Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is no need to debate this bill. I do not see where there is any need to debate what is going on here when the whole world knows exactly what it is. This has nothing to do with protecting the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The majority party has seen fit to select who they want to protect, so this week it is the Social Security beneficiaries. Who knows, three weeks from now it may be the widows, those that are left behind from our veterans or those that are disabled. Who knows how they want to issue their compassion? The only question we should have to vote on is whether this Congress is prepared to pass a clean long-term debt ceiling bill. The majority, without consultation, without compromise, have decided themselves that the only thing they want to do is to extend it for a couple of weeks to protect the Social Security beneficiaries. I hope, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the other side, that over this so-called break when we should be here working that you might decide that you want to extend that compassion to each and every American who deserves not only their check but deserves to know that the full faith and credit of the United States of America will stand tall, notwithstanding the fact that there is a serious disagreement between both sides of the aisle on what our policy should be. This should be clean. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Bertelsmann Music Group and the National Bone Marrow Donor Program's The Choice is Yours, month-long campaign. Bertelsmann Music Group designed this campaign to highlight the importance of choice and responsibility among African-American businesses and communities. This campaign will focus on the civil participation of African-Americans the recruitment of potential donors among African-Americans for nationwide bone marrow donorship and increased voter registration. Life threatening diseases such as leukemia and aplastic anemia are nondiscriminatory diseases. They occur at similar rates among members of all races and ethnic heritage. If a patient is diagnosed with one of these life threatening diseases requiring a bone marrow transplant in order to survive, the first place to find an identical human leukocyte antigen matched bone marrow donor is among the patient's siblings. If no match is found among the patient's brothers and sisters, a donor unrelated to the patient must be found. Due to the uniqueness of antigen types and the rare occurrence for exact matches between bone marrow patients and donors, the first place to find a matched unrelated donor is from within the patient's own racial or ethnic group. The National Bone Marrow Donor Program is vigorously engaged in an unprecedented 11-State and 15-city campaign tour to expand the pool of eligible unrelated bone marrow donors of minority heritage in order to improve the chances of minority patients finding matching unrelated donors. At this late date, African-Americans currently have a 34 percent chance of finding a matched unrelated donor on the National Bone Marrow Registry, while Caucasians have a 71 percent chance of finding a matched unrelated donor. The only way to equalize the chances of finding unrelated matched bone marrow donors for patients of minority backgrounds is for more minority donors to volunteer to join the National Bone Marrow Registry. The Choice is Yours campaign will offer potential African-American and other donors the opportunity to join the National Bone Marrow Registry at various retail outlets across the country. This project will also feature voter registration, providing a user friendly environment for young people to become both registered voters and potential bone marrow donors. The Choice is Yours campaign exemplifies what can be accomplished when the for-profit and nonprofit sectors, combine their resources to promote civic responsibility. Most importantly, programs of this nature help save lives. The Choice is Yours campaign demonstrates the commitment by the Bertelsmann Music Group and the National Bone Marrow Donor Program, to provide leadership and heighten awareness on these important issues that strongly impact the African-American community. I am very pleased to recognize this campaign that will be inaugurated at the world's famous Apollo Theater in my district, the 15th Congressional District in the State of New York on February 1, 1996.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Dear gentlewoman, you have well described our Barbara Jordan and in doing so you described our Constitution and our great Republic.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentlewoman for taking the time out to give us a chance to pay honor to this great lady, a lady indeed of America and the world. My colleagues may not have known Mo Udall, but Mo was a beloved Member of this House, and before he left, once in the middle of the night, when the House was crowded and everyone wanted to go home, Mo came to the well of this House of Representatives and said, all that has to be said about this bill has already been said. And the House just burst out with deep appreciation. But then he added, but not everyone has said it. I think when we talk about a great person and personality like Barbara Jordan, that once again we find ourselves in the position that most things have already been said. So I thought what could I add, and then that made me think more about Barbara. We sat together on that Committee on the Judiciary, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] pointed out, side by side for the many weeks and months to determine and to deliberate whether or not the acts of the President of the United States, then President Nixon, had warranted us on the Committee on the Judiciary in voting for articles of impeachment, which, as everyone knows, means that it amounted to an indictment and a trial would later be had in the Senate. Barbara was always more than adequately prepared to hear the testimony, to ask the appropriate question, and you would think that she was chief counsel of the committee if it was dependent on the quality of her preparation. But while some of us, especially those of us who have been former prosecutors, were framing the question in terms of trying to get the answers that we were probing for, I noticed that most of her questions were not to determine whether or not President Nixon had committed any wrongdoing, but whether or not the Members of the House were prepared to distort that Constitution in order to achieve a political goal, as some may think is going on now in the Senate. Some have said that Barbara was not one to take fools lightly. And sitting next to her, I certainly did not intend to joke with her about the serious task that she had taken on. But as we had seen so many people tear apart the law as we would know it, she was there to defend the system to make certain it would be there for someone who needed the protection and the cloak of innocence of our Constitution. But most of the time that I raised these questions to her, she would dismiss me, having already made up her mind, by saying, ``There you go, Charles, up to mischief again.'' And so why would I be any different tonight when I loved Barbara then and love her now and miss her now? And if there was anything that I would want her to say to me, it would be, ``There you go again, Charles,'' with a smile on her face, ``up to mischief again.'' And I would be up to mischief tonight to say that this gracious lady will always be remembered in this country as a great American, as she should be. She also will be remembered as one who wore the flag and the Constitution so close to her heart as if to say that she will take the stones and the arrows, but do not touch her precious Constitution. And as oft cited, reported, she would say that even those that knew that people like she were treated as chattel and property when the Constitution was written, she would dismiss it and say, it was a mistake and she is there to correct it. But, Congresswoman Lee, the thing has to remain now that she is gone and invested her time, her energy, her eloquence in protecting that Constitution, will the United States of America and those who loved and cherished her allow that Constitution to be broad