Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the Tuskegee Airmen, African-American pioneers for their courageous service to our country and lasting legacy of valor and military excellence. I strongly support H. Con. Res. 417 in honoring the Tuskegee Airmen and their contribution in creating an integrated United States Air Force, the world's foremost Air and Space Supremacy Force. The service that the Tuskegee Airmen performed during World War II for our country was extraordinary. In a time of racial turmoil they dedicated their lives and served this country to their fullest capability. They simultaneously defied the odds and limitations set both abroad and at home. These men overcame what were seemingly insurmountable obstacles at the time and are regarded as American military pioneers. The Tuskegee Airmen epitomize the American dream. History shows that blacks had been trying to gain entrance into the Army Air Corps since World War I. By the end of World War II the Tuskegee Airmen had received 95 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 744 Air Medals and Clusters, a Legion of Merit, completed 1,578 missions and 15,553 sorties, and graduated 993 pilots. They had gone from being barred from the Air Corps to being regarded as one of the most successful units in American history. The Tuskegee Airmen were called upon by our country and willingly accepted the challenge. They proved that skill and dedication were the determining factors of success, not race or skin color. The Tuskegee Airmen continue to serve as role models for members of the armed forces throughout the world. Many of their combat records are unmatched today and their sacrifices must never be forgotten. These courageous men embody the spirit of America and are an integral part of our nation's history. It is only appropriate that servicemen of such valor be acknowledged.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, I was not present in the House due to a medical consultation at the Howard Unviersity hospital. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, an important month in the Asian Pacific American community. Asian Pacific American Heritage Month commemorates the tremendous impact that the Asian culture has made on our Nation. Just as importantly it is a month that deserves more recognition than it usually receives, as it is often overshadowed. It is very important that this month we pay homage to the Asian Pacific American contribution to the American culture and experience. Through the centuries they have embodied the American spirit and fostered the concept of community. Their adaptation to the Americas and resilience is something that we should all aim to emulate. Asian Pacific American's have long served an intricate role in the development of the Americas. From the development of the transcontinental railroad to present day the Asian Pacific American community has and continues to make their presence evident in the medical field, arts, politics, science and engineering, entertainment, culinary arts, and military excellence. It is important that not just during this month, but may we always recognize and continue to embrace the Asian Pacific American contribution to our culture. As a nation I hope that we will continue to all work and grow together. Today Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the Asian Pacific American contribution and commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and submit for the Congressional Record a speech delivered by H. Patrick Swygert, the President of Howard University at a meeting called by President Enrique Iglesias of the Inter-American Development Bank to examine the challenge of social inclusion in economic development in the Western Hemisphere. President Swygert's speech points out not only the destructivity of social exclusion, more importantly he emphasizes the need for social inclusion as a means to break barriers, build bridges, and create networks as a means to achieve economic development. I would also like to commend President Iglesias and the Inter- American Development Bank for understanding and beginning to take the necessary steps towards a more social inclusive global community, and for affording President Swygert a forum to discuss and accelerate dialog regarding this important initiative. It is essential in the period of economic surplus that we recognize the fact that as our wealth grows, the gap between rich and poor widens. Eventually those on the lower end of the spectrum get left behind and have very few means to catch up to their counterparts. Social inclusion, as President Swygert eloquently points out, aims to intervene in the perpetual cycle of poverty that exclusion creates. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank President Swygert for his efforts to alert us all to the growing economic inequality that is the end result of social exclusion and for his visionary leadership in advocating social inclusion as the means to achieve the alleviation of poverty in the Western Hemisphere. Social Inclusion, Education Health and Culture: Breaking Barriers, Building Bridges and Creating Networks (By President H. Patrick Swygert) The IADB President--Mr. Enrique Iglesias, Other Officials of the Bank, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentleman, Greetings. First, let me congratulate the Inter-American Development Bank for this impressive effort today to accelerate the dialogue on social inclusion. Inclusion of course, implies exclusion, its opposite. Certainly, without the recognition that the issue of exclusion is a problem and a growing one, there would not be the need for this dialogue today. I regard this meeting, therefore, as an effort to understand both sides of an issue that is destructive in the case of the one, and productive, harmonious and highly desirable in the other. It is indeed commendable that this institution, a development bank, is leading this initiative to enhance our understanding of the importance of inclusiveness among the various human components of our societies and, conversely, that you are examining the nature of exclusion and how it thwarts the development process by relegating some people-- the best resources of any society--to the fringes where they are unable to realize their ambitions as fully functioning members of the society. This undertaking, therefore, is both significant and challenging because the issues that militate against the inclusion that we seek are centuries old and are as pervasive as they are persistent. And now, studies are showing that the process of globalization which, at one level, ironically enough, is bringing the world closer together, is at another level, fostering deeper divisions between the peoples of the world, and reinforcing the familiar and painful dichotomies of powerful and powerless, haves and havenots, and increasing the wretchedness of the wretched of the earth. In this still brand new millennium, our failure to build a more just world and to fully harness, arguably the bulk of the human capital into the process of building better societies, better nations and a better world, remains one of the greatest failures of this civilization. To this extent, dialogues like these are critical because they are the necessary first steps on the pathway to a greater understanding, appreciation and acceptance of our common humanity and the building of the bridges we so badly need. For me, this is a particularly interesting time to reflect on the need for inclusion at all levels and the painful lessons that we eventually learn when we pursue policies and pathways that are exclusive and divisive. Come May 17, this year, Howard University will join the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Educational Fund in a gala event at Constitution Hall to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that desegregated public education in America and began this nation's transformation toward a more inclusive society. As you can imagine, the Supreme Court ruling was a great day for African Americans who made their entrance to this continent in chains and struggled for centuries against the denial of their humanity, and their exclusion from all else except the forced labor that generated wealth for the masters. The eventual end of slavery would not be the end of the struggle for them it was soon followed by Jim Crow and the segregation that ended officially only 50 years ago. Again, the