Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, not only of this amendment, but in support of the direction that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has taken on this issue. It just seems to me that, when we say Department of Defense, that we are talking about national security, we are talking about priority, we are talking about what threatens our Nation. No one can challenge the fact that this poison that has been pouring into the United States by the tons each day has been a threat to everything that our country stands for and especially the protection of our youth. Every President that I know, and more particularly President Reagan and President Bush, has made this a national foreign policy priority. Certainly the Department of Defense has no reason why they should not volunteer to make this a priority. Certainly the equipment that we have to protect the United States against foreign foes can be used to protect us against the flow of drugs into this country since we have such sophisticated equipment against drug traffickers that are using sophisticated equipment. I would like to say that, as we have this amendment that asks the Secretary of Defense to make this a priority, I would be supporting each and every amendment that would make this a priority with every Secretary of every branch of government. Why should not the Secretary of Education make drug control and reduction of demand a priority? Why should not the Secretary of Health and Human Services make drug treatment and drug prevention a priority? Why should not the Secretary of State as relates to dealing with foreign countries make this a priority? Why should not the Secretary of Transportation say that all of those that are involved in transportation should be drug free and have it as a priority? There is no question that the Secretary of Defense should mean exactly what the words say, defense of our great republic against any foes that could destroy her. So let me congratulate those that worked so hard on this bill and to be able to say that whatever resources we have in the military, no matter what branch of the military, and even the CIA should be involved in determining what can they do to make our country more safe against the scourge of drugs. So while I support this effort, I hope we continuously see in every committee, in every subcommittee, in every cabinet position, in every agency, in every department that we say this should be a priority. What is the good of a sound economic policy if our young people do not have the health in order to enjoy it?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor to support this initiative. It did not come as a surprise to me that the first person I would see on the floor would be my old and dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). It has been over a quarter of a century now that he and I recognize this threat to our Nation's national security. We have been around the world with the most bipartisan groups we would have in the Congress and in local government and law enforcement. We have been around the world talking with people, and more often than not in recent years we would look at each other and say, whether it was at the United Nations or in committees in this Congress, it looks like this is where we started. Mr. Chairman, the reason for it is that we all agree that demand is such an important part of this struggle where kids have to not just say no, but have hopes and dreams for the future so that addiction and crime and violence and jail is no longer an option for them, and we have to invest in education if we are going to get a handle on this. We need local law enforcement, of course, so that those who venture to make profit at the expense and misery of others would know that if they commit the crime, they do the time. We have to protect our borders against this poison that comes in, and we have to let every Nation know that those that venture out and traffick and use their countries for transshipment, that it violates everything that this country stands for, and that we are not going to tolerate that. Mr. Chairman, we have to talk about corruption, not that we do not have more than our share in this country, but we cannot tolerate it with the countries that we are sending resources to and find that it is not reaching those people that dedicate their lives each and every day to fighting the drug traffickers and those that support them. I remember the day so vividly when the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and I were on the streets of Bogota and saw what amounted to their Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters with a big hole blasted into it as the drug traffickers sought to destroy the very institution of their government. How many funerals we have been to with Colombian law enforcement people; how many trust funds have we set up for their families? So some people say, well, we tried that, and it has not worked, and so give up. No, we cannot give up. This is not a problem that our great Nation can give up. This is the type of problem where there are no parties, there is no Republicans, there is no Democrats. It is our kids, it is our future. And we have to be able to say at the same time, the same way that we wrestled Communists to the ground, that we are going to wrestle this threat to our security to the ground. Mr. Chairman, I support this, I support the bipartisan nature in which we come to deal with this. This administration, be placed on notice, that from the time I came here we have engaged in each 4 years with a new war on drugs, and each time we have not even seen the bang of a flag out of a pop gun in terms of dealing with this tragic problem. I remember that we set up the drug czar, and that was supposed to coordinate all of the efforts. But in setting up the drug czar, we lost the voice of each and every Secretary, whether the Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Defense. All of these things are necessary when the Commander in Chief and President of the United States declares war. So let me congratulate the original authors of the bill, and let me say that regardless of which side of the aisle we are on, America will never be free and our legacy will never be clean until we say that on our watch we eliminated this threat to our national security.