enough now to give the protection for the people that she loved the most, the people from the poverty-stricken rural areas where she came from that cannot rise to her height in physical, intellectual, or oracle skills? Would those that pay tribute to her be prepared to say that she never accused them of racism, she never wore her sex or her race on her sleeve. She said, this country was rich enough, broad enough, cared enough that she did not have to say those things, it would work its way out. At the funeral, so many said that Barbara is not gone, that she lives with us, and this means what she stood for lives with us. If that is so, why does this Chamber look more like a Congressional Black Caucus meeting than a lady who concerned herself about the Congress only because it was part of the Constitution? When the President of the United States and the leader of the free world goes to Texas to pay tribute, is that not a sign that everybody, especially those in Texas, white or black, Mexican or nutmeg Jew, Gentile, Catholic, Protestant, should be there, because Barbara was not making mischief, she was making history to say that you do not have to make mischief to achieve? And she proved that it could be done, and she did in fact do it. I do hope that when Barbara is remembered, that she is not thrown into the category of mischiefmakers, because they have a way of saying you pushed a little too hard, you were not sensitive to our political problems, or that sooner or later you would get all of the things that you are entitled to under the Constitution, because Barbara did not take issue with that. She knew it would work out. I say in tribute to Barbara Jordan, this great American, why can everyone who loved her not take a page out of that book, and whether they come from Texas, they are a politician, a Member of Congress, whether they are black, whether they are a woman, remember that she gave everything she had to protect that parchment, and she did not just protect it for those people who look like her. She was protecting it for everybody in this country, even former President Richard Nixon. If she could care that much to give up political objectives in order to protect this paper, why can every American who expects that paper to be there for them and their grandchildren not do a little something that Barbara would want them to do? Be less political, less partisan, less mean-spirited, and be more American, be more caring, be more what the forefathers wanted, and, that is, to work together, to live together, to make this a better country, more productive, and spend our energy and time in getting rid of poverty and disease instead of building up hatred and causing confrontations. I tell the Congresswoman, in my humble opinion, she liked people to make mischief, but she did not believe that everyone had to do it the same way. So why do we not pay tribute to her and do it Barbara's way, and, that is, to make certain that no matter where we come from, if we find someone that looks like Barbara, that may not be able to walk like Barbara, that may not be able to speak like Barbara, may not be able to command the presence that Barbara had for all of us, to remember she, too, he, too, they deserve the protection of this great document that she died with, held closely to her bosom. That is the tribute that I think that you pay to an American. And that is the tribute that we should have all over America, not just in Houston, not just in Austin, not just here, not just with the Congressional Black Caucus, not just with the President of the United States but with every child in every valley regardless of complexion or religion to say, what a great person and how wonderful it was that America had such a wonderful defender. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, due to the Chair closing out the vote, a number of Members of the House have not been able to register their vote. Had the Chair not closed it out, I would have voted ``no'' on the conference report on S. 1124.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is the night before Christmas, and history will record that the majority of the Members in this House decided that their priority before we go home for the holidays is to cut taxes by $245 billion. Sixty billions of those dollars will come out of the welfare program, and 70 percent of those dollars would normally go to children. It has not been that many years ago we used to go to countries in South America and see people sleeping and living in the streets, and we said, ``Oh, how disgusting.'' and now in every major city throughout these great United States we find those homeless children and homeless people. In some of the countries the families just kicked the kids out into the street to rob, to steal, to beg, and we say, ``Never in this country,'' and yet right now we are saying that this Federal Government will have no obligation to those children, that it would be left up to the Governors to decide what they should do. If the Governors decide that they cannot or will not do it, then they say, ``Well, let the mayors do it.'' The mayor says, ``For God's sake, don't give us that responsibility.'' But all of the Republicans say, ``It is part of the contract, that just because you are poor and blind and disabled, you are not entitled. The only thing you are entitled to is to go to the charities.'' And so, my brother and sister, what do they say? The National conference of Catholic Bishops say, ``Don't retreat from the Nation's commitment. Protect the poor children.'' The churches of the U.S.A., the American Jewish Congress, the National Councils of Churches, the United Church of Christ say, ``Don't appeal to affluent people at the expense of the poor children.'' This is the night before Christmas. Who would you want to listen to? Wall Street or our spiritual leaders?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity on the eve of those people that are able to celebrate the birth of Christ and their own religious holidays to realize that what we are doing today has nothing to do with balancing the budget. All of the things that my Republican friends are talking about can and should be done. As a matter of fact, it should have been done a long time ago. It is one thing to hold the President of the United States hostage, to force him to do what you would want him to do by closing down the Government. It is another thing to take the American people who have nothing to do with the dilemma we find ourselves in and to say, you are not going to vote for a continuing resolution until you make them suffer the pain, until you make certain that those that have a responsibility to take care of their family are now just going to be angry with government in general. If my colleagues really believe that these mean-spirited tactics are going to make their party and their Speaker popular, then why do they not talk with the people that have the responsibility of providing the care to the poor and to the sick, talk with the Catholic bishops who say that these programs make no sense, the nuns and the women and the teachers and the doctors that provide for those people that even our Lord said are the lesser among us, that we would have their budgets cut, for what? To balance the budget? Do we balance a budget really by starting off saying that we are going to give $245 billion to the richest Americans? My colleagues, do not do it. So play around with Democrats and Republicans. Do what we have to do for the Presidential election. But as we go into the celebration of the birth of Christ, do not take these holidays and play politics with the American people. People cannot even go to the Statue of Liberty, a place that is symbolic for what this country stands for, and we are down here just playing politics without allowing Government to continue.