end of segregation merely heralded a new struggle--that to have the society treat them as equal in accordance with the new law of the land. It would take years of agitation among civil rights groups and activists and the sacrifices of people like Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. before the society finally began to implement changes at all levels. The process continues today. We have made tremendous progress but we are nowhere near a fully integrated society. It is still a daily struggle for African Americans and other minorities to get others to look beyond the color of their skins and see a fellow human being rather than a stereotype. Howard University, my alma mater, played a critical role in the successful Brown case. The University was the training ground for the attorneys who represented Brown and most of them were faculty at our school of law. And, it was one of our graduates, Thurgood Marshall, who argued the case before the Supreme Court. Howard University is proud of this legacy. Proud of its commitment to a philosophy of equality and justice for all people. Proud of its dedication to help create an environment that affirms the value of all humanity; that uplifts everyone and oppresses no one. Throughout this academic year, the University has hosted several events commemorating the Brown anniversary. The dialogue has been about social exclusion and inclusion, because that was at the heart of the case. African Americans in this country know about exclusion. They know it was wrong 400 years ago and it is wrong today in whatever form it comes. It is out of this history of suffering perhaps, has come the instinctive revulsion of these kinds of artificial barriers among African Americans. They seem to know intuitively that divisions of the kind that they experienced are morally offensive; they are socially disruptive, economically unproductive and they form the breeding ground for conflict and instability in any society. The basis of the exclusion that we speak of today is not limited to social class, but gender, sexuality, physical or emotional disabilities, ethnicity, race, skin color. In so many countries of the world, humanity seems divided by these artificial barriers--barriers that do little except to blind us to the reality of our common bonds. With both our hearts and our intellect, we know that as citizens of the universe, we are far more alike than we are different, yet by our own attitudes or lack of action, many of us reinforce old stereotypes that ultimately become obstacles to progress and the pursuit of meaningful interactions. Samuel L. Johnson, the great 18th century British essayist, and poet, suffered from all kinds of physical disabilities. His sight was poor. His hearing was poor. His face was scarred by a skin disease and he suffered from Tourette syndrome. You bet that he too knew the meaning of social exclusion. In a ringing appeal for acceptance, Johnson wrote. ``Men, however distinguished by external accidents or intrinsic qualities, have all the same wants, the same pains, and, as far as the senses are concerned, the same pleasures. We are all prompted by the same motives, all deceived by the same fallacies, all animated by hope, obstructed by danger, entangled by desire, and seduced by pleasure.'' As human beings, we cherish a common desire to satisfy our basic needs, and beyond that to pursue what we believe will bring us a sense of fulfillment. For many of us, this often means reaching out beyond ourselves in service to others and this is where many of us truly absorb that the world is bigger than the sum total of any single individual's needs. The truth is, our fundamental desires, with little exceptions are grounded in our humanity, not in our race, religion, ethnicity or any other such variables. Yet we persist in our creation of all kinds of false dichotomies, even as many of us embrace the notion of a Fatherhood of God. Somehow, we have failed to accept that this fatherhood of God extends itself to a brotherhood and a sisterhood of humankind. Rather than such acceptance and the equality that it implies, we have not just subdivided humanity but we have stratified it as well. People of color--non white people--are at the low end of this hierarchy. The farther one departs from the Eurocentric ideals, which tops the hierarchy of course, the less value is ascribed to one's talents, wisdoms, cultures, contributions to civilization, needs and desires-- one's humanity. This is certainly true of the Americas. Five decades after Brown, for example, many of our schools remain deeply segregated. Black and Latino children disproportionately attend schools that are in high poverty areas. These schools are under-funded, under-performing and naturally turn out graduates that are ill-equipped to move forward and help their families free themselves from the shackles of poverty. Eighty percent of black and Latino children in segregated schools are in high poverty areas, compared to five per cent of their white counterparts in similar schools. Many schools remain segregated, or at best minimally integrated, at both the level of the student body and the staff. In states such as Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and California, the pattern is now too pronounced to ignore. The outcome of this kind of segregation is the underperformance among the children who attend them; the high drop out rates; significantly reduced chances of post high- school success, and the eventual spiral into drugs and violence among too many children who end up with life on the streets as their vocation. In health care, the disparities are just as obvious. According to the American Medical Association, racial disparities in healthcare in the United States, remain ``chronic'' with minorities benefiting the least from what it described as ``marked by advances in medicine and health care.'' Among some of the more interesting statistics: Thirty-one percent of minority adults, ages 18-64, do not have insurance, compared with 14 percent of white adults in the same age group. Minority adults report more problems with receiving health care. Forty percent say they have ``a major problem with having to pay too much for care,'' compared to 26 percent of white adults. Further, low-income persons, regardless of race, spend more out-of-pocket income--about 7-11 percent--on medical expenses than higher income Americans who typically only spend about 1-2 percent of their income on medical care. The infant mortality rate in the last forty years has declined faster for whites than for blacks, with the longstanding disparity actually increasing from 1.6 times the rate for whites in 1950 to 2.2 times the rates in 1991. Black women are twice as likely as white women to obtain late or no prenatal care; Hispanic women are three times as likely to obtain inadequate or no prenatal care as non- Hispanic white women; and American Indian women are more likely than either white or black women to obtain late or no prenatal care at all. Overall, African Americans tend to receive lower quality healthcare than whites for everything from cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS to diabetes and mental health. There is less evidence examining disparities involving Hispanics and other minority groups. Here in America, the disparities are obvious. The availability of data and the high visibility of the society make it much easier for us to point fingers at what is happening here. And, it is true that because of the vast wealth of this country, these inequalities seem more egregious. The truth is though, that the disadvantaged status of minority groups extends into all reaches of the Americas. Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Hondurans, Afro-Colombians, Afro- Nicaraguans, Afro-Ecuadorians, all experience the same sense of despair born from the knowledge of their marginalized status in countries where they are minorities; where their worth has been determined by their ethnicity and skin color, and their sense that nothing will change because, after all, they cannot change who they are. Whether it is the Creoles in Belize, the Gari-fun-as of Guatemala, The Arawaks of Guyana, the Caribs in St. Lucia or the Rez-a-(i)les of San Andres Islands, the same sense of hopeless and alienation characterize their existence in the Americas, though most of these populations have existed here for hundreds of years, some of them even pre-dating Christopher Columbus. While they suffer through lives of quiet desperation, they remain largely invisible to a world that barely acknowledges that they are there. Bringing marginalized groups into the mainstream of development is an imperative for the corporate world, as it is for institutions like yours, and mine. On the surface, it may seem like a difficult and costly undertaking, but it will be less expensive than the price of conflict, malnutrition, communicable and non-communicable diseases, political instability and the absence of buying power in the market place. Beyond the societal and economic benefits, bringing marginalized groups into mainstream society is a recognition of our acceptance of a common humanity and our embrace of such as the source of our sustenance and the basis of our quest for peace, harmony and respect for human dignity throughout the world. In the words of Kenneth B. Clarke, the Howard University graduate, whose research supported the attorneys on the Brown Case: ``. . . segregation (read, exclusion), like all other forms of cruelty and tyranny, debases all human being--those who are its victims, those who victimize, and in quite subtle ways those who are mere accessories.'' Our dialogue today recognizes the veracity of those words. So, despite what seems like a painfully fractured world, we must continue to strive for the ideals of co-existence and community, and the strengthening of relationships among disparate groups in the pursuit of peace, harmony and prosperity. The struggle for these ideals is the only basis of our hope for peace, justice and freedom from oppression. Like the IADB, my institution is dedicated to preserving and promoting the ideals of inclusion in the Americas, and to the extent that our influence reaches, beyond. Through institutions like the Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center which encourages greater participation in global issues among the students and faculty; the Moorland Spingarn Research Center, the largest collection of research material on African heritage next to the Schomburg Center; the U.S.-Brazil project on Race, Development and Social Inequality and the ongoing study and preservation of art, music, dance, language, history and other characteristics of cultures, Howard continues to make a sterling contribution to an informed understanding of the benefits of an inclusive society. Our programs in Health Sciences, meanwhile, are dedicated not just to the provision of quality care to the under- served, but to a discovery of causes and development of cures to the diseases that disproportionately affect those communities. Our Hispanic and multicultural affairs program and the International healthcare program, are significant efforts in this direction. Finally, in all of our efforts, the fight for civil rights remains central. Howard University was founded on this very notion that all people, regardless of their race, deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the right to live with dignity and respect. For 138 years, we have remained committed to reinforcing these principles and pursue these ideals toward the advancement of the human race. I would like to commend the IADB for being an ally in this process and I look forward to a growing relationship as we pursue our common goals. Thank you.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how historic it would be if we could get back to the idea that tax bills would come out of the tax-writing committee. Every bill that has been coming to the floor has been without the benefit of Republicans and Democrats having an opportunity to evaluate the legislation, to improve on the legislation. At least at a time when our Nation has this polarized war on our hands, would that we could say in the tax-writing committee, we are working together to improve the economy and that we also support our troops, we support Social Security, we support Medicare. But this is not the case. There is no basic difference in the thrust of the Republican bill and the Democratic bill. They just would like to make certain that the benefits would go up to people making $329,000. There is no basic difference. They would drive us into debt some $228 billion, because they do not attempt to pay for it. There is no basic difference, because we are just more concerned with those in the lower income, while they have this fetish, this desire, that no matter how much it costs, they have to make these special appeals to those that have so much. It would have been that if we were working together, then we could find some equitable solution. Somewhere on the Republican side, somewhere there is somebody that believes that we should not go deeper into debt. I do not know who it is, I have not met anybody, but there has to be someone that believes that, with the $500 billion in the tax bills we have had. It would seem to me that the basic principle should include two things: One, this is a time of war. We are spending $4 billion a month because the President has been ordained to bring peace and democracy to this part of the world. He does not know, and neither does Secretary Rumsfeld know, how many months it is going to take in order to pay this cost, not just in human resources, but in dollars. We have spent over $150 billion, and we are going deeper and deeper in debt. As has been pointed out, we have to pay the interest on that debt. We do not know what it is, besides prescription drugs, that we are going to have to give up. How many schools do we have to give up? How many Social Security payments do we have to give up? Do we have any obligation at all to legislate today with some consideration for our kids and our grandkids? I do not think so. You have a Committee on the Budget, I guess, because you want to have one. But what impact does it have on the trillions of dollars that we have gone into debt because we want to show the world that we have a fetish in order to give the tax credits and the tax benefits to the top percentage of those people who have such high incomes. How embarrassed you should be to be able to tell one of your friends and constituents, have I got a surprise for you. I got on the floor of the House and I said, If you make $329,000 a year, net, and you have four kids, I was thinking about you. I was thinking about you on Memorial Day. I was thinking about you when they were looking for more troops to send to Iraq. I was thinking about you and wondering how could I get you to be patriotic enough to know that you can make a sacrifice? But how did it turn out? I am giving you $4,000 to let you know that as Republicans, we care. You may get some Democrats to support you because they do not want to be against any child credit. But if they only knew how much their children and their grandchildren would be paying for this credit in a nonpolitical year, we would not be doing it, and no responsible Republican would be doing something like this. This is election year politicking so you can say you voted for the child credit. Your credibility is so shot on the Republican side, they will not believe it anyway. But having said that, God forbid if they should ask one of your candidates, ``and how do you intend to pay for it?'' And paying for it is just not on the Republican agenda. Borrowing is. So I hope that people will see their way clear to do not just the right thing by working Americans, to give them a break, especially those that have kids, but do the right thing for the country. Do the right thing for the future. Do the right thing for our kids. How selfish it is for us to be spending everything, reducing taxes, and knowing one day someone may ask us, granddad, what were you doing when they increased the taxes on me so much? Were you one of those people in the Congress that was a part of this? I, for one, would be able to say ``no.'' I stood up against them. They have had the majority temporarily, but, God willing, all of this will change and we can get back to some norm. It is nothing I am looking forward to, being in the majority, because we will have the responsibility to be responsible, and when we give tax breaks and social services and education and homes and make Social Security secure and come up with a decent prescription drug bill, we would say, ``And we have to find the money to pay for it.'' That is the only difference between Republicans and Democrats: We pay for what we want to do.