, Dr. Boykin served his community and his state in fine form. Dr. Boykin was born the son of Richard Boykin, Sr. and Thelma Boykin. He attended Brooklyn Technical High School. He went on to receive his Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Sciences (cum laude) from Columbia University School of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Following his life long passion to become an M.D. and a servant in the community, young Roger successfully completed his Doctor of Medicine degree (cum laude) from State University of New York-Downstate in June of 1973. After completing his residency and internship at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center/Kings County Hospital Center and Brooklyn Veteran's Administration Medical Center respectively, in Internal Medicine, he received a Fellowship and served at Albert Einstein Hospital, Bronx Municipal Hospital and VanEtten in Pulmonary Medicine. His unique talent for giving to the community and his expertise in his profession were not lost on his peers and colleagues. Among his many achievements include certification as a Diplomate of The National Board of Medical Examiners; Diplomate of The American Board of Pulmonary Medicine; Diplomate of the American Board of Critical Care Medicine; Diplomate of the American Board of Geriatric Medicine; and, he is a Member in good standing of the American Lung Association of Queens. Dr. Boykin practiced his unique brand of compassionate medical care and considerate patient relations as a staff physician at Brooklyn Veterans' Administration Medical Center, Catholic Medical Center of New York, Mary Immaculate Hospital, and The Jamaica Hospital. In 1982, he began his career as an instructor in Clinical Medicine at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center and in 1992, Dr. Boykin became an Assistant Professor. Currently, Dr. Boykin is the Associate Chief of Staff for Primary and Extended Care for Veterans Affairs, New York Harbor Healthcare System; Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at state University of New York Health Sciences at Brooklyn; Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at Touro College and an Instructor for the American Heart Association. Throughout his career, Dr. Boykin has served his patients with compassion and care. Through his many years of service to the community, he has contributed to the improvement and enrichment of his neighborhood family. Dr. Boykin may have single handedly changed the standard of behavior for community physicians involved in public service. He has for many many years worked with and perpetuated the highest professional standards, unwavering commitment, and irreplaceable knowledge and expertise. He has put much more than a dent in the quest for quality health care for all and we in the State of New York are most grateful to be the recipient of his personal largess and generosity. ``A Salute to Our Very Own'' is a fitting title for honoring Dr. Boykin. He is our very own. He has made a nation and a neighborhood a much better place to live. He has given without reserve and we can only hope to thank and commemorate him adequately. I wish him well in all his future endeavors and join with my Queens family, friends, colleagues and fellow elected officials in commemorating his years of service.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my good friend's, the gentleman from California, motion to instruct our conferees to agree to the Senate provisions repealing the existing restrictions against the use of American private sector financing of our agricultural exports to Cuba. It is high time that we bring our trade policy with Cuba, a market with solid potential for a number of job-creating export industries, in line with the fundamental principles and objectives which govern our trade policy with the rest of the world. I for one as a matter of principle have never been a supporter of unilateral sanctions as an effective instrument of United States foreign policy. Such actions also often cost us shares in foreign markets. Other colleagues have also raised morally principled concerns on the inclusion of food in any sanctions policy. I am proud that this body has already moved in a bipartisan manner to exclude agricultural products from our embargo against Cuba. It was a step in the right direction to bring an outdated 20th century policy into the 21st century, a policy which has obviously not achieved the desired results and is ridiculed by our friends and allies across the world. However, that small step was followed by a step backwards, when we excluded our own financial community from being able to provide financing to our own private sector. Our embargo has already cost our businesses and consumers billions of dollars. Do we really want to send American businesses who want to export American-made goods to banks in other nations? Mr. Speaker, at a time when our economy is struggling to recover, when our farmers are facing difficult conditions, and when we seemingly find ways to take one step backward every time we take a step forward in reclaiming our global leadership and international trade, it is indeed high time we stop preventing our financial sector from financing legal exports to a $100 million market only 90 miles away from our shores. I thank the gentleman from California for this motion, and I urge our conferees to follow the bipartisan leadership demonstrated by the other body; and let us end these sanctions on U.S. banking and financial institutions.