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lionel Hampton, a great artist, a great American, a great ambassador, and one of the greatest musicians America has ever known. In tribute to Lionel Hampton, I would like to share with you and this House, some of he highlights of the life of this extraordinary man. Lionel Hampton, the reigning king of the vibraphone for over half a century, and one of the few surviving internationally renowned jazz talents of the swing era, was born in Birmingham, AL on April 20, 1908. He was a member of the Benny Goodman Quartet which was the first racially integrated group of jazz musicians in the Nation, but left the group to form his own big band in the early 1940's. His original ballad, Midnight Sun, written with Johnny Mercer and Sonny Burke, has become an American jazz and popular classic. His two major symphonic works, the King David Suite and Blues Suite have been performed by many leading symphonic orchestras throughout the world. Nevertheless, whether you are familiar with his musical accomplishments, over the years, Lionel Hampton has known no status where he was not eagerly accepted, as he has been well received the world over by Presidents, politicians, kings, and queens. His very music has caused the walls of Communist nations to come tumbling down. Allow me now to share with you Lionel Hampton, the constituent, the friend, the community leader. His frame and greatness have not let him forget the homeless and the hopeless. Long a supporter of public housing, he developed the Lionel Hampton Houses in the early 1970's, and upon completion, built the Gladys Hampton Houses, named for his late wife. To this day, those projects are considered among the best in the Nation. The Lionel Hampton Community Development Corp. has built more than 500 low- and moderate-income apartments in my congressional district of Harlem alone. Lionel Hampton holds more than 15 honorary doctorates and received the gold medal of Paris, its highest cultural award, from its mayor, Jacques Chirac. He was appointed to the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center in 1991 by President George Bush, and in December 1992, he was awarded a prestigious Kennedy Center honor for his lifetime career achievements as a musician and teacher. Since then, he continues to produce educational events and considers the real highlight of his career as having the music school at the University of Idaho named for him, the Lionel Hampton School of Jazz. Whether you are black or white, Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, Lionel Hampton represents the very best of America.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to attorney William Kunstler who recently passed away. In memory of William Kunstler and in tribute to the ideals for which he fought, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record this statement. Mr. Kunstler was profoundly committed to the fundamentally American ideal of justice for all. As an attorney he fought against racism and for the legal rights of everyone from important political figures to marginal outsiders. His notable achievements included his work with Dr. Martin Luther King and his representation of Adam Clayton Powell and Stokely Carmichael. To make the ideal of a just America a reality, Mr. Kunstler brought his considerable talents to defend unpopular and sometimes virtually unwinnable cases as a matter of principle. He took on the cases of many of the prisoners charged following the Attica Prison uprising. He took on the case of Wayne Williams, who was convicted of killing young boys in Atlanta, and Colin Ferguson, who was convicted of killing several people on the Long Island railroad. It is these cases that test our commitment to a fair and equitable justice system, and it is with these unpopular cases that William Kunstler proved the depth of his commitment to a fair justice system. In her tribute to William Kunstler, Bernice Powell Jackson from the Civil Rights Journal noted that William Kunstler was a man who challenged our legal system to be the best and the fairest it could be. In this time of increasing attacks on the rights of the accused, we need to be inspired by Mr. Kunstler's commitment to a fair and equitable justice system. I would like to take this moment to honor his memory.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Cleveland Robinson, leader of District 65 of the United Auto Workers Union in New York City who recently passed away. Cleveland Robinson committed his life to economic justice and racial equality. As a union representative, he fought to improve the lives of the mostly black and Hispanic New York City autoworkers whom he represented. Committed to racial justice in the United States and internationally, Mr. Robinson also served as the administrator chairman of the 1963 March on Washington and helped to bring American Labor into the fight against South African apartheid. Mr. Robinson's commitment to justice was deeply held and his contribution to social justice was great. In memory of Cleveland Robinson and in tribute to the ideals for which he fought, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record the following excerpts from a statement by Bernice Powell Jackson from the Civil Rights Journal. No one could attend Cleveland Robinson's funeral, held at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, and not be awed. There was the grandeur of the church, the power of the African drummers leading the procession and there was the procession itself. In it were Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Corertta Scott King, David Dinkins and Harry Belafonte. In it were labor leader like Bill Lucy and Owen Bieber and union members whom Cleveland Robinson had spent a life-time representing. In it were church leaders and civic leaders and Robinson family members. In it were the Consul General and Ambassador from Robinson's native Jamaica. It was an awesome moment. Cleveland Robinson's name is not a household word. Yet, he was a man whose unswerving commitment to the working people of our country led to the improvement of the lives of the 30,000 mostly black and Hispanic workers in small shops and department stores whom he represented. He was a man whose dedication to fighting injustice, especially racial injustice, led him to be a loyal and fearless supporter of the civil rights movements in the United States and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. It was Cleveland Robinson who served as the administrator chairman of the 1963 March on Washington. In her remarks at his funeral, Mrs. King remembered his long-time support for Dr. King and the civil rights movement, dating back to the 1956 Montgomery bus boycott. Indeed, many in the movement knew that you always could count on Cleveland Robinson for moral and financial support and ``troops'' when you confronted racism. It was the same in the anti-apartheid movement, where Cleveland Robinson played a key role in getting labor support of anti-apartheid activities. He helped to organize the 1986 anti-apartheid rally in New York City where nearly a million marched and let our national leaders know they no longer had public support for U.S. backing of a racist regime. For that reason President Nelson Mandela sent a personal message to Robinson's funeral. Mr. Robinson's contribution to America was powerful, and I would like to take this moment to honor his memory and to mourn our loss.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Congressional Record an article by Mr. Gus Tyler celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Social Security trust fund and decrying the false prediction that Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy, Mr. Tyler makes clear that the Social Security trust fund is not running out of money, as many of my colleagues have argued. The trust fund is strong and will remain strong as long as the American economy is strong. What threatens the trust fund is what threatens the economy: unemployment and a stagnant economy. We need to strengthen the economy not to dismantle Social Security. Moreover, the Social Security system strengthens the American economy by generating buying power and increasing savings. I would like to enter into the Congressional Record this statement by Gus Tyler which clearly outlines why we don't need to dismantle Social Security. trust fund doesn't need to be ``fixed'' (By Gus Tyler) The Social Security Trust Fund, which celebrates its 60th birthday this month, will go bust sometime between the year 2020 and 2030. That forecast has been heard so often and from so many authentic voices that the statement is now taken to be a fact. Which it is not. To head off the imagined disaster, the following remedies are presented: a) raise