Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask the gentleman from Florida might he extend that bipartisan to join with me in asking that the conference meets. Without a meeting there is no agreement.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let us move forward and take this small first step, but let us listen to other steps that we can take to really show the depth of our appreciation of the sacrifice that our men and women in the National Guard and the Reserves are making. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, but I do so with a very, very heavy heart because what my dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), has pointed out is the inequities that exist in this war and the lack of sacrifice being shared by so many Americans. It is for that reason why I think that we have to take a look at the draft. We have to make certain that when we talk about bringing them on and we are not going to cut and run, that we are not just talking about people like these reservists that we are trying to help today, people who the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) pointed out cannot make their rent payment, families who are actually receiving charitable allocations of food. I saw a family left behind as their husband and father was in Iraq standing in line receiving food and clothing because they cannot afford it because of the reduction in salary that the reservists suffer as a result of performing their heroic duty. They suffer loss of income, many of them do not get their decent jobs back, their families have lost health benefits, and what are we suggesting we do today? What are we suggesting that we do today? We are suggesting that these low-income people that are being placed in harm's way, that when they dip into their individual retirement funds, when they are forced to jeopardize their retirement because of their service to their country, that we do not compensate them for this dramatic economic loss, we do not say, hey, we know how many private citizens are going there getting 10 times your salary, we know what their health benefits are, we know what their death benefits are, we know what their compensation really is, we are not saying that we are going to adjust that. No, what we are saying is if they are forced to go into their family's retirement fund, they can dip into it as deep as they want, jeopardize the future fiscal support of their family, and we will not make them pay a penalty. Well, I hope Members vote aye. I hope this passes by voice vote so we will not have to explain this big patriotic thing that we have done for our fighting reservists and National Guardsmen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, when the Senate does call, I hope that the minority be notified where the conference is being held, that we would be allowed to participate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, because I am concerned about the feelings of the gentleman from Florida, and not believing that we can move forward on this in a bipartisan way, I am going to make an offer that I do not believe that he can refuse, and that is we have agreed that this would be a very small step in doing what we as Americans, we as Members of Congress would want to do. We Democrats have a lot of ideas. We have a committee that is working on how we can best support our troops, National Guard, reservists and active. If his office would work with my office with the ideas that they have, maybe we can come together with a meaningful, a real meaningful, support bill to show how much we appreciate the extraordinary commitment that these men and women are making. And so perhaps once a week I will come to the floor and call upon my friend, the gentleman from Florida, cannot we collectively do something so that we are not criticizing the minimum we do, but we be supporting the maximum that fiscally we can.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the senior Democrat on the Committee on International Relations, and one of the most eloquent voices that we have in this body.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to disagree in the most friendly way with the gentleman from Florida. This is the time for us to show our support for our Reservists and National Guard. This is the time for us to give you on the other side of the aisle an opportunity to show what package you would want to present so that we in a bipartisan way can present this. It is no profile in courage for us to say you are now able to borrow money from your pension funds and have it penalty-free, penalty-free, penalty-free. Eighty-eight of the 704 people killed in action are Reservists and National Guard. Their families know that we have about 25,000 civilians over there that really get better benefits than they are getting. So we are only using this as a vehicle to offer you the opportunity to join in a bipartisan way with a package that should sweep the patriotism of this House and to really say we are not remembering you in our prayers, but we are remembering you in the pocketbook where these people are suffering. Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Cesar Chavez's birthday. I would like to ask the members of the House to join in paying respect to a man who brought awareness of labor injustices perpetrated upon migrant workers to national light. Cesar Chavez worked tirelessly to improve the lives of America's farm workers by securing their rights to recognize and bargain collectively for fair working conditions. Chavez grew up in the fruit and vegetable fields and knew what it meant to work them from dawn to dusk. He knew the injustices that faced labor workers on a daily basis, and knew there had to be a change. From those fields, Chavez rose to the head of the United Farm Workers of America, UFW, instilling in the UFW the principals of non-violence practiced by Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. When the UFW began striking in the 1960s, to protest the treatment of farm workers, the strikers took a pledge of non-violence, determined not to detract from the message of improved labor conditions. Chavez led a successful 5- year strike-boycott. Through this boycott, Chavez was able to forge a national support coalition of unions, church groups, students, minorities, and consumers. By the end of the boycott everyone knew the chant that unified all groups, ``Si se puede!''