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in the century that the question of impeachment has come before this House of Representatives. I had the honor of serving on the Committee on the Judiciary when the Watergate impeachment question was before the House some 25 years ago. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was on that committee, and we are fortunate to have his experience to bring us to the point where we can be fair in judging the conduct of the President of the United States. Indeed, we are fortunate to have a person like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who is respected on both sides of the aisle, who is not tempted by politics, but is moved by what is in the best interest of the people of the United States, and more importantly, the protection of this Constitution which is not just for us, but the legacy that we have to leave to our children. Mr. Speaker, we now will be wrestling with some serious questions as to moral standards, and it is unfortunate that many times people have found that they have a lower standard for themselves than they have for the President of the United States. But it is abundantly clear that we are not here just to determine his personal habits, that is, the President of the United States, but we are to respect the fact that he has been elected by the people of the United States to serve for another 4 years. So the question of fairness is what surrounded the Committee on the Judiciary under the leadership of Peter Rodino, and it will be that question of fairness that we will be judged by, if not day to day, then certainly by the November elections. We should never forget that he has been the captain of our ship for 2 years and this journey is supposed to take legally 4 years. During this time, we have gone through some perilous economic times. We have gone through deficit spending into a balanced budget and indeed a surplus. We have gone through a period where more people are working, more people are saving, more people are living better. So the American people want to make certain that when we judge the conduct of the President of the United States, we judge him not by a political standard, not by an individual standard, but a standard of fairness that takes into consideration that he was not appointed, he was not selected, he was elected as President of these United States. As we get closer to the November elections, in recognizing just by being political animals, there will be a temptation for us to allow our politics to get involved with our constitutional responsibilities. It will be tragic if this happens. But remember, as we judge the President of the United States, the people of the United States will also be judging us.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in commemoration of the thirty-third anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On this day, it is fitting that we take the time to assure Black Americans that they will not lose their right to vote in 2007, contrary to a widespread rumor that has been circulating around the country. To correct the misunderstanding of the Voting Rights Act, I am introducing in the Congressional Record an article that was featured in The New York Amsterdam News (July 16-July 22, 1998. Don't Panic--Your Right To Vote Will Not Expire (By Charles B. Rangel) I am writing to address a widespread rumor that in the year 2007, Blacks will lose the right to vote. The recent editorial by Brandy Darling, ``Blacks' right to vote ends by the year 2007,'' is the latest reinforcement of well- intentioned but frightening misinformation. There is no expiration date on African-Americans' voting rights. This right is provided and guaranteed by the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the Voting Rights Act. First enacted in 1965, the law removed the infamous barriers that had been systematically imposed to prevent Blacks from voting for nearly a century, despite the mandate of the 15th Amendment. Among those forbidden practices were the imposition of poll taxes and literacy tests, not to mention the threat of violence. While some provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire in the year 2007, the most important protections of African- American voting rights will remain in place. The prohibition against racial discrimination in voting is permanent and is guaranteed in the 15th Amendment. Prohibitions against poll taxes, literacy tests and the like have no expiration date. Technically these protections could be removed by amending the law, but that would provoke a monumental battle. Certain provisions in the Voting Rights Act will expire in 2007 with serious implications for non-English speaking citizens and for the election of minority office holders. States or political subdivisions with significant numbers of non-English speaking citizens would no longer be required to provide bilingual services to eligible voters. If not corrected, this could minimize the growing political strength of Hispanics. The growth in number of minority elected officials could also be affected by the expiring administrative provisions of the act. It includes the requirement for preclearance of election observers. This provision does not guarantee election of minorities. Rather, it prevents jurisdictions with a history of discrimination and racial polarization from manipulating the electoral systems to render the Black vote ineffective. Although African-Americans were granted the right to vote in 1870 with the passage of the 15th Amendment the legal and illegal measures which many southern states used to prevent Blacks from voting resulted in the exclusion of most African- American citizens from voting for nearly a century. In response, in 1965, Congress passed the first Voting Rights Act. Generally, the Voting Rights Act was first applied to any stake or political jurisdiction that used tests or other devices as a condition for voter registration. The law was amended by Congress in 1970, 1975, 1982 and 1992 to expand coverage beyond the southern states and to apply to non- English speaking citizens. There is no truth to the claim that the extension of the Voting Rights Act requires ratification by the states. To be renewed, only a vote by Congress is required. Soon after emancipation from slavery, Blacks earned the right to vote. This victory did not come easily. African- Americans were subjected to fraud, violence (including murder) and other unsavory tactics as