the payroll tax that funds the system; b) reduce the benefits to retirees; c) do not adjust the benefits to meet the cost of living; d) tax benefits to help balance the budget. If these cures are applied, they will kill the patient who is not sick. The Social Security Trust Fund will not run out of funds by 2020 or 2030 unless the United States runs into what amounts to a depression that will continue for a protracted period. And the remedies currently proposed will hasten the coming of precisely such a depression that will not only destroy the Social Security program, but will destroy the country. Here is the truth about Social Security as set forth simply by an extremely authoritative governmental body known as the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Fund. The facts that follow are drawn from the 1995 report of this official body to the appropriate persons and agencies in accordance with Section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act as amended. The Report (page 181) submits three scenarios on the future of the Social Security system. One scenario assumes virtually no growth in the economy in the first 75 years of the next century. Another scenario assumes slow growth; a third scenario assumes something between no movement and a slow crawl. The first scenario--the worst possible case--assumes that the country is in the economic doldrums for about 70 years. By 1996 (next year), the economy will be effectively stagnant, with a growth rate of minus 0.7 percent. That means recession bordering on depression. The same scenario projects little hope for the future. Growth will be near zilch. And, as a consequence, the Social Security Trust Fund will be facing early bankruptcy. In fact, says the footnote on page 181, ``estimates for later years (after 2030) are not shown because the Funds are estimated to become exhausted in 2030.'' But--and this is a big ``but''--this is only one of three scenarios submitted by the Board of Trustees. A second scenario assumes an annual growth rate of between 2 and 3 percent a year. That is a very slow growth rate when compared with growth in the years from 1960 to 1964 (4.4 percent) or with growth in the years 1970 to 1974 (3.1 percent) or with 1984 (6.2 percent). A growth rate in the next century--from the year 2000 to 2070--of a mere 2 to 2.5 percent is sluggish. Yet, according to the report of the trustees, if such a growth rate, albeit slow, continues, by the year 2070, the Social Security Trust Fund will have an income of $22.74 trillion dollars and will have accumulated assets of $98.7 trillion. Yes, ``trillion,'' not billion! The $98 trillion (roughly $100 trillion) is not as outlandishly huge as it seems. The report for this scenario assumes an annual 3 percent rate of inflation. Over 75 years (from 1995 to 2070), a dollar will lose much of its value, ending up worth about 10 cents in 1995 currency. Allowing for that factor, the $98 trillion dollar reserve projected for 2070 would only be worth one-tenth that sum-- about $10 trillion--in 1995 dollars. Ten trillion dollars in 1995 currency is, however, no mean sum to have as a reserve in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is twenty times as large as the present reserve of about half a trillion. It is twice as large as the total federal debt this year. It will, as noted above, be replenished in 2070 by an additional $22 trillion and by annual contributions in that dimension in the years to follow. One of the problems that some insiders were posing a few years ago when this scenario began to unfold was--what to do with all that money? One of the possible answers would be to allocate some of the money in the Old Age and Survivors Fund to the Medicare Fund. The sums that are projected by this scenario are not the outer limits of what can be realized. The assumption of the ``optimistic'' forecast is that the economy will grow, between now and 2070, at an average rate of about 2.5 percent a year. That is no great shakes. Between 1960 and 1994, it grew at 2.8 percent. And it could have grown faster if the Federal Reserve Board had not been repeatedly checking growth by raising interest rates and limiting the money supply. Should the economy grow at 3 and 4 percent a year, added trillions would pour into the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as into the U.S. Treasury. But, would not such growth beyond, let's say, 3 percent, be inflationary? The report of the Fund trustees says, ``No.'' In 1984, the economy grew at the swift speed of 6.2 percent, but the inflation rate (consumer price index) was only 3.5 percent. Again, in 1994, the economy grew at a lively 4 percent, but the inflation rate was only 2.5 percent. Perversely, in some of the years of slowest growth, prices rose wildly. In 1990, the economy grew by a feeble 1.2 percent, but prices rose by 5.2 percent. And in 1980, the economy actually shrunk by 0.5 percent, but prices skyrocketed by 13.4 percent. The reasons for this seemingly contrary behavior are several and make a fitting subject for another article. But the fact remains that rapid growth does not mean inflation and that low or negative growth does not mean lower prices. (All these data are drawn from the above mentioned report, page 56). [[Page E 2257]] In sum, the future of Social Security (and Medicare) is not glum if the economy continues to grow at a reasonable rate. The way to go, then, is to take steps to expand the economy. But the remedies proposed to ``fix'' the Social Security system that is not broken will break both the security system and the economy. Let us, briefly, consider each of these proposals. 1. Raise the payroll tax. Such a tax would reduce the ``disposable income'' of employees. They and their families will have less with which to buy. In our ``market economy,'' any such shrinkage of the ``market'' has to shrink the economy--less buying, less production, fewer jobs. Right now, retailers and manufacturers are stuck with a pile up of 14 months of consecutive inventory accumulations they cannot sell. To cut buying power of employees would mean more unsold wares. 2. Reduce the benefits. That would have the same effect as raising the tax on employees. Reduced benefits mean reduced buying power. And reduced buying power means reduced production, etc. ad nauseam. 3. Do not increase the benefits to keep up with the rise in the cost of living. This, too, would be a subtle, but effective way to do what 1) and 2) above do more directly. If prices rise and the ability to buy does not rise simultaneously, people buy less. By now, we all know the rest. 4. Tax the Social Security benefits of the ``affluent.'' Such a tax is, in effect, a reduction in benefits. Uncle Sam gives with one hand--the security check--and takes with the other hand, the tax. That would work just like the other bad medicines. In addition, who are the ``affluent''? Are we talking about a retiree with an income of $25,000 or a retiree with an income of $250,000? To tax the latter would probably not seriously change his or her spending habits; to tax the former will. What is not generally appreciated about the Social Security system is that it is one of the greatest and most reliable sources of nourishment for the entire American economy. In 1995, some 43 million people will have received about $340 billion with which to buy things and purchase services. Let's assume that in a mean moment of madness, all those payments were discontinued. How long would the American economy be able to sustain itself? The Social Security system, however, does more than provide the fuel for consumption, it also provides capital for production. Every year, for many years, the security fund has generated multi-billion dollar surpluses. At the end of this year, it will have a reserve of more than half a trillion. Where does that money go? It goes, just about all of it, to purchase government securities. That frees up other capital for investment in the private sector of the economy. In this way, the Social Security system strengthens America in two ways: a) it generates buying power; b) it generates savings. And, if we, as a nation, pursue policies to expand, rather than stunt, growth, the entire economy and U.S. Treasury, whose income is drawn from that economy, will be in better shape and our senior citizens need not worry about either their or their children's future.