Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to one of the most adored musical treasures of our time, the legendary William ``Count'' Basie. Though we lost the late Great Count Basie in 1984 at the age of 79, his melodious spirit and rhythmic style will never be forgotten. It is said of Count Basie, that he was one of the pre-eminent bandleaders of the Big Band era in the 1930's and 40's. Dubbed the ``Master of Swing'' because of the flowing intensity of his music, Count Basie was known for his provocative keyboard style characterized by a predominant right hand, which produced quite a distinctive sound. Among his band's best known tunes was ``One O'Clock Jump,'' ``Jumpin' at the Woodside,'' ``Li'l Darlin','' and ``April in Paris.'' With the Count on Piano and band member Freddie Green on guitar, American jazz would never be the same. Though he was born in Red Bank, New Jersey, Count Basie would call New York City home when he moved there in 1924 and became acquainted with Harlem and the talents of Fats Waller. He and Fats became friends almost immediately and Fats would end up teaching him to play the organ. Count Basie began his professional career as an accompanist on the vaudeville circuit, and in 1935, became the leader of a nine-piece band. It was while he was with this band performing in Kansas City, that a radio announcer nicknamed him ``Count'' because he wanted to indicate his standing in a class with aristocrats of jazz such as Duke Ellington. Though rooted in the style of the 1930s swing-era big bands, the Basie orchestra played with the vigorous drive and carefree swing of a small combo, and was considered a model for ensemble musical conception. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the birth of William ``Count'' Basie and his numerous contributions to jazz and swing music.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 4046, calling for the United States Postal Service located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, to be hereby named the ``Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office.'' Staff Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment was killed during combat operations in northeast Baghdad on April 11, 2003; he was 26 years of age. A New York City resident, he lived in my district of Washington Heights on 180th Street until graduation from Fashion Industries High School in the Garment District, thereafter joining the Marine Corps at the age of 18. I introduced this legislation because Sgt. Tejeda was a hero in every sense of the word, a man born in the Dominican Republic who made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States. After spending formative teen years meeting the challenge of growing up in the tough streets of Washington Heights, Sergeant Tejeda joined the military with his hopes and dreams of the future on the horizon. He joined the military to better himself and to serve our country, later reenlisting after his initial term of duty had elapsed. Sergeant Tejeda was the first Dominican killed in Iraq, a fact that history will rightfully record but in itself will not and cannot appreciate the pain of his loss to his two young daughters and mourning family. At the time of his death, while the fatality count was still in its early stages, minorities constituted as high as 35 percent of the fatalities in the line of duty. Latinos, who comprise 8 percent of the total fighting force in Iraq, have incurred 16 percent of all intensive fighting deaths and 12 percent of the total fatalities during Operation Iraqi Freedom. These numbers are clear evidence of the disproportionate sacrifice being made in Iraq by Latinos and point out the level of their loyalty to their chosen country. Riayan Tejeda was an outstanding young man with limitless potential, known for his studious nature and gentlemanly demeanor. He was a brave, selfless man of great conviction who fought and died for a nation of immigrants that today does not always appreciate the contributions and sacrifices made by new generations of outsiders pursuing better lives. Sergeant Tejeda, who had served in the Marine Corps for 8 years, was awarded U.S. citizenship only after his death and received the Silver Star for his valor in the line of fire. He proudly served our Nation in Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, East Timor and Iraq. Sergeant Tejeda was the finest marksman in his regiment. The naming of the U.S. Post Office in Washington Heights for Sergeant Tejeda will be received by the community with great pride and satisfaction. It is the least our country can do to honor the memory of Sergeant Tejeda's short and heroic life. I extend my appreciation and sympathies to his parents Julio Cesar Tejeda and Carmen Rafaela Lora, his daughters Loriana and Miranda and his brothers Angel and Andre. I thank my colleagues for their support on this legislation.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment. This amendment should be more rightfully called the Republican Incumbency Protection Amendment. Like the bill we debated on this floor yesterday to abrogate gun laws in the District of Columbia, this amendment is nothing more than an election year wedge issue. Already defeated in the Senate last July, it is another attempt to create a campaign issue to use against Democrats. It is a shame that the People's House should be diminished in this way. Even more so, this is an affront to our great Constitution. It reverses the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms by attempting to limit those rights to millions of people. This is a cynical and dangerous violation of everything we have come to expect from that great document. This is no time to start rolling back freedom. What a great contradiction we are witnessing today at that party, which professes the sanctity of individual rights and privacy of the individual, seeks a blanket intrusion into the lives of a group of people under the guise of protecting marriage, the most private of institutions. While it was President Bush who initiated this bill with his call for a Constitutional amendment last February, I would hope that some members of his party would agree with the position of Vice President Cheney that this issue should be left to the states and not enshrined in our national constitution.