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, in an age when corporate wrongdoing is a daily front page headline, now is not the time for Congress to bend the rules that allow injured consumers and workers access to the civil justice system. Proponents of H.R. 2341 insist that a class action crisis threatens the well being of U.S. courts this is simply not true. There is no statistical evidence of a class action crisis. In fact, the Federal and State judiciaries have consistently opposed efforts to ``federalize'' class actions believing that state courts are perfectly capable of handling their own matters without interference from the Federal judiciary. There is simply no need for massive civil justice reform, especially reform like H.R. 2341 that limits the rights of consumers to seek redress against wrongdoers. Currently, class action suits provide access to justice for thousands of American consumers and small businesses that would otherwise have no realistic means of taking their case to court. Unfortunately this legislation is an attempt to deny American consumers and small businesses by making plaintiffs jump through multiple hurdles to bring class actions, allowing proponents of this bill to accomplish their policy goal at the expense of consumers who have been harmed by corporate wrongdoers. Today we are given the opportunity to make a clear choice between the legal rights of powerful corporations that break the rules, and the legal rights of the families, retirees and consumers they harm. Today we cannot turn our backs on those who depend on us. Today we must stand up for those who stand the greater harm by opposing H.R. 2341.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, recently the most extensive collection of the late Malcolm X's writings ever collaborated was found in the hands of an anonymous private owner. The undisclosed person attempted to sell the collection to the highest E-Bay bidders. Fortunately, an investigation looking into the legitimacy of how the current anonymous owner acquired the documents is pending, and the notion of selling the collection has ceased for the time being. Prior to this pending investigation, the lot was to be auctioned off into two dozen private hands, completely dispersing the writings to unknown whereabouts, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the public to access. Many of these documents were written during the leader's last year, the last year of his life. The reflections of Malcolm X's innermost thoughts in these documents are of significance not only to his devout followers, but for all who thirst for wisdom. Knowledge is priceless, and those who place a price on knowledge may never come to realize its true value. Good luck to the family of the Honorable El Hajj Malik El Shabazz.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning in support of H.R. 1542--the Tauzin-Dingell Broadband Deployment Act. If you believe in competition vote for this bill. As Members of Congress, we have the responsibility and opportunity to bring increased choices for our constituents. H.R. 1542 promotes fair competition for high-speed internet services which will mean lower prices, more choices and greater access for consumers. Fair competition will bring high-speed internet services to communities that cannot get them--inner cities, small towns and rural areas. In order to ensure real competition, all companies that provide high- speed access to the internet should face the same rules and regulations. Cable, wireless, satellite and companies that all provide competing high-speed internet services should all be governed by the same rules. When all companies must compete under the same rules, consumers will benefit--from increased choices, lower prices and a stronger economy. Meanwhile, this bill represents an opportunity to not only help our sagging economy but also to cure an ill that continues to plague our country--the digital divide. The Internet, probably nothing in recent memory has done so much so quickly to change the way we work, learn and live. Think about it: It took 38 years for the radio to get to 50 million American homes . . . and 12 years for TV. The WEB got there in four. And with it have come education, entertainment and economic opportunities like never before. And today, with the help of a new generation of communications technologies, what used to be the ``world wide wait'' is rapidly becoming a new, wide-open window onto the world. H.R. 1542 will move along that progress more quickly and help so many who have no access or limited access to the kind of internet services they should expect and deserve. That is why I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Cannon- Conyers amendment, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and vote ``yes'' on final passage. A ``yes'' vote for Tauzin-Dingell is a vote for consumers, choice and competition.