a means to stop them from voting. Over the years, Blacks have sacrificed unduly for the right to vote. No one should ever have to experience such threats. That is why it is extremely important for African-Americans to continue to monitor potential threats to their right to vote. We must be mindful of the fact that most of the gains made over the years have resulted from political activism. On the other hand, many of the losses that we are now experiencing stem from political apathy. In the 1996 presidential election, approximately 51 percent of African-Americans voted. To look at it another way, almost half of the eligible African-Americans voters did not vote in the last presidential election. If there are 40 African-American members in the U.S. Congress using a little over half of the voting power, imagine what can be done if all Black Americans participated in the political process. Black America is under attack. Affirmative action is being dismantled; Black churches are burning; racial hate crimes are on the rise; public schools are crumbling; and young Black men are filling the jails. These are reasons why we must fight back politically. And the struggle cannot end there. There is a serious need for improvements in education and training, affordable housing and increased job opportunities. Blacks must be prepared to compete in a global technological society. Although the rumors over the Voting Rights Act are not true, the concern is real. Blacks are not in danger of losing the right to vote. However, the political power of African- Americans is being diluted. There is a need to monitor political threats and to inform the president and Congress of your concerns.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 120. This resolution would disapprove the President's determination that a waiver of the so-called Jackson-Vanik requirements would substantially promote freedom of emigration objectives with respect to Vietnam. This waiver permits U.S. Government financial support for American businesses to invest and trade with Vietnam and is a precondition for concluding a commercial agreement to establish normal trading relations. By passing this resolution, Congress would disapprove and reverse the most recent step taken by the United States to normalize relations with Vietnam. This policy of gradual engagement after trying to isolate Vietnam began in the early 1990s with the lifting of the trade embargo and the establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1995. Since the normalization process began the Vietnamese government has cooperated in POW/MIA accounting, made progress on its emigration practices, and is now undertaking market-oriented reforms of its state- controlled economy. It is also true that Vietnam violates human rights and denies religious and political freedoms to its citizens. But as is the case with China, we cannot isolate Vietnam unilaterally in a global economy. Continued exposure of the Vietnamese people to American values of human and religious rights and democratic principles through increased trade and investment and continued engagement with the Vietnam government provides the best means to achieve fullest possible POW/MIA accounting and to promote political and economic reforms. Disapproving the waiver will signal a return to a previous policy of isolation which failed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 120.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Capitol Police Officers John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut who gave their lives last week in a vicious attack by a deranged gunman. My heart goes out to the families of these officers, both of whom spent 18 years in courageous and devoted service to their country as members of the Capitol Police. They gave their lives, not only protecting Members of Congress, but the thousands of Americans and foreign visitors to this great monument, the people's house of government. Officers Gibson and Chestnut were both known as kind, personable men who were especially devoted to their families. They performed their jobs with a special kind of pride in playing a small part in the smooth and efficient conduct of the processes of government. As we go about our business in the Capitol, we tend to take for granted the freedom and protection we enjoy because of the selfless contributions of our Capitol Police who are constantly on guard against the type of insane acts which took the lives of Officers Chestnut and Gibson and wounded an innocent civilian. This horrible act reminds us once again of the debt we owe to those officers who do their jobs daily in protecting those who work here and those who visit. With few exceptions, problems, large and small, are prevented so we are left free and comfortable to perform our jobs in peace. We owe these men and their families a great debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. They will not be forgotten and their contributions will be forever recognized by the Members of the House of Representatives.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for displaying his friendship and giving us an opportunity to share in that in talking about our colleague, Louis Stokes. Mr. Chairman, I came just two years after Mr. Stokes came to the Congress, but I think all of us when we first arrive here, we think that anyone that was here before us just knows everything about everything, and it does not take too long after being here to find out that they do not know. Lou Stokes was an exception to that resume, as related to me, because he continued to be a senior in terms of compassion, in terms of class, in terms of intellect, in terms of working so hard each and every night to help so many people, that even though it was only 2 years in terms of leadership, it was decades, because he came from a family that has known so little, and yet was given such great opportunities, and instead of just enjoying it, he and his late brother Carl have given back so much to Cleveland and to this great country, and, therefore, in their way to the world. When I hear so many people say that America cannot afford a public school system or cannot afford to subsidize, giving assistance to people, or anyone has to really do it on their own or let the private sector work its will, I said how great that is for those who have. But how much more great it is to see the compassion that a country