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman of the committee is correct, this is timely. It is on the eve of an election. So, therefore, Republicans believe that all tax cuts should be held back, especially the child credit, until election time. And I assume that they believe that we will not notice that they are running us deeper and deeper and deeper into deficit. But since they have no awareness or do not care about it, then once again we have a political issue that is brought to us on the floor. How long has it been since the Republicans were talking about a balanced budget amendment? How long has it been since it was supposed to be Democrats who just tax and spend, but they were the ones who were concerned about the future of our children and our children's children? So now they have brought a very popular bill that they are not going to get much problem from the Democrats in terms as to whether or not the middle income this time should enjoy some of the benefits that in the past they just lavished on the very wealthy. And so if we are going to extend the tax credits for children, a child tax credit, if we are going to make certain that we give some relief for married couples, if we expand the 10 percent tax bracket, who would contest these types of things? It is true that in the conference there did not appear to be that much concern about working parents that were at the poverty line. As most of the Members know, the present legislation index, the threshold at $10,000, because of inflation it is now up to $10,750. As a result of that, some 4 million working people will be denied the tax credit, which comes to over 9 million children would be denied. In the conference when the question was raised, why can you not make provisions to take care of the children of those people that work every day and live in an inflationary society and not have them cut off, the prevailing view was this was a tax bill and not a welfare bill. Then we had some controversy where we were able to get the majority to adjust to make certain that those young people that were fighting in combat and not having to pay taxes on their combat pay, that adjustments would be made that they still could be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. But somehow they only thought that they could do it for 2 years. The President says he does not even know whether we can win the war, and then the majority said that they would be glad to do it, except that the Internal Revenue Service would have difficulty because it is so complex. Then some Members said it was abuse. Having said that, I do not think you have to be a rocket genius to figure out how many poor infantrymen we have in Iraq and how many of them have children and how many of them are poor and how many of them we should say, hey, you are fighting for this country, and we got to give you the same benefits as we give anyone else. So the reason given that we would not make this benefit permanent was because it was too complicated for the Internal Revenue Service to handle and we would like to see how this works. Well, these are the poison pills that are put into a piece of legislation, that the majority is just hoping that they will be able to say that Democrats voted against the provisions to provide tax benefits for the middle class. But one day someone is going to have to answer to these young people and their kids. One day history is going to ask us, where were we when this deficit was mounting? Where were we when we turned the moneys that we are borrowing over to the Chinese and the Japanese? Where were we when the interest on the debt exceeded that of discretionary spending? Where were those responsible Republicans when they decided to do the political thing, rather than the right thing? Well, I, for one, am just as political as they are, and even though they did not pay for this bill, they are saying there were savings, there were loopholes, there were things they could have done. But because they are so anxious to get the jobs bill, this is the newly- labeled jobs bill, you know, this was the bill that it turned out that the World Trade Organization said we had about $4 billion liability, so they waited for years to get us deeper and deeper in trouble, for tariffs to be against our exporters, and then say why not do what we always wanted to do, reduce taxes for corporations? Some of us, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and I, thought that was a great idea. How little did we know on that bill they only meant corporations that were moving their jobs overseas. But that is another bill for another day, and that is a political issue. But here we are again, and I hope no one has to say that I voted yes and I voted no on this one, because they are driving the deficit, and we do not think that the people who deserve a tax benefit should pay the penalty, when deficits mean nothing for the $1.4 trillion tax cut they gave to the very wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me make it clear and try to set the direction in which this debate is going. We do not find Democrats disputing the merits of the tax cuts. We are not even challenging the fact that Republicans have decided to do this on the eve of the election. All we are saying is that you could have given our combat people a better deal by making their extension permanent, and you certainly could have given the working poor an opportunity to enjoy this even though they make $10,750. The problem we have with this is the fact that you are running us $149 billion back into the deficit when you know, and it will go unchallenged, that in the committee, in the conference, we did have the loopholes to repair this and to bring to this floor a bill that would have been paid for, that would have passed with all Democrats and all Republican votes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a Member whose career has been spent trying to protect all Americans, especially those who are struggling to become part of the mainstream.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds.)