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today in support of H.R. 2356, the Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Over time, Americans have become a group very skeptical of politics, pleading for reform--reform that would enable them to participate in the political process. While there are many opinions on how to fix our system, what is clear is that Americans need reassurance that they have a voice in our political process. A perfect illustration may be that which has become a major headliner in today's news--Enron. I am not advocating that if campaign finance had already been implemented the Enron debacle may not have occurred, but I will say that the recent collapse of Enron has only further illustrated the extent of corporations' political spending and furthered people's cynicism about big money and politics. Today, I am glad to say after a long fight, we are able to offer the American people an opportunity to once again become involved in a political system that promises a vote and voice for everyone. H.R. 2356 takes so many steps to improve the current political process. It invites all American voters to participate in the political system by completely banning soft money contributions to the national political parties, prohibits federal officeholders and candidates from soliciting soft money in connection with Federal elections, and requires state and local parties to spend hard money on activities that influence federal elections. Not only does this legislation stop the ever increasing and powerful flow of money, but it also reins in sham issue ads by requiring hard money for broadcast communications that mention a Federal candidate within sixty days of a general election or thirty days of a primary and are targeted in the candidate's electorate, among other provisions--such as allowing state parties to use funds to conduct voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. Finally, we, those who are chosen to represent the American people, are able to offer the American voters a reform bill that strengthens our nation and allows all its citizens to actively participate. Now that we have made considerable steps in providing all Americans with an opportunity to participate in the political process, no matter their income, it is important that we continue this fight for the right of all Americans to have a guaranteed protected vote. Americans must be reassured that what occurred in the 2000 elections will not occur again. Not only will they have an opportunity to actively participate in the election process, but also a right to have their voices heard when it is time to cast their votes. Mr. Chairman, reforming our campaign laws is an important step toward renewing people's belief in our American system and now we must continue this fight and ensure them that their right to vote is just as great. During this vote on final passage of H.R. 2356, we, my colleagues, have an opportunity to inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. Now is the time to make change, now is the time to offer opportunity, now is the time to engage those who have been disengaged for far too long. Remember, when people go to the poles, they cast one vote, when we vote on the House floor, we vote for all those we represent. My dear colleagues, I urge you to represent them now, represent all those who are so often unheard, let them know they soon can and will be heard--today, tomorrow, and forever. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of H.R. 2356, the Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in strong opposition to this amendment. This is a clear case where we must read the label very carefully, look at the small print, because to say that this is about civil rights, if this House and if we wanted to talk about civil rights, we would be really talking about election reform. This bill has nothing to do with civil rights. It is what I would call mislabeling. What this bill is about is about allowing people who have been locked out of a process to be in the process. What this bill is about is about not misleading people with ads at the end of a campaign that tells them something that is not true. What this bill is about is really about the first amendment rights of people, having the right to petition when they feel aggrieved, and the American people have felt aggrieved with what we are doing here with campaign financing, and it needs reforming. This is not a civil rights bill.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a sad state of affairs. What took place on September 11 was not a New York tragedy; it was a national tragedy. As a result, we spoke with the President of the United States, and he pledged $20 billion to the City of New York. We all know that to repair the damage that took place to the United States of America that happened to be in the City of New York will cost far more than $20 billion. But the President pledged $20 billion. We negotiated and we thought we had agreed that we had at least $20 billion in this appropriation, in this year, that the city could count on in rebuilding the World Trade Center area. And then to come back and to only receive $11 billion, not knowing when the $9 billion will come and having some promise in the future about when the $9 billion will come will not help restore what needs to be done in New York City. We need to make sure now, not just for New York City, but for our Nation, that we rebuild in that area. We need the $20 billion, not sometime in the future, but now, as promised. We heard the President say during the campaign, ``I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.'' We want the President to say what he means and let us have the $20 billion now.