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this substitute, for those who are listening, gives an opportunity for people to do the right thing for working families that deserve some type of tax break for their young kids, that deserve a deduction. Again, the basic difference is do we want to burden the children of the future with the price that we pay for this. We say no. Can we not think about doing things and providing this type of relief and paying for it? There has to be in this Tax Code that weighs 25 pounds some loopholes that my colleagues can find for the wealthy that you are prepared to say, this is a time of war, this is a time of sacrifice, we just cannot take care of everybody at the same time. Let us start off with those people that work every day. Those families, the kids from the families that are working, that are volunteering, that are in the National Guard, that are in the Reserve, these are the families that really need the help. When we start getting up there to $300,000 a year, these are not the families from the communities that produce our warriors. It is not me that says that; it is the DOD that says it. The statistics say it. The low- and the middle class are the warriors that are fighting in Iraq. These are the families that deserve the support. We welcome the fact that our colleagues saw their way clear to make adjustments so that combat pay would not exclude these families from some type of relief. But every time you bring a tax bill, do not drive us deeper and deeper in debt. We support the concept; we just support a better economic basis for the future. It is so selfish for us to do what we want to do politically this year and leave the burden on the generations thereafter that follow us. As Americans, as Members of Congress, the things that we have to do in terms of national security are not always just guns and planes and the military. It is a sound economic policy so that the future of our great country will not be left in the hands of foreign investors, but in the hands of economists that work with us as Members of Congress to do the responsible thing. So the reason that we have this substitute is so that we do not deviate from the good intentions of some of our Republican friends, but that we do have a sound economic policy. Now, my colleagues can talk all they want about the Alternative Minimum Tax. We are not going to attack you on that. You do not have the courage to stand up and talk about the $800 billion it would take to fix it. You are not going to fix it. We tried to give temporary relief. This is designed to create some type of relief for those in the higher income that we say must pay some type of tax. But what you have done is driven the tax burden on these middle-income people, and we tried to give relief. Let us try not to avoid the fiscal irresponsibility on this bill. Do not talk about the Alternative Minimum Tax. We beg you to bring a bill out to talk about that. Talk about this bill and who gets the relief. And I hope some of the people on the other side of the aisle might say, what does this do to the deficit. Let that be the key question: What is the difference between the bills: Which one is paid for, which one is not paid for, which drives us into the deficit and which one says that we break even because we have closed up loopholes? Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the opportunity to speak and the way he has managed this bill today. It causes us in the House and on the Committee on Ways and Means to wish we could do some of these debates in committee rather than wait for the Committee on Rules to give us a bill that we have to debate on the floor.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the brave soldiers who have given their lives while serving our great Nation during war. For 136 years American citizens have used Memorial Day as a special day to honor the servicemen and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Flowers and candles are lit on the graves of our heroes, ceremonies are held and Americans all over the country recognize the fallen soldiers in silence and solemnity. Memorial Day is also a day where we should think about our values and appreciate how lucky we are to live in a free and democratic country. We should remember Franklin D. Roosevelt's words of January 6, 1941 when he outlined his hopes for a better future for the world. ``In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear-- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighhbor--anywhere in the world.'' Memorial Day is a day when we should remember that there are still nations in the world which do not have these four freedoms. American soldiers are still fighting abroad to help people free themselves from oppression. Sadly, this Memorial Day we also have to remember that we are a nation at war. But whatever we think about this war should not undermine our unity in support of the brave troops fighting in Iraq. America stands behind the servicemen and women who, day after day, risk their lives. Almost 800 U.S. men and women in uniform have been killed in Iraq to the current date. I submit a list of the names of these heroes to be entered into the Congressional Record. Let us use Memorial Day to show our deep appreciation for these heroes. I again want to offer my sincerest sympathy to the families of the fallen soldiers. It is hard to imagine the pain these families are going through. But they can be assured that Americans will forever remember their loved ones with pride and gratefulness. I have founded the Iraq Fallen Heroes Caucus to honor the fallen heroes and to actively support their families. Seventy-three Members of Congress--Democrats as well as Republicans--are already members of this caucus and I hope that more will join. I again want to commend our soldiers for their great courage and willingness to fight for our country and encourage all Americans to use Memorial Day to honor our troops and remember those who have given their lives for the United States.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object and I will not object, I just want to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague from New York for affording this House the opportunity to express ourselves on this Memorial Day in honor of these fallen heroes. I appreciate working with him and I thank him very much for this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a revolutionary African-American leader, Malcolm X, who would have turned 79 today, May 19, 2004. Malcolm X is recognized in my community and several others as a hero. His contributions towards racial and social equality will never be forgotten, thus his legacy still exists today. Malcolm X's life was cut short when his influence as a political leader was reaching its pinnacle. Although his ability to leave a clear institutional legacy was thwarted, his influence was and continues to be wide reaching. Malcolm's religious and social transformation is something to be recognized and emulated. Malcolm X played a pivotal role in American and African-American history. He helped shape the course of the Civil Rights Movement and the path for equal social justice. Let us never forget the positive legacy Malcolm X left behind. On this day, May 19, 2004 let us all wish Malcolm X a Happy 79th Birthday.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of the historical Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of May 17, 1954. The struggle against racial discrimination did not end with this decision nor has it ended today. Racial segregation in public places like restaurants and buses was still legal after 1954 and the Brown II decision of May 31, 1955 was a step backwards by allowing Southern district courts to integrate public schools ``with all deliberate speed.'' But by declaring the segregation of public schools unconstitutional, the Supreme Court took a first step towards making the United States a society that lived up to its ideals of social equality, democracy and freedom. The future of every country depends to a large extent on its children. Social values are conveyed to our youngest generation mainly by their parents, but also by their schools. Racial hatred and intolerance are products of a lack of knowledge and the fear of the unknown. Only schools that are racially mixed will increase children's understanding of each other, of other cultures and backgrounds. But today our country is drifting into the wrong direction. Our schools are more racially intermixed than in 1954 but less than in 1968, when our great national leader Martin Luther King was assassinated. While 43 percent of all black youngsters attended predominantly white schools in 1988, this figure has fallen to only 30 percent today. And Hispanic students are even more segregated than African Americans. My home state New York is among the most segregated states in the country and my district is particularly hardly hit. Minority students in my district still attend schools that perform worse than predominantly white schools. While we should celebrate the historical event of the 1954 Supreme Court decision, let us keep in mind that racial discrimination and social inequality still exist in our country. Our education system still does not offer equal opportunities to all young people. Many schools are chronically underfunded. Let us celebrate the achievements of the civil rights movement in the past, but not forget that the biggest challenges still lie ahead.