Mr. RANGEL. Well, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, but let me join in with the gentleman from Maryland because, clearly, those of us that work on the committee know that there are a lot of virtues in this bill. True, we have a couple of poison pills in there that relate to unfair treatment of the young people who are married, who have kids, who are doing combat duty, and also by having the index on who is eligible for the refundable tax credit, having it move from 10,000 to 70,000; we exclude some 9.2 million children. Those are the poison pills that I think that a lot of Members are willing to swallow for the good that is in the bill. But one of the most important things that Americans are missing and the majority does not hear about is who pays for these tax cuts. All tax cuts for working individuals have merit, but this bill, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will cost us $149 billion. We tried as Democrats in the conference to take the loopholes, to bring the tax savings and to bring the revenues to make this revenue-neutral so that we could have the benefits without the deficit. But what happened last night was that the Republicans said they wanted to save these revenue raises. They want to save these corporate loopholes for the next tax bill, which they call the jobs bill, which I call the offshore jobs bill, but the next bill, some call the FSC bill, but whatever they call this bill, they want to have that paid for as opposed to this bill. So what I am saying is that it is close to election, and everybody wants to vote for a tax cut. The Republicans have so carefully and cynically, on the eve of an election, planned several tax cuts and make other tax cuts permanent in order to try to get the Democrats to vote no, not because we are against the tax cuts but because we have some sense of responsibility as citizens and legislators to believe in what Republicans used to believe in, and that is a balanced budget. I am too old to think it would happen in my lifetime, but as the Republicans put raising the debt ceiling on the back burner, as they put the size of the deficit spending on the back burner, all Americans should know that, as we enjoy this day of tax cuts that the gentleman from New York talked about, that our children will be paying for these for decades to come. So I will suggest to my colleagues, it has to stop somewhere. We have a responsibility as legislators to try to leave a world better than the one that we inherited. We cannot do this with a $200 billion war. We cannot do this by denying benefits to those low-income people who are fighting this war, who are in combat, and we cannot do it by leaving a legacy to our children and our grandchildren that they will have to pay. I thank the gentleman from New York for responding. He may think we have paid for this in a big budget, but they sure did not pay for it last night.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished friend from New York, I was at the tax conference last night, and I would just like to yield him enough time to respond. Did he say that this $147 billion bill is paid for? No, I do not think so. I do not think he said that.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman whether or not he said to this body that this bill, this tax cut bill, which he gave all the virtues of what it does for the middle class and all of the corporations with the extenders, did he imply that this does not throw us $147 billion further into deficit?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think that in view of the victory that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has had, that maybe, just maybe, there is a breath of fresh air entering the House where we can say, let us stop this punitive approach to Cuba and the Cuban government, and let us start a common sense approach. The gentleman from Florida makes it appear as though we are rewarding a dictator for not upholding the principles of democracy. None of us here want to do that. Some would say that we have a disregard for the loss of life or the imprisonment of people unfairly, as we all agree is wrong and immoral and indecent, but that is not so. We are not talking about rewarding; we are talking about normalization. We are talking about the United States of America's principles. We are talking about Americans who feel so proud of what we believe in that we do not let any nickel-and-dime dictator prevent us from taking our message to the people, the people in Cuba. For 40 years, we have taken this nonsensical approach that we are going to punish the Cuban people, deny them access to our markets, deny them financial assistance, notwithstanding the pain and cruel treatment that nature has given to them through hurricanes, notwithstanding the poverty in the country, and we have had this belief on our side, at least some of us on both sides, that the American approach, if properly presented to the people, will prevail; not guns, not bombs and not penalties, but the American way. We believe that trading with people is a way for our business people to be ambassadors of the free market system. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) said, we believe our kids are better than any ambassadors that come out of the State Department when they talk about life in the United States. We believe our farmers and our business people, they really know how to talk to these people about doing the right thing. But if what we are saying is that we are afraid of Castro and we are afraid of communism, then I suggest to my colleagues that we ought to get the heck out of China. We ought to get out of Vietnam. We ought to restore sanctions against Libya, and for God's sake, if we are looking for a democracy, we have a long march in Pakistan to find it. We believe we are powerful enough that we are on the right side of the issue, and for those who are afraid of the truth, then jam their stations, jam their TV, have no communications with these people and just say that we will prevail, because we are powerful enough to bring not Castro down to his knees but the people who are relying on a little assistance from their friends in the United States. I do not think you have to be Cuban-American, I do not think you have to represent Cuban-Americans to understand what compassion is. But I will tell my colleagues one thing, I would hate to represent a district that had families in Cuba, after this horrific hurricane where people are in real pain economically and socially, and I wanted to send them some money, I wanted to visit, I wanted to see who got hurt, I may have wanted to go to a funeral, but I have to say that my heart, my compassion, my country, we are with you, but because we hate with such vengeance your president who has survived so many of ours, we will not be able to help. That, I think, is a more difficult position than to say that you are against communism. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me be brief. It is clear that this is a very emotional issue. All I can say is that in 1950 when I was shot by the Communist Chinese on the Yalu River in North Korea, I was emotional as well. They told me to get over it. I do not know how many tens of thousands of American lives were lost as a result of the Communists in North Vietnam. When the trade agreement came up, they said, Get over it. The families of those that were killed by the Libyan terrorists in Flight 103, they objected to trade and they said, Get over it. I would suggest to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) he has to get over it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay homage to the late Ted Velez of East Harlem, one of New York's finest sons who passed away August 6th 2004. He was a community leader whose tremendous achievements will continue to better the lives of the residents of East Harlem long into the future. Mr. Velez had a vision of New York City that saw equality across the board and included fair and affordable housing for all New Yorkers, regardless of color or social standing. Working in El Barrio as a young social worker, Mr. Velez helped found the East Harlem Tenants Council in 1962, which boasted a network of progressive building captains who monitored building safety and overall residential well being. Two years later he championed a series of rent strikes on East 123rd Street, effectively forcing landlords to make necessary repairs in East Harlem residential buildings. In the summer of 1971, after trudging for more than six years through city, state and federal bureaucracy; Mr. Velez won federal--approval to transform the entire city block between 122nd and 123rd Streets. The project was funded with $42 million dollars allotted from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Department, the largest allocation up to that time for a single community project. Mr. Velez's efforts resulted in comfortable, affordable housing for 656 low to moderate-income families in what is now known as the Taino Towers, giving East Harlem residents opportunities that many had believed to be impossible. Throughout his accomplished life Mr. Velez strived at the forefront of progressive social change as a political activist, yet was able to work productively within the political mainstream with leaders of both political parties. He marched in civil rights demonstrations with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the South, where he helped to organize voter registration drives. In his twenties, he supported Senator Bobby Kennedy and also worked closely with Mayor John V. Lindsay's administration. He was a close associate of former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton and Basil Paterson, two of New York's most influential Democratic leaders. Born in Puerto Rico on December 29th 1938, Mr. Velez moved to East Harlem at the age of six. Working on behalf of the most needy, he managed to achieve the status of a leader without forgetting his humble origins. He did not look at the world in terms of color or creed but appreciated and celebrated all cultures while speaking five languages with near fluency. His activism was motivated by his deep beliefs in the dignity of humanity and the tenets of the Civil Rights Movement. Ted Velez will be remembered as a hero not only in El Barrio but also in the great City of New York. His presence and noble determination will be sorely missed. Mr. Velez is survived by his wife Linda, son Jon, daughter Judie, two brothers and two grandchildren.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague and fellow New Yorker, Mr. Meeks in supporting this bill, H.R. 4632, to name the post office in St. Albans, Queens, New York after my old and close friend, Archie Spigner. Archie Spigner and I go back a long time in the political life of New York; myself in Harlem and Archie in St. Albans. He has been providing leadership in his community for nearly four decades. He has provided the shoulders for many of our current successful leaders. It is unfortunate that term limits have deprived his community of his representation. Archie held his seat from 1974 until term limits ended his service in the New York City Council in 2001. As District Leader and Executive Member of the Guy R. Brewer United Democratic Club, he was instrumental in electing the first African- American Supreme Court Justice, Assembly Member, State Senator and Congress Member in the Borough of Queens. He was a leader in the campaigns of the Hon. David Dinkins, Hon. Percy Sutton, Hon. Carl McCall, our former colleague Congressman Floyd H. Flake and the sponsor of this bill, the current member from St. Albans, our distinguished colleague Greg Meeks. He and I have been allies on countless battles in the effort to provide equality, opportunity, and justice for our constituents, for New Yorkers and Americans. Having a public building in this historic African American community named after as an esteemed member of the community as Archie Spigner is quite fitting.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to one of New York's oldest celebrations of Dominican culture, Manhattan's Dominican Day Parade. The annual parade, which once ran through the heart of Washington Heights, has grown to become one of August's most anticipated celebrations of cultural and ethnic pride on New York's Sixth Avenue since the 1980s. The parade not only is a celebration of pride, but also pays homage to the declaration of the Nation's independence on February 27, 1844, when the Dominican Republic established constitutional autonomy. For Dominicans in the United States the commemoration, held in August, is a second Independence Day serving as a cultural holiday. The Dominican Day Parade has paid tribute to the cultural heritage of the Dominican Republic and the vast contributions the Dominican community has made in the State of New York and in the Nation. Through the parade, the President and the Dominican Day Parade Committee have promoted unity as well as the advancement of Dominicans in New York City. Dominican youth are our hope for the future and we want to encourage them to strive for excellence and advancement through this great celebration. As in past years, this celebration follows Dominican Heritage Week and the Gran Parada Dominicana in the Bronx. On August 8th, beginning from 36th Street to 59th Street on Sixth Avenue, New Yorkers of all ages will get a chance to learn about some of the ways in which this vibrant community is transforming the Nation. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring this celebration and continue to support the great accomplishments made by Dominicans around the Nation and all over the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in one accord with all the former British colonies in the Caribbean to celebrate the 166th anniversary of Emancipation Day, August 1, 1838. In doing so, I wish to not simply recount the histories of the islands in the Caribbean, for I could hardly do justice to their diverse and compelling paths to freedom. Instead, I would like to commemorate the great day of Emancipation with a narrative of cunning, resolve, and triumph, a story that in many ways symbolizes the history of all the former British colonies which were granted freedom on that great August day. Early in the 18th century the British brought a young lady to Jamaica's shores to work as a slave. Like the Caribbean countries themselves, her roots were African. Her name was likely a strong Ashanti one since she hailed from that great African kingdom, but upon arriving she was stripped of her given nomenclature and was known to her fellow slaves simply as ``Nanny.'' Slavery persisted in the Caribbean until 1834 and then in the name of ``apprenticeship'' until 1838, but it did not persist with ``Granny Nanny of the Maroons'', as she is known today. Soon after her arrival she displayed the world-renown Caribbean penchant for cutting her own path, and escaped from her master's plantation with her five brothers. Granny Nanny then traveled around the countryside organizing free Africans in the towns of St. James, St. Elizabeth, and Portland. She eventually established Nanny Town and based the community's governance on the Ashanti society. Like the Caribbean countries, Nanny was small and wiry, but also like these countries, she was singularly focused in her pursuit of self- determination. The vast British military presence on the island launched numerous attacks on Nanny and her comrades, hoping to force them back into slavery, but for nearly two decades Nanny, the acknowledged and greatly respected leader of an army of at least 800 maroons, withstood their aggressions. She placed guards at look-out points, sent spies to live among the slaves in British plantations, and ordered her fighters to dress like trees and bushes, so that when the British entered these human ``forests'' they would be overwhelmed by Nanny's forces. In 1737 the British offered Nanny a truce: the maroons would be given land and rights as free men, but only if they promised to help capture and return runaway slaves, assist the Government in putting down revolts, and cease their wars with the British. Their only other alternative would be to continue in their campaign against the massive British military, pitting 800 men against what was, at that time, the strongest army in the world. Nanny refused their offer. And still, these Caribbean countries refuse. Thus, I feel that the story of Granny Nanny is in many ways the story of Barbados, Nevis, Bahamas, Antigua, Barbuda, Montserrat, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Vincent, Grenada, and Saint Lucia. For centuries, the people of these countries refused to accept British colonialism, stubbornly resisting the British from hideaways in cities, mountains, and forests. In 1838 they were finally freed from slavery's grasp, but they have not become complacent. Although confronted by pressing economic and social issues, they remain defiant, refusing to be defined by their problems and continuing to make important strides to attract investment, maintain good governance, and work for equity across all segments the population. Today I remember Caribbean Emancipation Day by saluting Granny Nanny of the Maroons, the hero who perhaps most typifies the spirit of these great nations. It is my hope that we in the United States, with our economic policies and diplomatic relations, continue to support the efforts of these Caribbean countries as they move confidently and prosperously into the 21st Century.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Reverend David M. Johnson and Mrs. Tawana Johnson for their strong community activism and commitment to today's youth. They have not only instilled pride into each and every child they have worked with, they have destroyed the notion that they are just residents of America's inner-cities, but a valued citizen of the world. On May 14, 2004, Mrs. Johnson, Founder of Virtuous Women Empower and God's Glory Interfaith Ministries where Rev. Johnson presides, organized and sponsored a trip to the United Nations for 100 of the most outstanding students from I.S. 117 Joseph H. Wade and C.E.S. 70 Max Schoenfeld School in the Bronx, New York. This meeting encouraged minority students that their representation in the international community is needed. This trip has engraved in the minds of these students a new understanding of diversity. The students left a lasting impact on the United Nations with the intellect of their questions, and sincere concern for their community. After their visit the students were encouraged to return and many students were offered internships with the United Nations. Some of the students left striving to become diplomats, ambassadors, and Members of Congress. Rev. and Mrs. Johnson have instilled a standard of excellence that all students should strive to follow. I share in our young people's dreams of democracy, equal opportunity and success. One day these students will assist in assuring these dreams come true for every citizen. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating them for their superior academic achievements, and their desire for social change. The following Honor Roll students met with United Nations Ambassador Patrick Kennedy on May 14, 2004: Yariza Pimentel, Karina Hernandez, Narda Lopez, Zena Ahmed, Carol Prashad, Patricia Holman, Gisselle Francisco, Jatnna Medina, Jadderin Torres, Yereny Rodriguez, Gisell Acevedo, Jonathan Ruiz, Kamani Gujjar, Donnie Santana, Maite Amador, Eric Mayfield, Pilar Cruz, Eduardo Guerrero, Luiraldy Castillo, Kevin Delarosa, Jose Camacho, Ramon Cabral, Michelle Camarena, Lerubi Lopez, Luis Adames, Eduard Garcia, Betzaida Rodriguez, Denise Garcia, Albania Gonzalez, Edwin Albino, Marla Dominguez, Leonela Paula, Jessica Pena, Myrtle Richards, Kayla Williams, Yennifer Hernandez, Caroline Antigua, Devon Ferrer, Roshawn Ullah, Tasnim Majumder, Elias Rosario, Stephanie Pena, Tataria Burns, Paloma Carty, Erika Rosa, Verenice Gomez, Tatiana Santiago, Angel Cardenas, Jose Aguilar, Omar Liriano, Leandro Pena, Richard Anim, Lisa Maldonado, Steven Diaz, Adalis Martinez, Gaby Perez, Stephany Veras, Claudia Avila, Evelyn Liriano, Marilyn Fernandez, Valeria Salazar, Omaira Tejada, Sebastian Gutierrez, Florangel Monegro, Sylvin Little, and HRU Rameses Amon Ra.