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to end the rhetoric and do what is right for American people. We say that business must move on and we must continue as we did before. But we cannot do that unless we fix the problem of airline security. And clearly, as the Senate has said in a unanimous voice, the way we fix security in the airline industry is by federalizing it. We must make sure that our airports are like our borders. We would not privatize the border line with individuals to monitor the borders, nor can we do that with our airlines. If we want to go back to normal, if we want our business community to resume itself, we must make it safe for them to fly, because that is what is going to help stimulate our economy so we can get back to normal and we can begin to focus on the things that are important to all Americans. We cannot do it until people feel safe flying, and the only way we can do that is by federalizing.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 3073.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill. I am supporting it because of jobs. I do not want to cut off our noses to spite our faces. If we lose this airline industry, we lose all jobs. We have to save it to save jobs, and then come back next week to make sure that we finish the job. It is indeed an incomplete job. We must finish the job, but we must not lose it all. My heart goes out when I look at the New York City skyline and no longer see our twin towers. And I think if the towers were still standing, we could repair it and we could keep jobs in the building. But my heart is lost because there is no longer any towers on the skyline, and we have lost all of those jobs. Let us not lose any more jobs.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for this amendment, but, most importantly, I want to thank the gentlewoman of Ohio for thinking about me. Mr. Chairman, as I hear people talking about the drug elimination program and hear people talking about those who live in public housing and I hear people talking about the American dream, let me tell my colleagues, I lived in public housing. I lived in public housing until I graduated law school. I have a relative that lives in public housing. Just because I am a Member of Congress does not mean I can get all of my relatives and friends out of public housing who live there on a daily basis. I visit them every time that I go home. Not only do I represent public housing, I have relatives, I have lived there, and I would not be here if it was not for public housing. We can build all the prisons we want, and they will come. They will fill up if we do not do anything. When we talk about medicine today, we talk about preventive care. We talk about how we have to stop it early. We can stop them and kill diseases early so that we do not have to worry about disease. What the drug elimination program is, it is preventive care. If we are talking about preventive care everywhere else, why can we not take care of America's poor? Because America's poor, like I, want to live the American dream; and the first thing in public housing that we see young people today, what they want to do is, indeed, that: just live. They are worried about their lives, when we talk to 15-, 16-year-olds; and they say they may not live until they are 18, 19, 20 years old. They just want to live. And what the drug elimination program does is give them the opportunity to have hope to live for tomorrow. Why are we playing reverse RobinHoodism? Why are we taking away from the poor to give to the rich? What makes this country great, or what should make it great, is how we take care of the least of these. The drug elimination program and the money that we are talking about really is just a drop in the bucket. We have got to have a conscience in this body. When we talk about security and I think about my childhood, security happens in two ways. Security happens when, in fact, one has law enforcement there. One puts up gates. They put up these gates that help prevent crime. But it also beautifies the area for the people, the residents that are living there, and that presence helps, and it gives a relationship between the individuals who live in the complexes and the police officers. But, most importantly, let me tell my colleagues why I could be a Member of the United States Congress today, because without certain programs of public housing, I doubt that I would be here. But it has programs that teaches and encourages young people and gives them hope and keeps them out of trouble. It has programs that has the opportunity and the ability to transcend one who is living among drugs and keeping drugs out of public housing. That is what this is all about. So when we talk about a mere $175 million when we have over $7 trillion budget, a mere $175 million to save lives. Mr. Chairman, there has been a big discussion about people receiving these tax cuts of $300 or $600 in a few weeks or a few months or whenever it comes. Do we know that that $300 or $600 will not save one life? It will not save one life. And what we are talking about here is saving lives, something that no one can ever recover. We must save lives so that people have the opportunity to live so that they can have hope for the American dream. And taking this money away, we are taking away people's hope, we are taking away their dream, and that is wrong.