would have to have two kids living in public housing from a family who had nothing except knowing pain and poverty, to be able to see one to become the first African American mayor of a great city, and see the other to reach the heights, to achieve the leadership, the accolades, that Lou Stokes has in this United States Congress. It was not just God's will, it just wasn't hard work, it was someone really giving his family a hand in public housing. It was having public schools there where hard working people would know that whatever they were denied, at least the kids would be given an opportunity. And, yes, in a country that denied so much to so many people just because of their color, there came the GI Bill when the Federal Government said it doesn't really make any difference what color you are, we will give you a chance to reach the height of your potential. And to know that we never would have had an educated Carl Stokes, we never would have had an educated Lou Stokes, unless those in the Congress that preceded us were saying why not help all Americans, because you have no idea as to the great resources and jewels that we have. And this is not that unusual when there are so many people who have given so much, but never have been given the chance that Louis had to give back. Lou Stokes, you have been an example for people, white or black, Jew or gentile, in this great country of ours, because no matter what the subject is, you bring a sense of class that makes us all feel proud to be politicians, to be legislators, and to be Americans. And you leave a legacy for all of us, those like me who respond sometimes in anger, to restrain if not just because it is the right thing to do, but because we owe it to the dignity of this great House to do it. We are going to miss you, Lou Stokes, but you have set standards for all of us to follow on both sides of the aisle. Even though you only came here 2 years before I did, to me you are a giant and you remain one.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's decision to extend most-favored-nation, or normal trade relations status, to the products of China for another year. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.J. Res. 121, which would disapprove the President's decision. The Committee on Ways and Means decided by a bipartisan voice vote to report this resolution adversely, and to continue our present trading relationship with China. We all share similar goals with respect to China. We all want China to observe international norms with respect to human rights, religious freedom, and democratic principles. We all want China to provide greater market access for our goods and services. We all want China to be a responsible trading partner. Continued engagement with China through increased trade is not an endorsement of China's policies with respect to human rights and political and religious freedoms. The point is that withdrawing normal trading status from China (after the 18 years we have treated the Chinese in the same manner as we do all but a handful of other countries in the world) will not advance our goals with China. Rather, it will be a major step backward and hinder achieving those goals. Using trade as a weapon can work only if we have a consensus with our trading partners that we will work collectively to achieve common goals. As our unilateral embargo against Cuba demonstrates, seeking to change the behavior of Chinese leaders by withdrawing from our normal trading relationship is unworkable. It will result only in foreign countries filling the vacuum we leave. We lose the jobs increased trade would have provided, and the situation we target does not improve. It is our policy of working to expand areas of cooperation with China while dealing directly with our differences--not a policy of isolation--that has the support of our foreign allies, as well as religious leaders, including the Reverend Billy Graham and the Dalai Lama. We should increase communication through business and trade contacts in order to continue the progress being made toward resolving our differences with Chinese leaders. That dialog will create further understanding among the people of the most populous nation on Earth about our democratic values. The televised discussions about human rights which took place during the President's recent visit to China demonstrated that our policy of continued engagement is making a difference with the new Chinese leadership and the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I also support the President's decision to continue our engagement with China because this is a foreign policy and a national security issue, not just a trade issue. China is cooperating with us in a number of areas of strategic importance to promote stability in Asia, including on nuclear nonproliferation and the financial crisis. For the Congress now to disapprove normal trading status and, instead, impose prohibitive tariffs on Chinese products clearly would have negative consequences for our overall strategic as well as economic relations. The United States-China relationship is a key to global peace, prosperity, and stability for many years ahead. Management of this relationship in a constructive, positive way is of critical importance to our national interests. The wisdom of this course was demonstrated by the President's trip and I believe it must be maintained. We should defeat H.J. Res. 121.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention and to the attention of my colleagues here in the House, the story of a woman 82 years young, who was once known as ``Big East'' and the ``Lynching Editor'' when she was a reporter for The Pittsburgh Courier. This dynamo of whom I speak is none other than Evelyn Cunningham. Evelyn Cunningham grew up in New York where she was the daughter of a dressmaker and a cab driver. She would come to work at The Pittsburgh Courier from 1940 to 1962, working out of the paper's New York City office at 125th Street and Seventh Avenue when not at the home office on the outskirts of Pittsburgh. When Evelyn Cunningham entered a room, you knew it. Nicknamed ``Big East'' because of her high heels, red hair, mink coat, and attitude, Ms. Cunningham was a force to be reckoned with. She was also known as the ``Lynching Editor'' which was a name she earned as a result of her stories on the fight for equal rights in the early 1960's. She reported on the school desegregation fight in Birmingham, Alabama, and on the Montgomery bus boycott. Presently living in Harlem where she's been a resident for the past 40 years, Ms. Cunningham is still very much active. She serves on a number of boards including the Appollo Theatre Foundation and the Studio Museum, and just recently, was among five former Courier reporters accepting the George Polk Career Award when the paper was honored by Long Island University. Ms. Cunningham often prided herself on covering the hard news stories, but thought that the black press lacked `humor'. What did she do? She changed that by writing a column of commentary called, ``The Women.'' Yes, Evelyn Cunningham once a star of one of the most influential newspapers in America, is someone to whom we can extend accolades of respect and admiration. This is for you Evelyn. May God continue to bless you and keep you in his care.