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan must not be overshadowed by current world events. We must address the ethnic cleansing and refugee situation with urgency, not just with words but with action. There is a moral obligation to pressure the Sudanese government to end the atrocities in western Sudan and ensure adequate humanitarian aid reaches the refugees in Chad. As the world remembers the 10th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, we cannot allow this to happen again.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Yosef A.A. Ben- Jochannan: professor, author, and educator of black history to troubled children. I would like to ask the members of the House to join in paying respect to an outstanding intellectual. Educated in Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Spain, ``Dr. Ben'' as he is affectionately called, is a true scholar, earning doctoral degrees in Cultural Anthropology and Moorish History. He is not only a historian but also a trained lawyer, engineer, and Egyptologist. Dr. Ben has been devoted to the exploration of ancient African civilizations and the emphasis of Egypt's importance towards the understanding of religion and African history. He moved to Harlem in 1942 and later began teaching troubled children at Harlem Prep about black history. He has also served as a professor in Cornell University's African Studies and Research Center. Since 1941 Dr. Ben has visited Egypt twice a year and hosted more than 30 educational tours of Egypt focusing on the roots of ancient Nile civilizations and religions. At 85 years old, he has published 42 books, one being the world renowned ``The Black Man of the Nile and His Family''. Dr. Ben's scholarly work in the illumination of Africa's role in present ``Western'' religions has broken new ground for historians. His exceptional educating and tours have inspired many. His work in Harlem has especially touched me and it is with great admiration that I and other Members of Congress shall look upon this brave innovator of African historiography.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the time. This is a very difficult time for me because I find it difficult to rise in opposition of this resolution, and the reason I do it is because there just does not seem to be enough outrage involved in what is being said. We should not have to apologize for brave men and women. We should not have to apologize for what the executive branch or the Congress has or has not done. We should not be put in this position. Several months ago, I called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense because I thought, as a major architect of this war, that he was fighting this war with other people's children, and when he said that he did not know whether or not we were winning or losing the war, when he said that he did not know whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing, when he said we did not have any plan to end the war, that it was a slog, I thought, as a former combat veteran, is this the leadership that we can expect from the Secretary of Defense? I thought that America and the military deserve better than that and he should resign. Now the information that we receive is that a climate has been created where a handful of people have committed these atrocities against human kind in an atmosphere where all of the people that are in Iraq have been demonized where it appears to American people and certainly to our military that the people in Iraq are responsible for 9/11 and causing us pain, that the Secretary of Defense did have information months ago about these atrocities; and that he kept it from the President, he kept it from the Congress and he kept it from the American people. I think that this rises to the point that it is a high crime and misdemeanor if he disappointed the President, kept information from the Congress and kept this information from the American people. I think America and the world wants us to show the outrage, not by rhetoric, but by taking action, and if the President does not fire the Secretary, if he does not resign, I think it is the responsibility of this Congress to file articles of impeachment and force him to leave office. Then the whole world would know, not just our military, not just Americans but the whole world what we stand for. If people can say ``mission completed'' when it looks like there is victory and we see atrocities like this and it happens on someone's watch, if they do not have the dignity to say I am sorry and move on, then we have the responsibility under our Constitution to remove these people from office. He kept the information away from this Congress. We have the responsibility of oversight. I am preparing articles of impeachment today.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon our nation to share the sacrifice imposed upon us by our war on terrorism. I have introduced a bill to reinstitute the draft for young Americans between the ages of 18 and 26 and national civilian service for all those not needed in the military. Since I have submitted this bill in January 2003, my conviction that we need a draft has risen on an almost daily basis. In March 2003 the administration decided to take the nation to war against Iraq for doubtful reasons. I do not think that members of this administration and Congress would have been so willing to launch a war if they had known that their own children might have to fight it. Fact is, that we are currently a nation in which the poor fight our wars while the affluent stay at home. The majority of our brave servicemen and women come either from poor rural areas or poverty- shaken inner-city neighborhoods. About thirty-five percent of our soldiers are minorities. These young people enlist in the military mainly for financial and educational opportunities. I believe that the burdens of war should not be shouldered solely by the poor segments of our society, but must be fairly shared by all racial and economic groups. I am pleased to see that during the last couple of months the support for a reintroduction of the draft has risen substantially among the American people. As our casualties in Iraq increase daily and exhausted soldiers are kept in Iraq under stop loss orders, the debate about shared sacrifice is gaining ground. I submit to the Congressional Record an article by journalist and Vietnam War Veteran William Broyles Jr. which was published in the New York Times on May 4, 2004. Mr. Broyles' article is one of the strongest pieces favoring the draft that I have read so far and it fully reflects my own opinion on this subject. [From the New York Times, May 4, 2004] A War for Us, Fought by Them (By William Broyles Jr.) WILSON, Wyo.