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act. Let me thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for his leadership and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, for his leadership on the committee. As indicated by the last speaker, this is an unusual opportunity with which I disagree with the ranking member, but on this one I do. This bill will save investors and other market participants $14 billion over the next 10 years. The SEC 31 fees and other fees collected by the SEC were created to fund the SEC without the need for an appropriation from the general treasury. However, over the past two decades, an increasing number of individuals have been participating in the market through 401(k)s, mutual funds, and on-line transactions. This has caused the SEC to collect $9.2 billion more in fees over the last 10 years than has been needed to fund the agency's operation. As a result, the agency has been put in a position of collecting additional taxes from the public for the general treasury. H.R. 1088 and its companion bill in the other Chamber will correct this inequity while containing a provision that will allow for fees to be adjusted upward should the SEC face a funding shortfall. Probably the most important provision for me of this bill is this provision for pay parity for SEC employees with their Treasury and Federal Reserve counterparts. As it stands, the Federal Government is not able to compete with the private sector when it comes to paying our financial regulators what they are worth. The SEC is at a serious disadvantage when they cannot compete for employees with their government counterparts. The result has been a loss of approximately one-third of their employees over the past 3 years. This creates delays and inefficiencies in carrying out their regulatory duties to safeguard fairness and transparency and all in our capital markets, capital markets which are critical to our position as the world's economic superpower. I want to thank the sponsor and cosponsor of this bill and encourage all Members of the House to support it.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep and alarming concerns about the pending Tax Reconciliation Conference Report. While the Senate, that now distinguished body across the divide, has managed to scale back the size of the tax cut, Mr. Speaker it is still too large. We cannot afford this tax cut!! If we are to meet our obligations to the nation's youth, elderly and impoverished, we must act responsibly. However you slice it, Mr. Speaker, this is tax cut for the rich. This is a bank account builder for those in our country who least need the boost. We are basing this tax cut on projected revenues which, even by the most liberal of estimates, may not materialize. Mr. Speaker, the most irresponsible part of this tax cut is that it relies on, and threatens the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. It is an irresponsible tax cut because it totally ignores hundreds of billions of dollars in interests costs. It seeks to line the pockets of the rich while fleecing the poor on energy, education and housing. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to expose this tax cut for what it really is, an irresponsible, poorly calculated and skewed to the wealthy budget buster.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his motion to instruct because it is clear that the massive tax cut package pushed through the House earlier this year was financed by cutting much-needed programs, particularly as it regards to education. There are devastating cuts in education spending affecting areas where continued progress relies on at least maintaining current levels of funding. Where the President proposes an increase in funds to disadvantaged students and programs, he proposes major cutbacks in educational technology programs and a decrease in funds for vocational educational programs. This budget does not provide the necessary increases to the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program or the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, programs which have been proven to work and be successful. This is a major blow to all urban and rural communities. These programs are vital to providing a safe and stimulating academic environment for students, both while they are in school and during after-school hours. We need these programs, and we need them at full funding, which covers real operating costs. Despite campaign promises to increase the average Pell grant to $5,100, this budget proposes approximately $3,800, a $100 increase per student. The President then freezes all other critical student aid programs, making it almost impossible for working families and students to finance the higher education, to keep us moving on and keep us ahead of the curve. The elimination of the budget line for school renovation is ill- advised and absolutely devastating to restoring and modernizing our schools and bringing them up to the 21st century standards. This must be reversed. Mr. Speaker, my constituents need each and every dollar of this Nation's education budget to provide a safe and competent educational experience. The President's budget stops short of providing real educational relief.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, life has its lessons. One of the lessons I learned early on was I went to a used car salesman, and he showed me a car. That body of that car looked like it was in excellent condition. He turned on the radio, and the music of the radio, the stereo just reverberated around me; and I fell in love with the car. But there was one thing that I forgot to do was open up the hood to the car to see the engine and drive the car to make sure that it functioned and did what it said it was to do. I say to the American people, you have got to and we have got to look under the hood, inside the engine of what is being proposed here in these tax cuts. We are being told that everything can happen. We can save Social Security, Medicare; that we can make these the surpluses based upon 10 years out. No, I say to my colleagues, we have to make choices. Those choices have to be based upon a discipline and well-thought-out process. We cannot do this without a budget because we do have other priorities. Those priorities include Medicare, Medicaid. They include education. They include a prescription drug plan. We must have all of those things if we are going to have a true car.