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time as he sees fit.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would like the record to remain clear that in my opinion the gentleman from California stole the election in Florida, and I just want to get that out of the way. But having said that, I think that this agreement that we reach today gives us an opportunity to see what we could be doing, especially as it relates to international treaty agreements, if we attempt to work together. The government of Morocco has been friendly to the United States for years, and it is a developing country that has strived to have a relationship between organized labor and to work to improve the quality of life for its workers. We Democrats truly believe that we should have a bipartisan approach to these types of issues and that there are certain principles we think should be in all trade agreements, and that is that you protect American jobs and that you provide for basic international labor standards in these agreements, and you do no harm. There are certain provisions here that deal with intellectual rights that we really approve of, but we also believe that we should never allow ourselves to deprive people of medicine that they may need for their health and, indeed, for their life. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has worked very, very hard to make certain that we on the Democratic side do not unilaterally just say out of hand that if we do not find the language we want that we will not be supporting the bill. Indeed, we are more concerned with having language that all civilized and industrialized countries would want to have as a standard that can be reached with the United States on international health. Mr. Speaker, because of that, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished senior member of the Subcommittee on Trade, and that he be allowed to yield time as he sees fit.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the appointment of William (Bill) Lynch Jr. as Deputy Campaign Manager for the Kerry- Edwards Presidential Campaign. A Harlem native and former Deputy Mayor of the City of New York, Bill Lynch has more than 30 years experience in local and national politics, government operations and public policy. In 1997, former President William J. Clinton nominated Mr. Lynch for the position of Vice Chair to the Democratic National Committee. Prior to Mr. Lynch's appointment as the Deputy Mayor for Intergovernmental Affairs in 1989, he served as Campaign Manager for David Dinkins '89 and as Chief of Staff to the then Manhattan Borough President. Bill Lynch has been a social and political activist for the past twenty-five years, serving as Director of Legislation and Political Action for District Council 1701 of the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO), as well as Campaign Manager for Congressman Major Owens and Assemblyman William Frank Boyland both of Brooklyn, New York. Mr. Lynch will lead a national effort to motivate and deliver key Democratic Party constituent groups, particularly African Americans and Latinos that have been marginalized in the past. I urge my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. William Lynch on his recent appointment as the Deputy Campaign Manager for the Kerry-Edwards Presidential Campaign and wish him all the success. I commend to my colleagues the following article, which appeared in the New York Daily News on July 20, 2004. [From the Daily News, July 20, 2004] Dems' New Captain (By Errol Louis) On a quiet, isolated farm in Tennessee, a few hundred political leaders gathered Sunday to honor two New Yorkers-- Len Riggio, the Brooklyn-born chairman of Barnes & Noble, and former Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch--in a ceremony that symbolizes a pivotal moment in the race for President. Newly named to the post of deputy manger of the Kerry-Edwards campaign, Lynch will help lead a national effort to fire up and deliver many of the Democratic Party's key constituent groups. That includes women, gays, young adults, blacks, Latinos and union members, especially in the swing states--all in the 104-day sprint between now and Election Day. Should Lynch succeed, the ticket stands a good chance of winning. But if he comes up even a little bit short in key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, it could cost the Democrats the election. Given the importance of his mission, it's fitting that Lynch was back at the Haley Farm Freedom School, a 157-acre spread outside Knoxville, over the weekend. There he joined a cross section of the Democratic Party's elite, including David Dinkins and Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of the vice presidential candidate, at the dedication of the Riggio-Lynch Chapel, a building paid for by the bookstore magnate and designed by renowned architect Maya Lin (of Vietnam memorial fame). The farm, formerly owned by the writer Alex Haley, was acquired a decade ago by the Children's Defense Fund and transformed into a thriving conference and training center for veterans of the civil rights movement and their younger, modern successors. Over the last 10 years, more than 6,000 young people have passed through the Haley farm for retreat- like workshops on everything from writing policy papers to studying how civil disobedience works. College-age activists, many with dreadlocks and tattoos, regularly sit and swap stories with movement veterans who put their bodies on the line in places like Selma, Birmingham and the Mississippi Delta. The same kids are the secret weapon that could carry the election. Lynch, a former union organizer who did his share of sit- ins before turning to electoral politics, is expected to tap into this army of well-trained young activists and bring their farm-stoked energy into the Kerry-Edwards campaign. The challenge for Lynch will be to persuade party bigwigs that in many communities, no amount of expensive advertising, fancy Internet networking or televised debating can replace doorknocking, phone-banking and other kinds of grass-roots organizing. It's a debate that goes on in every Democratic campaign. All too often, fancy media strategists win the debate and grab most of the campaign funds--and then lose the election. It doesn't have to turn out that way. The troops who could win the fall election have been training quietly for more than a decade on that quiet farm outside Knoxville. If Lynch succeeds at bringing them into a Democratic win, it will look like a 100-day electoral miracle.