--The longest love affair of my life began with a shotgun marriage. It was the height of the Vietnam War and my student deferment had run out. Desperate not to endanger myself or to interrupt my personal plans, I wanted to avoid military service altogether. I didn't have the resourcefulness of Bill Clinton, so I couldn't figure out how to dodge the draft. I tried to escape into the National Guard, where I would be guaranteed not to be sent to war, but I lacked the connections of George W. Bush, so I couldn't slip ahead of the long waiting list. My attitude was the same as Dick Cheney's: I was special, I had ``other priorities.'' Let other people do it. When my draft notice came in 1968, I was relieved in a way. Although I had deep doubts about the war, I had become troubled about how I had angled to avoid military service. My classmates from high school were in the war; my classmates from college were not--exactly the dynamic that exists today. But instead of reporting for service in the Army, on a whim I joined the Marine Corps, the last place on earth I thought I belonged. My sacrifice turned out to be minimal. I survived a year as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam. I was not wounded; nor did I struggle for years with post-traumatic stress disorder. A long bout of survivor guilt was the price I paid. Others suffered far more, particularly those who had to serve after the war had lost all sense of purpose for the men fighting it. I like to think that in spite of my being so unwilling at first, I did some small service to my country and to that enduring love of mine, the United States Marine Corps. To my profound surprise, the Marines did a far greater service to me. In 3 years I learned more about standards, commitment and yes, life, than I did in 6 years of university. I also learned that I had had no idea of my own limits: when I was exhausted after humping up and down jungle mountains in 100-degree heat with a 75-pound pack, terrified out of my mind, wanting only to quit, convinced I couldn't take another step, I found that in fact I could keep going for miles. And my life was put in the hands of young men I would otherwise never have met, by and large high-school dropouts, who turned out to be among the finest people I have ever known. I am now the father of a young man who has far more character than I ever had. I joined the Marines because I had to; he signed up after college because he felt he ought to. He volunteered for an elite unit and has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When I see images of Americans in the war zones, I think of my son and his friends, many of whom I have come to know and deeply respect. When I opened this newspaper yesterday and read the front-page headline, ``9 G.I.'s Killed,'' I didn't think in abstractions. I thought very personally. The problem is, I don't see the images of or read about any of the young men and women who, as Dick Cheney and I did, have ``other priorities.'' There are no immediate family members of any of the prime civilian planners of this war serving in it--beginning with President Bush and extending deep into the Defense Department. Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has a child in the war--and only half a dozen others have sons and daughters in the military. The memorial service yesterday for Pat Tillman, the football star killed in Afghanistan, further points out this contrast. He remains the only professional athlete of any sport who left his privileged life during this war and turned in his play uniform for a real one. With few exceptions, the only men and women in military service are the profoundly patriotic or the economically needy. It was not always so. In other wars, the men and women in charge made sure their family members led the way. Since 9/ 11, the war on terrorism has often been compared to the generational challenge of Pearl Harbor; but Franklin D. Roosevelt's sons all enlisted soon after that attack. Both of Lyndon B. Johnson's sons-in-law served in Vietnam. This is less a matter of politics than privilege. The Democratic elites have not responded more nobly than have the Republican; it's just that the Democrats' hypocrisy is less acute. Our president's own family illustrates the loss of the sense of responsibility that once went with privilege. In three generations the Bushes have gone from war hero in World War II, to war evader in Vietnam, to none of the extended family showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat Tillman didn't want to be singled out for having done what other patriotic Americans his age should have done. The problem is, they aren't doing it. In spite of the president's insistence that our very civilization is at stake, the privileged aren't flocking to the flag. The war is being fought by Other People's Children. The war is impersonal for the very people to whom it should be most personal. If the children of the nation's elites were facing enemy fire without body armor, riding through gantlets of bombs in unarmored Humvees, fighting desperately in an increasingly hostile environment because of arrogant and incompetent civilian leadership, then those problems might well find faster solutions. The men and women on active duty today--and their companions in the National Guard and the reserves--have seen their willingness, and that of their families, to make sacrifices for their country stretched thin and finally abused. Thousands of soldiers promised a 1-year tour of duty have seen that promise turned into a lie. When Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told the president that winning the war and peace in Iraq would take hundreds of thousands more troops, Mr. Bush ended his career. As a result of this and other ill-advised decisions, the war is in danger of being lost, and my beloved military is being run into the ground. This abuse of the voluntary military cannot continue. How to ensure adequate troop levels, with a diversity of backgrounds? How to require the privileged to shoulder their fair share? In other words, how to get today's equivalents of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney--and me--into the military, where their talents could strengthen and revive our fighting forces? The only solution is to bring back the draft. Not since the 19th century has America fought a war that lasted longer than a week with an all-volunteer army; we can't do it now. It is simply not built for a protracted major conflict. The arguments against the draft--that a voluntary army is of higher quality, that the elites will still find a way to evade service--are bogus. In World War II we used a draft army to fight the Germans and Japanese--two of the most powerful military machines in history--and we won. The problems in the military toward the end of Vietnam were not caused by the draft; they were the result of young Americans being sent to fight and die in a war that had become a disaster. One of the few good legacies of Vietnam is that after years of abuses we finally learned how to run the draft fairly. A strictly impartial lottery, with no deferments, can ensure that the draft intake matches military needs. Chance, not connections or clever manipulation, would determine who serves. If this war is truly worth fighting, then the burdens of doing so should fall on all Americans. If you support this war, but assume that Pat Tillman and Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me join in with the gentleman from Pennsylvania in trying to work to eliminate this burden that has been placed on people that it was never intended to penalize. But, Mr. Speaker, before we can work together on this issue, the issue has to come before our committee. Is that not a novel idea, a tax bill coming before the Committee on Ways and Means? Why is it that we yield our authority, our jurisdiction to the Committee on Rules? Is this not something that should not be a partisan issue? Is this bill, this AMT, not adversely affecting Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives? Why do we have to, in the middle of the night, shift this over to the Committee on Rules and then come to the House floor and say we want to spend $167 billion to go into debt but we only want to do it for 1 year? That is truly unfair. Why do you give away tax relief for the marriage penalty and then take it back away with the alternative minimum tax? Why do we have this sloppy way to develop a Tax Code that is so complicated that it takes hours for people to try to get the benefits that we say we are giving to them? So what I am saying to my friend from Pennsylvania, please do not tell us how you have got to struggle to make this permanent. Tell us how we can get the jurisdiction back in the Committee on Ways and Means. It would be wonderful if you were saying that we were going to schedule hearings on this so witnesses can come forward. And while you are doing that, would you please tell the American people whether they are providing this tax relief at the expense of the debt that they are giving their children and grandchildren. Would it not be good to know how you intend to pay for this? Where do we get the $17 billion? Do