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 83. The Democratic budget provides a prudent framework for meeting the needs of the country and responds to the priorities set by the American people. It is risky at best to base a budget and massive tax cuts on a projected surplus and expected revenues. The Republican's budget amounts to double-dipping by appropriating the same funds in different places. The Democratic alternative responds to these issues that Americans have noted as most important. On education, the Democratic alternative provides $151 billion over the 10-year period; the Republican plan only $21.4 billion. The Democratic alternative seeks to provide a much-needed Medicare press drug benefit with realistic numbers and adequate levels of funding. We do not try to trick the American people. We provide the full $330 billion necessary to carry this program. While Americans have signaled Congress that they want and deserve a tax cut, they have also asked for a reasonable and responsible and realistic and timely tax cut. The Democratic alternative provides that. The Republicans plan a massive and rapid $2 trillion tax cut, while wholly ignoring process and priorities and procedures. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that the Republican tax cut is contrary to the American people. The Democratic alternative proposes a $730 billion tax cut, while still funding farm aid at $46 billion; the Republican budget provides nothing for America's farmers; the alternative provides $7 billion for Veteran Health care; the Republicans cut funds to our nations veteran by $5.7 billion. The Republican plan proposes a massive and rapid $2 trillion plus tax cuts while wholly ignoring process, priorities, and procedures. Mr. Chairman, it has become clear that the Republican budget is contrary to both the needs and the priorities of the American people. The Republican budget seeks to mortgage the Trust Fund; the needs of children and the gains of this period of prosperity for a rushed and ill-conceived tax cut. I urge my colleague to support the democratic alternative and vote for a fair, prudent and realistic budget.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, this month, as we celebrate the achievements of African Americans to our great country, I find this resolution most appropriate to recognize the hard work of African American legislators and the world's greatest legislative body, the United States Congress. As we do today, African Americans have always been the conscience of the Congress, fighting for people and communities that have traditionally had no voice in these hallowed halls, championing for the protection of civil rights of all people. This book will give a historic illustration of the tireless work black Members of Congress made during the post-Civil War era to the last decade in the 20th century, arguably the most crucial period in our country's history. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a proud Member of Congress, because of the work of black pioneers who served in this body at the turn of the century through the civil rights movement and right on up to today. Mr. Speaker, I know from looking at the first edition of the book that I stand here as only the 98th Member of Congress who happens to be of African descent. And I know that that first edition sits on my coffee table at home and there a number of young people that pick it up and look at it and begin to ask questions about the people that are contained in there and read the contributions that they have made to this great Nation. Indeed, I know of some teachers who utilize this book as part of their curriculum, not just in February, but throughout the year in teaching all children, no matter what color they may be, about the accomplishments of those who serve in these hallowed halls and the contributions that they have made to these United States. Mr. Speaker, for sure we have come a long way, and Members who happen to be of African descent that is in this body have helped make this Nation great and greater than it would have been had they been excluded from this body. So I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good friend, for introducing this timely resolution. As Black History Month comes to its conclusion, let us all celebrate the achievements of black Members of Congress by updating the work of African American Members of Congress from 1989 until today.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, to the family of Julian Dixon, what echoes still in my head is the letter that Julian sent to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus where he said, ``Rest assured, I'll be okay.'' I would like to say today to the family that he is, in fact, ``okay.'' In this time, you think and you have to say thank you. Thank you to our good Lord for passing Julian Dixon this way. Thank you for sending a servant who had the characteristics that one could look up to. When I think of Julian, I think of a role model, and I oftentimes wish that I could always have his cool and calm demeanor, even in the face of a storm. I wish that I could have his dependability, because you could always depend upon Julian in a time of need. I think of him as ``old reliable,'' one who sometimes, you know, you just make the presumption that he is there, because he always had been there for you in time of need, a faithful individual and a servant of this great Nation. So I can imagine that when Julian was called home, our Lord said, ``Job well done, my good and faithful servant.''