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the country of Jamaica and to celebrate the 42nd anniversary of its Independence. The history and traditions of the Jamaican people are knitted tightly within America's cultural fabric. Jamaica's influence is particularly apparent in Black and Brown communities throughout the United States, where the sounds, smells, tastes, and mores of Jamaica have found a second home. From Brooklyn to Baltimore to the Bay Area, Jamaicans and Jamaican-Americans have made their mark as successful, knowledgeable, and hard-working ambassadors of both a vibrant culture and an impassioned commitment to social change. The Jamaican spirit is vibrantly shown by the two men who perhaps did the most to set the country on a path towards independence. Following the 1938 labor unrest, William Alexander Bustamante, founder of the Jamaican Trade Workers and Tradesmen Union JTWTU 3 years earlier, captured the hearts and minds of workers made furious by British indifference and oppression. Bustamante emerged from the strikes as the leading spokesperson for working class interests in Jamaica. By leveraging the power of the JTWTU to create the Bustamante Industrial Trade Unions, Bustamante formally inaugurated Jamaica's worker's movement, which was the primary piston in the engine of Jamaica's independence campaign. While Bustamante organized the masses in the streets, Norman W. Manley, an Oxford-trained lawyer, Rhodes scholar, and humanist intellectual, laid the groundwork for the theory behind the independence movement's action. On September 18, 1938 Manley inaugurated the People's National Party PNP, which was guided by the principles of equality of opportunity and the need for a welfare state. Manley established a broad network in both urban areas and rural parishes, and built support for progressive public policy across wide swaths of Jamaican society. Although Bustamante eventually founded the Jamaican Labor Party, a political rival of the PNP, the two men, both visionary nationalists and advocates of fundamental social change, worked towards the singular goal of freedom for Jamaica's people. Their efforts as alternating Premiers led to constitutional amendments which strengthened Jamaican self-governance and gradually eroded British control the island. This period, known as ``constitutional decolonization,'' ushered in the great day of Jamaica's independence, August 6, 1962. But Jamaica's independence is not just marked by a date. It is carried instead in the bosom of emissaries of peace and justice, Jamaicans who have sown seeds of their particularly fiery brand of liberty across the world. Thus we cannot tell the tale of American liberation movements without mentioning with highest regard the great Jamaican-American leader Marcus Garvey, founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and champion of oppressed people of African descent across the globe. And the very marrow of the anti-war, Black Power, and anti- colonialist movements of the late 1960s, 70s, and 80s was the inspirational and haunting melodies of Bob Marley, perhaps the most important figure in 20th century music. Marley elevated music beyond the level of an art form and made it instead an earthly embodiment of spiritual truths, melodious wisdom which transcended daily problems and cut to the heart of man's most pressing struggles. Even today, the music of Bob Marley articulates the groanings of people's movements throughout the world, unceasing in its cry for peace and freedom. The list could go on: `Granny Nanny,' the revolutionary maroon who fiercely and successfully battled the British throughout the 18th century; General Colin Powell, our national hero; Claude McKay, the great poet and inspiration for the Harlem Renaissance; Dudley Thompson, Sheryl Lee Ralph, Grace Jones, Harry Belafonte, and many, many others. These Jamaicans and Jamaican-Americans have had an enormous impact on American history and culture, cutting their own paths across the world and touching the lives of millions of Americans. On this special occasion, I hold that Independence Day is not simply a 24-hour period in Jamaica; it is, instead, a way of life. And it is my hope that we in the United States, with our economic policies and diplomatic relations, encourage the spirit of self-determination and independence in Jamaica, assisting Jamaica's people as they work for the economic and social freedom that they so sorely deserve.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago as it celebrates the 42nd anniversary of its Independence. Trinidad was settled in the late 1500s by the Spanish, who annihilated the indigenous Arawak and Carib Indian populations on the island. It remained under Spanish rule until the British, enticed by the sugar and cocoa plantations throughout the island, captured it in 1797. Tobago had a more unsteady development, changing hands over 22 times as the French, Dutch, and British fought over to possess it. Tobago was finally ceded to Great Britain in 1814, and Trinidad and Tobago were incorporated into a single colony in 1888. Valued for its sugar during the 19th Century, Trinidad became a key oil interest for the British the 20th Century. Oil was discovered in three areas in Trinidad, and oil exports to Britain increased steadily throughout the century, buoyed by the advent of the automobile and the conversion of the British Navy from coal to oil. In 1941 Britain permitted the United States to establish military bases in Trinidad in exchange for 50 destroyers given to the British government. This began an important period in the country; the G.I.s brought American money and culture to the island, and the Trinidadian people were steadily pulled away from their traditional British loyalties. The Marines also helped construct numerous roads in Trinidad, including the important Northern Coast Road, which is still is functional today. A nascent movement for independence was born in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1950s, when Eric Williams, a Ph.D. from Howard University, returned to his native country and founded the People's National Movement (PNM). The PNM prevailed in the 1956 national elections, and Dr. Williams became the chief minister of the country from 1956 to 1959, premier from 1959 to 1962, and prime minister from 1962 to 1981. It was Williams who led Trinidad and Tobago into full independence within the Commonwealth in 1962, and he is now considered the father of independent Trinidad and Tobago. Williams died while in office on March 29, 1981. Trinidad and Tobago joined the United Nations and the Commonwealth immediately after its independence, and in 1967 it became the first Commonwealth country to join the Organization of American States (OAS). Trinidad and Tobago has enjoyed cordial relations with the United States since independence. U.S. investment in Trinidad and Tobago is nearly two billion dollars, and Trinidad is the leading exporter of liquefied natural gas to the U.S. Trinidad is also active in the U.S.