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), a true crusader for taxpayers' rights.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our minority leader, who made certain that partisanship did not enter into the debate in restructuring the IRS, and one who insists on equity in the Tax Code.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who worked very hard in making this reform possible.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), my chairman, for allowing me to be a part of his Republican Congress, and to laud him for bringing about this Republican surplus, and also the Republicans for bringing about this great economic boom which we enjoy. God knows what we would have done without you, but I hope next year we will find out. I do have to agree on this bill that the chairman of the committee as well as the Senate have shown an extreme bipartisan effort to bring about changes that were needed in the Internal Revenue Service. I really enjoyed working with the chairman and the Senate, because we got away from the rhetoric of pulling out the code by the roots, beating up on the dedicated public servants, and started working with the commission which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) of the Committee on Ways and Means and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) had worked on, working with the administration and the other body to see what we could do to bring about change, and through hard work and mutual respect, we were able to do it. Not only do we bring in professionals to provide oversight, have additional management flexibility, but we expanded electronic tax filing and worked with the administration to make certain that the oversight board had representation not only from the private sector but from the employees. Taxpayers' rights were protected. Innocent spouse relief was given. And even though there are some provisions in the bill that have absolutely nothing to do with reform, these were the perks and privileges of the majority and we thought that the President should support the entire bill, as do most of the people that really believe that the taxpayer has been and should be entitled to more protection. We will have a motion to recommit perhaps that could perfect the bill and make it all that it could be, but I would publicly like to thank the chairman of the full Committee on Ways and Means as well as the leadership in the other body for coming up with a bill that would improve the protections for taxpayers and at the same time be a piece of legislation that can be supported by the administration and should make Members of this House and this body proud. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Rising Sun Chapter of the Prince Hall Royal Arch Masons for providing leadership and support to its members and to the New York community. The first Independent African Grand Holy Royal Arch Chapter of North America located at South Eleven Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, held its Grand Chapter Convocation on November 27, 1847. At that convocation a petition was presented by Brothers from New York requesting that a delegation be sent from Grand Chapter to confer the several Royal Arch Degrees. The petition was received and adopted, and ten Brothers from New York were exalted. Going back to the Civil War and the military conflicts that followed, its members have shown the way in the defense of this country overseas, even while confronting the challenges of racism at home. Since its beginnings the lodge has made education a priority, and worked for the economic and social improvement of its members and the African-American community at large. During the Harlem Renaissance Companion Arthur Schomburg, a Royal Arch Mason, shared his knowledge of the history of people of African descent and inspired other scholars and writers, such as James Weldon Johnson, Claude McKay and Richard Wright. The lodge has supported the civil rights movement, been prominent in fighting the scourges of our community, from drug addiction to deadly diseases. It has supported efforts to improve the educational system and prepare our young people for the job market. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting the Rising Sun Chapter for their great accomplishments.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Leonard Harper on his remarkable achievements in the field of theater and stage shows. Mr. Harper was one of the leading figures who transformed Harlem into a cultural center during the 1920's. His nightclub productions at Connie Inn, Lafayette Theater and the opening of the new Apollo Theater drew people from all over the world. Mr. Harper's accomplishments on Broadway include the all-Black ``Kentucky Club Revue'' at the New Amsterdam Theater, and his work as a director on the big musical hit, ``Hot Chocolates' at the Hudson Theater. The production was a milestone, the first-ever production with three Black men as the sole creative force, which changed Broadway forever. Mr. Harper brought the cabaret form of entertainment to a professional level. As a producer and a brilliant choreographer, he introduced some of the most extraordinary talents to ever perform on stage and cabaret. Mr. Harper was previously honored by the New York State Assembly and the City Council of New York for his remarkable achievements. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Leonard Harper for his contributions to the community and his extraordinary accomplishments.