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, even though I look forward to the debate that we are going to have on this bill. Mr. Speaker, we are having a great problem in our Nation understanding exactly where we have got to go from here. I welcome the advances that have been made to resolve the problems between the President and Republicans, but because of the vagueness in the language, and because everyone seems to believe that everyone is protected, I would just like to see how the poor and those that are homeless, those that need help, are going to be able to say that we are going to balance the budget in 7 years, which I think makes a lot of sense, that we are going to protect the people that are in the resolution, which I think makes a lot of sense, and at the same time deal with these tax cuts that the Republicans and the President of the United States are talking about. Mr. Speaker, if what this is going to mean is that we are going to take care of those who need help the most, and then we are going to balance the budget and hopefully find that there are resources there to reduce taxes, then certainly I would really enthusiastically support this concept, but I certainly hope that what we are not talking about is locking in the concept that at a time when we are trying to balance the budget and protect people's programs that at the same time we move forward and give tax cuts to people who are not screaming for them.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the reconciliation bill. I hope that during this Thanksgiving, and God knows we have a lot to be thankful for, that when we say our prayers we might think of some of the people that are poor, that are sick, that are disabled, that are aged, and really do not know what the future holds for them. There are those on the other side that say that we are scaring these people, that they have nothing to worry about, that they are in their mothers' arms with the Republicans' reconciliation bill. I do not know whether Democrats have the right answer, but when we start talking about the lesser of our brothers and sisters, the blind and the disabled, those who are working hard, trying to keep their pride and their dignity, and you see these programs being reduced, the rate of growth being reduced, and people being denied service, you wonder where is the outrage. How can Republicans come to us and say that they would like to reduce taxes by $250 billion, balance the budget, and nobody is going to get hurt? I was just amazed as to how you got this far with that type of arrogance and that type of contempt. I am pleased today to know that it is not Democrats and liberals screaming that say that this is outrageous, but it is our moral leaders. And God knows how they are registered; I do not. But is it not exciting to see that we now have the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and I know they do not have a political axe to grind, but they are saying that in this country, this great Republic, that we should have a safety net for our disadvantaged. They are asking that this bill be vetoed because it is unfair to the poor. This did not come from the DCCC. One might say, ``Catholics are not the most popular people that we have in this country,'' and lo and behold, we have Christians and Jewish groups calling for a veto. ``The very moral fabric of our Nation would be torn,'' the leader said in his statement. ``The Government is renouncing its 60-year-old promise to be protectors of the last resort of its poor, its disabled, and of abused children'' It is the Eastern Orthodox denomination, rabbis, ministers, conservative Judaism, the Protestant Council. I think there is a way out. I think the Republicans really knew that there was a difference in ideology and that they have been getting away with murder, but they signed an agreement, or at least signed off on an agreement with the President. You vowed that you were going to protect these programs. But the great thing about this agreement is that you show ``* * * adopt tax policies to help working families, to stimulate the future economic growth * * *.'' You also said you were going to protect these programs that made America great, that have given opportunity among our poor. Why do we not forget the politics, why do we not forget the reconciliation bill, why do we not get on with the people's business and say that we do want a balanced budget, but you can only do that after you take care of your budgetary needs and you do not give the tax breaks to the greedy.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the whole Nation is waiting for us to settle this dispute. The difficulty is that in order to negotiate, you have to make certain that both sides have an open mind. The major problem that our Republican friends have is that they decided a long time ago that they had to have this crown jewel of a $245 billion tax cut. Where did the figure come from? Why is it so important? Only God and Newt Gingrich know how they got that. Another problem they have is that they said, let us talk about it, but they have decided it is 7 years. Well, at least the Speaker is honest enough to say he just made it up; it just sounded good to him. Mr. Speaker, the third and the most vicious thing I think one of the leading candidates for President from the other body said, and that is that they have been voting against Medicare ever since it has been enacted. The record is abundantly clear that they want to get rid of Medicare and they want to give tax cuts to the rich.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the aisle some of the most decent people in America have decided to register and to be active as Republicans. But even for those people, things can happen in the middle of the night that they do not know. Right here in this bill that was drafted and went before the Committee on Rules last evening, there is a provision in here that takes $32 billion away from working poor folks. I would hate to believe that you are so in love with balancing the budget and the $245 billion tax cut that you got to take away $32 billion from people who despise welfare, who reject getting on the public dole, but want to work each and every day. The earned income tax credit was put into law by Republicans and Democrats and expanded by President Clinton, and nobody takes issue with the fact that it encourages people to work, it gives incentives for people to work, and allows them to say that not on my watch would my family have to go on welfare. This bill goes beyond that. It makes an appeal to the senior citizens who have to work that make under $9,000, for the young people that are just starting out, and these people have to be under the poverty line. What more can we ask if you are talking about keeping kids out of drugs, out of crime, keeping them working, except to give them the incentive. Turn back the rule, turn back this, and let these people work without having to think about going on welfare. Shame on you.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said this afternoon about this mean-spirited proposal. That really shocks me as to why there are not more Americans that are just outraged in believing that we can get a $245 billion tax cut, balance the budget, and no one is hurt. They will come to this well and have us believe that this thing is just painless because there are no cuts involved, they are merely reducing the rate of growth. There is an old saying that figures do not lie. But they also say that liars sure know how to figure. If we do not believe that the $270 billion cuts in Medicare are going to hurt, why do we not go to the old folks and ask them? We do not have to listen to the politicians, the Republicans and the Democrats. If there is some senior citizen going to a doctor under Medicare part B, go to that doctor and ask, what do they intend to do with the reimbursements? If you know somebody that is working and they work day in and day out and they still cannot get above the poverty line, ask them, what does the earned income tax credit mean to them and what does stealing $32 billion in tax relief mean to them. If we really want to believe that it does not hurt, ask, why are we cutting $146 billion out of Medicaid? Go to the hospitals that serve these people, the ones that are on the brink of closing, the last place that a poor person can go for health care, and ask them. But finally, go to the churches. Go to the synagogues, go to the places of worship, as we find Catholic Charities attempting to provide these services for our sick, for our aged, for our disabled. Go to the Protestant Council where they provide the services for these people that have these things. Ask the priests, ask the ministers, ask the nuns. It is wrong, we know it is wrong, and I hope that our consciences bother us.