- initiated Summit of the Americas process and fully supports the establishment of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Further, many U.S. citizens and permanent residents call Trinidad and Tobago home, and keep strong cultural ties to their country of origin. Nearly 20,000 U.S. citizens visit Trinidad and Tobago for vacation or business every year, and over 2,700 American citizens are residents of the country. Americans celebrate the history and culture of Trinidad and Tobago with annual carnivals held in numerous cities across the U.S., with a major celebration occurring in Brooklyn every Labor Day. A leading member of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) and the most industrialized nation in the Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago has become a symbol of what Caribbean countries can achieve if they have the opportunities and wherewithal to become economically successful and socially stable. As Trinidad and Tobago celebrates the 42nd anniversary of its independence, let us join in honoring the achievements of a country that overcame many obstacles to reach heights of prosperity and stability.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask again for the exoneration of one of our greatest civil rights leaders, Marcus Garvey. I have felt inspired by Marcus Garvey since I was a young boy. I grew up and still live in Harlem where Garvey founded the first branches of his Universal Negro Improvement Association. When I was born in 1930, the traces Garvey left in Harlem were still very fresh. I remember meeting Garveyists, ardent supporters of Marcus Garvey's ideas, in Harlem as a young man. They encouraged me to do my own reading and research on this great Jamaican hero and the more I read and heard, the more I became convinced of Garvey's innocence and the need to restore his reputation. The injustice done to him reminded me every day of the injustice done to all Black people, including myself, during that time. In the 1970s, I met Jamaica's energetic Prime Minister Michael Manley and became very close to him, professionally but also personally. He taught me more about Marcus Garvey and about his status as a hero in Jamaica. In 1987, the centenary of Marcus Garvey's birth, I introduced legislation asking for the exoneration of Marcus Garvey for the first time and have reintroduced the same bill into every following Congress since. The passage of this bill is long overdue. It is well-proven today that Marcus Garvey was innocent of all the charges brought forward against him. J. Edgar Hoover, who is today notoriously famous for his racism, his corruption and his misuse of powers, perceived Garvey as a threat to white supremacy. After years of harassing the black leader, he infiltrated the Garvey organization and had an agent fabricate evidence of mail fraud with which he charged Garvey in 1922. Garvey's trial was a mockery and he was imprisoned and deported back to Jamaica in 1927. But with Garvey's deportation, Hoover could only delay but not stop the civil rights movement. Garvey's teachings about the equality of all men and women remained firm and lively in the heads of the following generations. Garvey stood as a shining example on the horizon of those people who were longing for a better future. He inspired many of the leaders that were to come. Our American hero, Martin Luther King, called Garvey ``the first man, on a mass scale to give millions of Negroes a sense of dignity and destiny'' and Malcom X wrote that ``each time you see another independent nation on the African continent you know Marcus Garvey is alive.'' Garvey taught Black men and women to take pride in their race and to rely on themselves--economically, politically and religiously. But he did not only speak out for the rights of Black men and women all around the world, but for all those who were poor and disadvantaged. He is not only the hero of Black people, but of everybody who believes in equality and social justice. I commend the members of The International Foundation for the Exoneration of Marcus Garvey on their tireless efforts to achieve that the injustice done to Marcus Garvey is redeemed. I also congratulate the city councils of Hartford in Connecticut and Lauderhill in Florida on the recent passage of their resolutions supporting the exoneration of our great Jamaican hero. I will continue to work hard to ensure that my resolution, reaffirming Marcus Garvey's innocence and asking the President of the United States to exonerate him, will pass the United States Congress. It is high time that our country joins the many other nations that have already recognized Marcus Garvey as an extraordinary leader and thinker in the global struggle for human rights and as a person who gave hope and inspiration to millions of oppressed men and women all around the world. But it is in the hands of the President of the United States to finally clear Marcus Garvey's name. I hope that President Bush will consider taking this step. The Justice Department in the past advised Presidents not to exonerate posthumously. But President Clinton, in 1999, granted the first posthumous Presidential pardon in our nation's history to Lt. Henry Ossian Flipper, the first Black graduate of West Point. He had been dismissed from service in 1882 for racial and unjust reasons. President Clinton set a strong and positive precedent and I hope that President Bush will perceive the Garvey conviction as an equally compelling case for justice to be done at this time. The exoneration would be another step towards healing the race divisions that are still existent in our country. It is high time that our country recognizes Marcus Garvey for his great leadership and bravery.