we take it away from DOD as we fight in Iraq? Do we take it away from homeland security or do we borrow it so the Chinese can buy our debt? I do not know. I am 74 so it may not be my problem, but it may be the problem of our children and our grandchildren, as we give relief, which we should give on a permanent basis in one hand, and then we take it back from our children and our grandchildren. This is no place to legislate this complex legislation. I just hope that no matter what happens at the end of this year, that somebody has the guts to say that tax legislation should come from the Committee on Ways and Means and not the distinguished Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) be allowed to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Cinco de Mayo, an important day in the Mexican community. In recent years the holiday of Cinco de Mayo or The Fifth Of May has gained much popularity in American culture. However, it is not, as many people believe a celebration of Mexican Independence. Mexico's actual Independence Day is September 16. Cinco de Mayo memorializes the Mexican army's triumph over the French at The Battle of Puebla in 1862. Cinco de Mayo pays homage to an ill prepared militia of about 4,500 overcoming what appeared to be the insurmountable well outfitted French army of 6,500 soldiers. This victory was a glorious moment in Mexican history, thus Cinco de Mayo is remembered. Cinco de Mayo's increased popularity is apparent in the innumerable celebrations along the U.S.-Mexico border and in parts of the U.S. that have a high population of people with a Mexican heritage. In these areas the holiday is a celebration of Mexican culture, of food, music, beverage and customs unique to Mexico. This date provides me with a welcome opportunity to recognize and appreciate the contributions being made by the growing Mexican-American communities across the United States. We in New York City and in my community are benefiting from the dynamic presence of this vibrant culture. It is important that on this day of remembrance that we do not let the message of triumph in the face of adversity be overridden by festivals, food, and music. Let us never forget the great contributions that Mexican-Americans have made and continue to make to our nation. Their presence is apparent in politics, arts, athletics, entertainment, military excellence, science, culinary arts, and embedded in the American language. On this important day we must recognize that the Mexican-American contribution to our nation is similar to the many other immigrant groups that came to our great nation with the same hopes of self- betterment and the pursuit of the American Dream. On Thanksgiving we commemorate the Pilgrims and Native Americans overcoming the harshness of winter and settlement into the New World, which speaks to the overcoming the seemingly insuperable. Cinco de Mayo symbolizes the power of faith in the face of adversity. It is rooted in our nation's history that in order to achieve greatness we must find the power within ourselves and never give up. If we are able to work hard and never lose faith then the sky is the limit. It is this exact belief that Cinco de Mayo truly embodies. Thus, this date has yet to receive the official recognition that it deserves. I sincerely hope and believe that one day Cinco de Mayo will be a designated national holiday.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because I misunderstood him. If his final argument is that my intent is just as honest as that of the underlying sponsor of this legislation, then I apologize to the gentleman for misunderstanding what he was saying.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope that the constant question that would remain on the floor is that the substitute does not increase the deficit by one penny and that the Republican bill increases the deficit by $104 billion. That is the difference. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the purposes of control.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his persistence in trying to bring tax relief to working people and married people who need it. Again, I would like to thank him for the courtesy which he extended to me at the Committee on Rules which allowed this substitute to be in order. I would like to say at the outset that I do hope that Members of this Congress would feel the ever growing jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules as we find very important and complex bills, especially tax bills, bypassing the Committee on Ways and Means and coming to this floor. If the Committee on Ways and Means had allowed the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) to have brought this amendment which he has championed over the years to the Committee on Ways and Means, perhaps he would see that Republicans do not have the only way in which to perfect a bill. Perhaps he would have seen that we would have followed his lead in providing for the standard deductions in and making certain that we would not have this so-called marriage penalties. But we would have perfected it so that the earned income tax credit, which is so important for low income people, would have gone into effect immediately so that they would have been able to enjoy the same benefits that their fellow taxpayers, albeit in the upper income tax brackets, would have enjoyed. Since last seeing this bill, I will have to admit that they have improved it so that in 4 or 5 years these low income people would receive some benefits, but if we had had a chance to work together in committee with amendments and, more importantly, with discussions, we would have been able to fix this so that the low income people and the middle income people would enjoy the benefits of the earned income tax credit. Another thing which is far more serious is that they give with one hand under the Weller bill, but by doing this and providing the benefits, they kick the taxpayer up into another income category where the monster of the alternative minimum tax grabs them and takes back that money. It would seem to me that if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and I were working together, what he would want to do, at least for this bill, recognizing the close to $1 trillion it would cost to eliminate the alternative minimum tax altogether, that we would have said, as we say in the substitute, that for purposes of this bill none of the benefits received under this bill will be denied because of the alternative minimum tax bill that would take it away. Lastly, let me say this: Is this the time for us to be talking about going further in debt? The billions of dollars that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) says Democrats would ask us to pay is not billions of dollars in increase. It would just make certain that the benefits during time of war of those people who God has blessed with receiving incomes of over $1 million will say, hold it, it is a time of war, it is a time of sacrifice; if anybody deserves a tax cut, let it be the people that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has championed, let it be the married people who struggle every day, let it be not only the middle income people but the lower income people and not the people that receive over a million bucks. So what I am suggesting is this. Let us take the theme that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has championed, albeit his couple have changed dramatically since he first brought this up, but that just shows that we have to respond more speedily to decent legislation, and let us take the substitute that has been perfected and say this. If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the majority wants to make certain that we expand the 15 percent tax bracket and we increase the standard deduction, count us in. If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) really wants the earned income tax credit to lock into place for all people when this becomes effective and not wait 4 years, we support the substitute and we support the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) wants to make certain that once the benefits are received by these married people, the monster of the AMT that we refuse to touch, not because we believe it is good legislation but because we just do not want to go into debt another trillion dollars, let us say when we get the courage to deal with the deficit we will do it, but for