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I came to this side of the aisle because it is going to be difficult to distinguish me from my dear friend and colleague. We are both 65. We are both combat veterans. We both come from the great State of New York. We both love our country. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we both seek a balanced budget. The only difference I think we have is how we achieve that. Our veterans association kind of thinks that my buddy from upstate New York is wrong in how he wants to achieve it. Mr. Speaker, those that fought and were in the dugouts trying to preserve this great Nation somehow do not understand today this $245 billion tax cut that we are talking about on Veterans Day. I cannot find any of the organizations, the American Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled Veterans--I really cannot find them reaching out for this capital gains tax cut that our veterans are talking about. Now I am 65, I have more of a concern in Medicare than ever before. Right here in this resolution we are talking about increasing the premium, for my colleague and for me and for those veterans that are 65 and over. It says here, it says here, even though most Republicans would not know this because these things do not go through committee anymore, but my colleague should know it because it comes from the Speaker's office; it says here that according to CBO, part B premiums will increase under this CR from $42.50 a month under current law to $55.10. The resolution changes current law. It sets the premiums at 31.5 percent of part B expenditures instead of the 25 percent in current law, and my colleagues say they are not changing anything. This is even higher than what did fly through without hearings by the Republicans in the Committee on Ways and Means which had jurisdiction before the Committee on Rules, and the Speaker's office thought it can be done in a different way. To get back to the Medicare increases, there was a shrieking voice here about 10 minutes ago claiming, the gentleman from Florida, claiming that we were trying to frighten our senior citizens, meaning me and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] included, if we did not know what our colleagues were up to. We rely on those that provide the services. Being Catholic, I went to Catholic Charities, who provide for we old folks when we need help. They vigorously oppose what our colleagues are doing to Medicare. Then I went to my Jewish friends, and I went to the Jewish Council Against Poverty, who provide for old folks. They vigorously oppose this. The Protestant Council that provide for our poor and for our aged. if my colleagues find every hospital that provides nursing home for those that have been rejected by society, they oppose it. So my friend from Florida, please go home to where the old folks are, go to the nursing homes, go to the hospitals, go to the clinics, and ask the old folks who is against them.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, travel delays last Tuesday, October 24, prevented me from casting my vote on H.R. 1595, the bill to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. I would have voted ``yes'' on the bill had I been present for the vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the inspiring words and moral leadership of His Eminence John Cardinal O'Connor, the Catholic Archbishop of New York. Throughout the debate over balancing the budget and cutting taxes, both unfortunately at the expense of the most vulnerable of our citizens, Cardinal O'Connor has been a voice in the wilderness, crying out on behalf of the children, the poor, the aged, the sick and the afflicted. The Cardinal's statement, so desperately needed today as we prepare to vote on the budget reconciliation bill, is in the spirit of the great humanitarian message left with us by Pope John Paul II on his recent visit to the United States. It was a message beyond partisan politics and personal or commercial greed, a plea for compassion and the highest principles of America. It is a message shared by all of the great religions, but one that has been missing in much of this debate over Medicare and Medicaid. it is a message that should be heeded by all of us as we address political issues which carry with them the greatest moral implications. Therefore, I am offering for the edification of my colleagues, the following message from John Cardinal O'Connor, which first appeared in the New York Post on October 25, 1995. [From the New York Post, Oct. 25, 1995] Health Care Is About People (By John Cardinal O'Connor) It is immensely difficult today for hospital and nursing- home administrators--even doctors and nurses--to avoid becoming commercialized, to avoid becoming caught up in the marketing terminology, in quantitative competitiveness. There is even immense pressure on administrators, doctors and nurses to think of departments and clinics and even patients as ``cost centers,'' to determine how long a patient needs medical or nursing attention strictly in terms of how much the government or an insurance carrier will pay for. There is a grave temptation for health care to become just another industry. I know the problems. The annual operating costs of 17 Catholic hospitals and 15 Catholic nursing homes in the Archdiocese of New York is $1.7 billion. Why do we struggle to keep our doors open? In order to compete with an industry? Of course not--it's because we care about the human person. Why did we pioneer in taking care of persons with AIDS, so that shortly after this tragedy struck our city, we rapidly became the largest private-sector caretaker of persons with AIDS in the United States? Why do influential men and women of the Knights of Malta visit and care for persons with AIDS in our Catholic hospitals? Why did we open the first Huntington's Unit to take care of people with a dread disease not reimbursed by the government? Why did I announce in October, 1984 and many, many times since that any woman--of any religion, of any color, of any ethnic background--who is pregnant and in need could come to us from wherever and we would insure her medical care, her hospitalization, her legal assistance if she needed it, so that she could either keep the baby or have the baby adopted? Why did we continue doing that, year after year? Because there are thousands and thousands of women in such need who have been helped. Why do we do whatever we do for the retarded, the handicapped? Why do we did whatever we do for the poor? Why do we specialize in the needs of the poor in our Catholic health-care system? Because of our very passionate belief that every human person is sacred, is precious in the eyes of God, whatever his or her religious belief, ethnic or racial origin. All are persons. All are welcome in our Catholic health-care system. The ease with which health care can become depersonalized is little short of terrifying, particularly when dealing with the most vulnerable: the unborn, the frail elderly, the comatose, the cancer-ridden. I have told this story before, but I feel compelled to tell it again because it is a shocking reminder of what can happen: Our own Calvary Hospital is considered by professional observers to be one of the finest hospitals in the U.S. for those ill with cancer which is, from a human perspective, incurable. Until not too many years ago, patients referred to Calvary from acute-care hospitals had an average length of stay of approximately six weeks. They lived for those six weeks in great comfort and love, given tender, gentle care by incredibly warm and dedicated doctors, nurses, administrators and staff. Now, thanks to various new wonder drugs, patients may