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to join my fellow colleagues in honoring the distinguished Senator from New York. For almost a quarter of a century, Daniel Patrick Moynihan has represented the interests of the people of New York with a thoughtful, diplomatic leadership presence in the Senate. He has defined politics of civility. His experience and expertise in domestic policy, foreign policy, science and the arts has guided our country through some of her toughest challenges. As a new Member of Congress seeking guidance, Senator Moynihan and his staff were there for me whenever I called on them on behalf of the constituents of the 6th Congressional District. Senator Moynihan's professional story during four honorable Senate terms serves as a powerful contrast to the prevailing cynicism about politics and public service. Pat Moynihan has been a larger-than-life figure for New York and the Senate, being a true role model and a great leader, with grace and wisdom, that has made all Americans proud, no matter what party, race, sex, religion or creed, no matter whether you are rich or you are poor. Indeed, Senator Moynihan, your career has been about bringing people together. What a great legacy, about bringing people together and caring for all. Open behalf of my constituents, I thank Senator Moynihan for his dedication and distinguished public service; and I wish him and his wife, Liz, all of God's blessing. The people of New York will miss him greatly. So will the Congress, and so will our country.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the United States listened to the people of Cuba, to Cuba's religious leaders, and to the overwhelming majority of its human rights activists and dissidents, it would lift its embargo and begin to normalize relations with the island. What we should be doing is learning from our own mistakes. Whether we brand a country Communist or not, evil is evil, bad is bad. But we should learn from our own mistakes, for surely in this country it just took to 1965 to where all Americans in this country had the right to vote in America, in a democracy. We can look back, back in the 1950s, when we sent people like Paul Robeson, Junior, away from this country. We did not allow people to do various things and exercise human rights in this country. So what we should do, we should take this opportunity to show what we have learned by our mistakes, that understanding that engaging with Cuba, when clearly for 40 years holding them at bay has not done anything, but by engaging with them, we could bring democracy.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the bill because it does not do enough for the housing needs of the Elderly and Disabled. We must increase monies for programs to specifically assist these populations. There comes a point in time when everyone needs help and now is the time to help our Elderly and Disabled. Dependence, vulnerability, and loneliness has become a lifestyle of the Elderly and Disabled who have no one to turn to. The Elderly and Disabled of America are pleading to this Congress for assistance. As elected officials, it is our obligation to answer those cries and create solutions for those that are unable to fight for themselves. This Appropriations bill falls short of meeting the housing needs of these groups by $78 million. In fact, 37 percent of Elderly and Disabled housing lack basic necessities. Specifically, hand rails and grab bars in bathrooms that enable safe independent movement have not been installed in many of their apartments. We need more money for construction and rehabilitation services for the elderly under Section 202, and more money for these same services for the disabled under Section 811. In addition, the proposed appropriations for Community Development Block Grant programs are $295 million less than current funding and 8 percent less than requested by the Administration. If this bill passes, New York would receive $30 million less in CDBG monies, and $6 million less than what was allocated in FY 2000. New York City needs CDBG money to revitalize our communities. And, the reduction of CDBG monies will reduce the number of households assisted by 11,425; and the number of jobs created by 10,340. This bill doesn't provide a single penny for the program ``America's Private Investment Companies.'' We need this program to stimulate economic growth and development in impoverished inner city and rural areas. APIC is essential to the development of economic empowerment in our districts. This program would lay the foundation to do this. How can we eliminate poverty and increase the standard of living in our districts if we cut funding from the same programs we look to for solutions to our problems? I cannot support a bill that will increase the plight of the Elderly and Disabled who require our help the most.