purposes of this bill and the people who look like or suffer the pain of the portrait of the people we see on the floor every year, we will make certain that the benefits will not be harmed by the AMT. I think this is the time for us and the generations to follow to be careful how further we go into deficit. We do not know how much the war is going to cost, but we do know how much this bill would cost, and this bill does not increase taxes. It rearranges the benefits so that the people making less than $1 million would say, thank you, Mr. Weller; thank you, Mr. Rangel; thank you for bringing Democrats and Republicans together to do the right thing. We tried to do this in the substitute. We hope we can get my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to pay tribute to an outstanding humanitarian organization, the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations. NECO, as it is better known, celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. NECO's mandate is simple but powerful, universal in scope and humanitarian in purpose. It seeks to preserve ethnic diversity, promote equality and tolerance, combat injustice and bring about harmony and unity among all peoples. Since its founding in 1984 this multi-ethnic coalition has taken leadership in the promotion of diversity and has sponsored programs, activities and educational initiatives designed to break through the walls of ethnic misunderstanding and ignorance. I am especially pleased and proud in this tribute to acknowledge the inspirational leadership and tireless work of NECO's Chairman and a good friend, William Denis Fugazy. Bill has been the leader of NECO throughout these 20 years and in that role has become one of our nation's most respected humanitarian leaders and a dedicated visionary, who constantly works to promote brotherhood and respect between all citizens. NECO's most distinct program is familiar to many of you and to the general public. Each year since 1986, NECO has awarded the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. It honors Americans of various ethnic origins for their outstanding contributions to this country. It is an award that has been bestowed on all American Presidents since 1986 as well as Nobel Prize winners, leaders in entertainment, business and science and a number of members of Congress on a bi-partisan basis. I was proud in 2001 to cosponsor a resolution which passed the House and Senate to recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Beyond the Ellis Island Medals, NECO has provided leadership in a wide range of humanitarian and national civic work. This includes raising more than $1 million to renovate and refurbish the Immigrant Wall of Honor on Ellis Island, a wall which contains the names of more than 200,000 immigrants to the United States who first aimed to begin the American dream on Ellis Island. One of the best-known of NECO's programs is the Forum Children's Foundation. This project involves sponsoring children from various third world nations who are in need of urgent medical assistance to come to the United States and receive this care. To date more than 30 children have been provided with surgeries and related care that could be characterized as either life saving or life changing in nature. The Foundation assumes the responsibility for the costs associated with the care and the transportation necessary to receive it. In this endeavor they have made a genuine difference in the lives of not only the children but their families as well. NECO in its history has been deeply involved as an advocate to combat the rising local, state, and national problem of hate crimes. It began in response to one of the most heinous of all hate crimes that was committed against James Byrd in Texas. NECO in addition to helping the Byrd family with the funeral costs, also established two scholarships a year in conjunction with the James Byrd Jr. Foundation for Racial Healing. NECO has worked closely with the sponsors of comprehensive hate crime prevention legislation in both the House and the Senate working to educate and inform the Congress about the need to prevent hate crimes by providing law enforcement with adequate resources and responsibility. Today in our nation we average nearly 25 hate crimes a day and it is obvious that we must do more to combat the problem. NECO is constant in its efforts to combat negative ethnic and racial stereotyping. This has included work with the Family Exchange Peace Program. This program brings thousands of school children and their families together to raise awareness about the diverse racial and ethnic heritage of New York City as well as to encourage racial, ethnic and cultural harmony. NECO also is responsible for one of the most important Italian American organizations, the Coalition of Italo-American Associations. The Coalition representing 143 organizations around the nation with a membership of some 1.5 million works in conjunction with NECO on the key mission to fight discrimination including negative media stereotyping, and to spotlight the contributions which Italian Americans make and continue to make to America. NECO also is responsible for the Forum Club, a leading business organization in New York City, which sponsors monthly high-level programs with prominent speakers from government, media and business. Over the past 20 years NECO has distinguished itself in many humanitarian programs and initiatives. It has stayed true to its mission to promote the strength of diversity and to promote understanding and harmony. Its positive mission and message is challenged so often by some harsh realities of modern society such as hate crimes and discrimination, yet NECO's strength of character and sense of commitment has been unwavering. It is a special honor for me to recognize NECO and its great work these past twenty years. I salute NECO's leadership including its Board of Directors, staff and volunteers and most especially their Chairman, Bill Fugazy. NECO is an outstanding model of an organization which does so well by doing such good.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of Israel who celebrate their Independence Day today in accordance with the Hebrew calendar. Fifty-six years ago, on May 14 1948, the Jewish people proclaimed the establishment of their own state and Israel was born. After hundreds of years of diaspora and persecution and three years after the full terrors of the holocaust were disclosed to the world, the Jewish people were finally able to return to the land of their biblical roots. The Israeli and the American people have had a special relationship ever since 1948. President Harry S Truman was the first head of state to recognize the new country. He had always seen the extraordinary connection of the American people and the Jewish population in the Middle East. In his memoirs he stressed that both the Americans and the Jews in the Near East were pioneers who turned unexploited lands into powerful engines of growth. Under the hard working hands and the sweat of the Jewish people, the bleak desert started to bloom and within years of its existence the state of Israel became an economical developed country which attracted immigrants from all over the world. Even before the state of Israel was established, President Truman foresaw that the Jewish state would be a stable democracy with values similar to those of the United States. Truman admired Israel's first President Chaim Weizmann as a great statesman and the relationship of these two men was one of mutual understanding and respect. These sentiments are still dominant between Americans and Israelis today. Israel has had to fight against external foes from the very beginning of its existence. With great bravery, the Israeli people have been defending their country for 56 years and have lost more than 21,700 soldiers and thousands of civilians in this struggle. Yesterday, the Israeli people observed a special annual day of remembrance for the victims of this fight. I want to express my sympathy to the people of Israel for their human losses in the past and in the present. The American people are deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis and hope that these two people will soon find a way to live together in peace. I wish the Israeli people a peaceful and cheerful Independence Day. They have every reason to be proud of their country.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.