live six months or longer in the same loving and virtually pain- free environment, with added time to prepare both materially and spiritually for the death they know is coming, often strengthening bonds with families and finding peace at the end. I have never known a relative or friend of a Calvary patient who has not been deeply grateful for the extraordinary care given their loved one. Some time back, however, the storm clouds gathered. A major insurance carrier called the leadership of Calvary Hospital to say. ``You are keeping your patients alive too long. If you continue to do this, we will discontinue your insurance.'' What a chilling effect on people trying to do good. It is so much easier to do evil than good, isn't it? Yet if we give up trying to do good, we lose our very reason for existence-- we shrivel up and die. William Lindsey White, in his ``Captives of Korea,'' gave us all a grim reminder in his study of American Prisoners of war in Korea. Many were beaten and starved--but they cared enough about life to survive. Some prisoners, however, were not similarly tortured--yet they withdrew from all their fellow prisoners, curled into a fetal position and died of no medically identifiable cause. White puts it startly. ``Those who believed in Nothing, died of Nothing at all.'' Catholic health care will continue its struggle to survive because we believe in the sacredness of all human life at every stage of existence. We believe in the individual human person, the true heart of this city and every city, made in the Image and Likeness of God, precious infinitely beyond fiscal calculations or financial compensations. We will struggle to survive because we care. We refuse to be depersonalized. We care too much to compromise our moral and ethical principles, to abandon human persons to inexorable economic forces. We will never withdraw from our obligations to the poor--or to anyone else who needs us. We will not curl up into a fetal position out of fear of hostile forces that may surround us. We will not shrivel up and die--because we believe. New York City is still basking in the magnificent glow of the visit of Pope John Paul II. I have received more phone calls and letters than about any other event I have ever experienced, from Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and people of no religious persuasion. Millions never got near the Pope--but they sat glued to their television sets, watching and listening. And what are they talking about now? The glamour, the air of power, the immense amount of security, the pageantry? No--that's not what they're writing to me and talking to me about. They are telling me over and over that this man has moved them deeply--even changed their lives--because they have seen how much he cares for everyone. He breathes love, he inspires hope--because he cares. I conclude with the moving words the same Pope uttered in Central Park. They are equally and beautifully applicable to Catholic health care--indeed, to all of the activities in this great city, which this Pope calls ``the capital of the world.'' I quote him: ``In our bodies, we are a mere speck in the vast created universe, but by virtue of our souls we transcend the whole material world. I invite you to reflect on what makes each one of you truly marvelous and unique. Only a human being like you can think and speak and share your thoughts in different languages with other human beings all over the world, and through that language express the beauty of art and poetry and music and literature and the theater and so many other uniquely human accomplishments. ``And most important of all, only God's precious human beings are capable of loving. Love makes us seek what is good; love makes us better persons . . . Love makes you reach out to others in need, whoever they are. Every genuine human love is a reflection of love that is God Himself . . .''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate my Republican friends for making a promise and keeping it. People did not understand the contract. I did. I have known you for along time. You said you were going to reduce the deficit. You said you were going to balance the budget. I knew darn well what you meant. You meant you were going to give back some taxes, tax cuts, because I understand what you were talking about. If you give more money to the rich, they are smart enough to know what to do with it. They are going to invest it. Right? That is why most of it goes to rich people. They invest it, create jobs, and sooner or later, 10 or 15 years, it trickles down, the poor get something. I understand what you are talking about. You say you want to help people with health care. The best way to help old folks with health care is take away what they have got, so you take away $270 billion, give them a voucher, and tell them, ``You are sick. Go out and find yourself a health maintenance program.'' The previous speaker said we would not have money to fight crime. That is the cruelest thing of all, because you cut education, you cut job training, you cut the little cushion we have in the earned income tax credit to keep people working instead of having to go on welfare. And so what do we have in our cities that really cost us, not just in losing deficit but in losing lives, is that instead of giving job opportunities, you give us jails, instead of talking about having schools and educators and going into partnership, you allow drugs to come and provide the hope. Let me say this, yes, you balanced the budget. Yes, you give the tax cut. But when you said you were reforming these programs, believe me, the American people can read the fine print in that contract. You may have fulfilled the goal as you read it, but if you go to Catholic Charities, if you go to the Jewish Council Against Poverty, if you go to the Protestant Council, those people who provide the health care and try to help the poor among us, they will tell you you breached that contract with the American people and sooner or later when they come back you will soon know that America would not tolerate what you are doing to them today. They will pay you back tomorrow.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Like so many of my friends here, Mr. Chairman, I am sick and tired of these Republicans being beat up on really. Most of the chairmen and certainly the committee people have nothing to do with this. Someone told them that they had to find a $245 billion tax cut. Do my colleagues think these people, kind and gentle as they are, will be going after housing, and job training, and lunch programs? No, it is not their fault. And let us get another thing straight about this $270 billion cut. It is a savings; do my colleagues not get it? What it means is that, as we find U.S. population growing and people getting older, and becoming more ill, and having to see more doctors and more hospitals, we are going to give them some more money. So who the heck is saying that they are not giving more? What they are not doing is taking care of those older people the way they should be taken care of because they have decided to legislate the rate of inflation. Now another thing which we have to understand is that we want to save money by taking these old folks off of this fee-for-service, seeing their own doctor business. Cannot my colleagues not understand that? We have these private organizations. They meet every month. Most of them are Republican, but what has that got to do with it? When they are there, they do not have meetings asking how many lives did we save. They want to know many bucks did we make. Now the quicker we get people off of these expensive doctors, because now it is costing us $3 billion more, these doctors are a lot of money, as my colleagues know; ask them, they can tell us how much they want; and get them on these programs where we can ration the care, then it is not really cutting services. It is not really cutting money, it is cutting the services, and so do not call that a cut. Now some may say, Well, how are these old people going to shop around, feeble as they are in wheelchairs, and find one of these for- profit organizations to give them care? My Democratic friends, I want them to know they can stay in the program they are in. They can stay there, and it is discriminatory if one of these for-profits do not let them in. Now there is a problem. There is nothing in the law that says these for-profits have to go in communities where there is sick people. There is nothing in here that says they have to go to the rural areas, there is nothing in here that says they have to go to the inner city, and why should they? They are in the business of making money. There are sick people in these communities, and we have to avoid it, but the meanest thing of all, my Republican friends, and I wish they could help me to explain this, is that for years we have known when one works and they have no insurance, when someone is poor and they have no coverage, they go to the public hospitals. I ask, why did you hit them so hard? Mr. Chairman, that is where people have no place else to go.