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, in this day and age, when we look at the global economy and we look at how this Nation has developed and other nations, and yet we look at the continent of Africa and see how underdeveloped they are; and also in this day and age, when we realize how much smaller the world has become, I think it becomes that much more urgent that we increase the Development Fund for Africa by the $220 million that is requested by the Payne amendment. Once upon a time there was a line item initiative for the Africa development fund. That no longer exists. And when we look at how the cost of things are ever escalating, this request is actually very little. We talk about democracy and helping to democratize various countries in the continent of Africa. That is what this money is for, helping people have a form of government where they can grow and develop as we did. We should be able to have others benefit from our history and understand the mistakes that we made in the past so that they will not have to go through some of the same growing pains that we did. In fact, in this great country, with the prosperity that we now have, I think it is just the very little that we could do, this $220 million. That is not a lot of money when I think about some of the individual wealth of some people in this country. Some CEOs in this country have $220 million to use at their disposal. We are talking about $220 million for an entire continent of people. That is just pennies. Pennies. Yet what good, what human good it will do for the people of the continent of Africa. USAID is the money that is entitled here. Democratic initiatives. A lot of the things that I hear sometimes sound like excuses not to do something. When we were talking earlier in regards to debt relief, there was the excuse that was constantly being made that we cannot do it because this was wrong with this country or this was wrong with that country. And many of the things they talked about that was wrong with them, well, that is what we fix in this bill. So it is about us being serious about making a difference. It is about our wanting to reach out a helping hand in a world that is ever shrinking. I do believe we are our brothers' keepers. We are our brothers' keepers. And I think if we want peace and prosperity, that by doing this we will not have to worry about spending $60 billion for a bubble sometime in the future because we are afraid of suffering some kind of attack. I think we need to begin to do the kinds of things that will make us accepted by others and others accepted by us because we are working collectively together for humanitarian concerns and reasons. I think that we can do this. I think that it is a reasonable thing, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, there is a saying in the church that I go to ``to whom much is given, much is required.'' This is supposed to be the greatest Nation, the most affluent Nation on the face of the planet Earth, in the history of the planet Earth. Yet, why is it when it comes to us delivering to those who need the most, we find excuses not to do it. When I heard the distinguished chair, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) talking in his opening statements, I heard excuses of why we could not help those who need help. People in this House have traveled to Africa, and when they go to Africa they say, oh, what a shame, how bad it is, oh, this is pitiful. Yet when it comes time when we can do something about it, and foreign operations is that time, we find excuses not to do anything about it. It is time that we stop making excuses, put our money where our mouths are and do the right thing and give the money where it is needed and that is in the continent of Africa.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me say I rise in support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from California. Let me say that the camera of history is now rolling on us and the camera of history will judge us and we will be judged by how we treat the least among us. We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. This is a question about motivation. For sure, as my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), indicated, we had motivation to find some money when the Cold War existed. Where is the motivation to find money for humanitarian interests? Five thousand people are dying a day. Where is the motivation to find money? Now, sometimes we forget our own history right here in this country. I hear my colleagues talking about all the things that are going wrong in Africa. Do we have to remember the history of this country, the wild wild West and all the crazy things that were going on here? Do we have to remember that many of the individuals who now are the upper echelon in this country, their families were crooks and did illegal activities? It was an evolving thing. Many of the countries that we want to help, as my colleague from New Jersey so poignantly said, we, in order to fight against Communism, we financed it, we did not care what they did, and we gave them money; and now we have this debt. We live in the greatest fiscal times of our lives; yet we are going to turn our back on people who have blood like we do, on people who have needs like we do. How can we turn our backs in this time and in this day and in this age? We must never forget who we are and where we came from. This was not just given to us here in America. As I indicated earlier, those to whom much is given, much is required. Much is required of us now. We must not turn our backs on the least of us. We must support, we must pass this amendment by the gentlewoman from California.