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there comes a point where shame has to be an issue that has to be discussed. No one knows better than I how important a campaign promise is, and I recognize when you promise $245 billion to those who support the goals and aims of the Republican Party, that you must keep that promise. The question is, have you no shame in how far you go to raise the money? Student loans, school lunches, housing for the poor. And now we are talking about the crown jewel. The crown jewel is not $245 billion in tax cuts. The crown jewel is aged Americans, those who raised their families and their grandchildren, those that believed in the American dream, those that thought if they took care of their's, that our country would take care of them. I know, Republicans have fought Medicare from the inception. Every time it comes up, you have always been there, always been there, to vote it down. And here you come again, where hospitals that service the poorest of the poor, in the rural areas, in the inner-cities, where they have no support system, there you are reducing the benefits. People get up here time and time again saying that is just not so. Well, why do you not go to the hospital people and ask them why they believe you are destroying them? Why do you not go to those in the nursing homes and ask why they are so frightened? And why are we not able to say that there is nothing wrong with that trust fund that $90 billion would not take care of? If you are so concerned about the Medicare bill, and this will be new to my Republican majority friends, it would be brand new, it would be making history, that you were concerned about the Medicare bill, all you have to do is cut your tax bill by $90 billion, throw it over there and fix the trust fund, and set up a commission to do the rest.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I plan to offer a substitute for H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 when it is debated in the House of Representatives on Thursday, October 19, 1995. My substitute is very simple. It is printed in its entirety in the amendments section of this Record. It contains three provisions. First, my substitute would establish a bipartisan commission to develop recommendations to strengthen and improve the Medicare Program. The commission would be required to submit its recommendations to the Congress not later than May 1, 1997. Second, my substitute would provide for $90 billion less in tax reductions than now contemplated by the budget resolution. This would be accomplished by an across-the-board limitation on all the tax reductions. Finally, my substitute would transfer the additional revenues resulting from the limitation on the tax reductions into the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. This would extend the solvency of that trust fund until the year 2006. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to do irrevocable damage to Medicare and senior citizens by cutting $270 billion from the program over the next 7 years--unless you want to grant excessive tax cuts to the very wealthiest of our citizens. The trustees of the fund made it clear that an infusion of $90 billion into the Part A Trust Fund will assure solvency through 2006. My substitute will solve any intermediate problems of the fund now, while creating a mechanism by which any long-term problems can be addressed in a thoughtful and reasoned manner. By this substitute, we truly can preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare for both present and future beneficiaries.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Cleveland L. Robinson, distinguished leader of the trade union movement and fighter for economic and civil rights. Indeed, he spent his life working for the poor and for those who have the least. Mr. Robinson's life is a great example of leadership for the new generation. Mr. Robinson passed away on August 23, 1995, and was buried in New York. In honor of Mr. Robinson and for the edification of my colleagues. I introduce the following statement: Cleveland L. Robinson Cleveland Lowellyn Robinson was born December 12, 1914, in Swaby Hope, a rural parish of Manchester, in Jamaica. He worked as an assistant teacher and then as a police officer until he emigrated to the United States in 1914. Cleve, as he was known to all, began his union career in the United States in 1946, when he successfully led an effort to unionize the Manhattan dry goods company, where he worked. He joined the staff of District 65 as an organizer in 1947, was elected vice-president of the union in 1950 and secretary-treasury in 1952, a post he held until his retirement in 1992. During the 1950s and 1960s, Cleve led the Negro Affairs Committee, supervised the union's work in the south, and led its adult literacy and vocational education programs. During the fifties, he worked with A. Philip Randolph to found the Negro American Labor Council and become the council's president upon Randolph's retirement in 1966. Cleve was a charter member of the organization's successor, the National Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, and served as CBTU's executive vice-president until his death. Cleve was a close friend and advisor to the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, Cleve served as the administrative chair for the great March on Washington. Cleve's work epitomized the union's philosophical and organizational commitment to civil rights that led King to describe District 65 as ``the conscience of the labor movement.'' Cleve also served as a commissioner of the New York City Commission on Human Rights under Mayors Wagner and Lindsay. He was a life member of the NAACP since 1953, and a member of the boards of directors of the southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Non-Violent Social Change. He was a founding member of the New York State Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission, appointed by Governor Mario Cuomo as the commission's vice-chairman in 1985 and the chairman in 1993. Cleve was also a staunch supporter of the African National Congress since the early 1960s and a close friend of the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions [COSATU]. He was a founder of the Labor Committee Against Apartheid Coordinating Council, and co-chair of the official visit of Nelson Mandela to New York in 1990. Cleve continually maintained close ties to his native Jamaica, organizing relief efforts [[Page E 1887]] for hurricane victims and other support projects. The government of Jamaica bestowed upon him numerous honors, including the coveted Independence Day Award in 1992. In 1993, Cleve was made an Honorary doctor of Humane Letters by Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. Cleveland Robinson was an indefatigable organizer and champion of workers' economic and civil rights for over forty years. He dedicated his life's work to the realization of Dr. King's ``beloved community.'' His work was not deterred by the loss of his eyesight to glaucoma during the 1960s. It was often said that Cleve may have lost his sight, but that he was a man of great vision. He is survived by his beloved family, his wife of 18 years, the former Doreen McPherson; his sister, Myra Sinclair; his sons, Winston and Noel, and daughter-in-law, Lucille; his daughter, Barbara Stuart; and six grandchildren. His first wife, Susan Jenkins Robinson, passed away in 1970.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? [[Page H 9344]]