--yes we can. It was a chant of encouragement, pride and dignity. Throughout his lifetime Mr. Chavez continued to speak out and helped communities to mobilize by assisting them with voter registration drives and insisting that minority communities had just as much a right to have equitable access to educational opportunities. My constituents of the 15th Congressional District join millions of Americans in celebrating and recognizing Chavez's legacy on today his 70th birthday. This celebration should not be limited to today, it should continue and we, as members of Congress should ensure that in today's world, the rights of workers are still protected.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ann Sunstein Kheel who died in New York City on December 28 at the age of 88. Ms. Kheel was a woman as close to a saint as I have ever known. She dedicated her whole life to the fight for social and racial justice. Born in Pittsburgh in 1915, she went to Cornell University where she earned a degree in General Studies in 1936. She lived in New York City ever since. Ms. Kheel's goal was to make the American society ``inclusive rather than exclusive.'' It was her motto ``never to entertain except interracially'' and not to support organizations which were not integrated. She remained truthful to these ideas throughout her life. She served on the board of the New York Urban League for more than thirty years and initiated its Federick Douglass Awards Dinner in 1966. For 25 years she was the chairwoman of this event, which honors leaders in the private and public sectors who try to eliminate race barriers and promote opportunities for the disadvantaged. In the 1960s Ms. Kheel sponsored the purchase of books for students attending the Frederick Douglass Junior High School in Harlem who had completed research on individuals who had had a significant impact on African-American or Puerto-American history. In 1963 and 1964 she was a delegate to the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities and, from 1971 to 1986, she served as a trustee of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. The NAACP awarded her with the Unity Award in 1971. Ms. Kheel was also deeply involved in campaigns for environmental justice. She served as chairwoman of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Commission from 1977 to 1986 and as trustee of the Rainforest Alliance. The promotion of better public education in New York City was another issue close to her heart. Ms. Kheel ensured that her great contributions to the social life of New York City would not end with her death. In her last will, she asked her husband of 66 years, labor lawyer Theodore Kheel, to provide funding for charities. The Kheel family decided to create the Ann S. Kheel Charitable Trust and endowed it with $1 million. I am very honored that the Kheel family has asked me to chair this Trust which will provide funding for educational, civil rights and other organizations serving disadvantaged New York neighborhoods. Ms. Kheel was an admirable woman and serves as a shining example in our society. Her death is a big loss for New York City, but she will always be remembered as a woman dedicated to achieving more social and racial equality in our society.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think this one vote has answered my question. The Chair wanted just one more affirmative vote. Messrs. DUNCAN, OSE, SMITH of Michigan and WHITFIELD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. OWENS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the motion was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we will never challenge the Chair's discretion, because we appreciate the intelligence which he brings to this august body. So that is the reason why we should like to support the Chair if he could only share with us the basis of his decision.

Mr. RANGEL. I know that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, could the brilliant Chair share with us the basis of his discretionary decision on this most important vote?

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute one of the major leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, Dr. Dorothy I. Height, as she celebrates her 92nd birthday. As an African-American teacher and social activist, Dr. Height has secured her place in American society as a true liberator of black America. Born on March 24, 1912, in Richmond, Virginia, she was educated in the public school system in Rankin, Pennsylvania. Dr. Height established herself at a very early age as a student with exceptional oratorical skills. Those skills earned her a scholarship to New York University where she received her bachelor's and master's in 4 years. Dr. Height began her career working as a caseworker with the New York City Welfare Department. At the age of 25 she became a volunteer with the National Council of Negro Women while working simultaneously with the National Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). Dr. Height developed leadership-training activities for volunteers and staff, and developed programs to promote interracial education. In 1957 Dr. Height was named President of the Council of Negro Women, a position she held until 1997. While serving as President she worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and A. Philip Randolph. She encouraged President Dwight D. Eisenhower to desegregate schools and President Lyndon B. Johnson to appoint African American women to positions in government. As one of the major leaders of the Civil Rights Movement Dr. Height held many important positions such as being appointed as a consultant on African affairs to the secretary of state, and serving on the President's Committee on the Employment of the Handicapped. Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan recently appointed Dr. Height to the Advisory Council of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and by President Bush to the National Advisory Council on Aging. Dr. Height received a number of awards for her outstanding contributions, including: Woman of the Year from Ladies Home Journal (1974), induction into The National Women's Hall of Fame (1993), Springarn Medal from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1993), William L. Dawson Award for ``decades of public service to people of color and particularly women'' from the Congressional Black Caucus, Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Clinton, and holds honorary degrees from more than 20 universities, including Harvard, Howard, Princeton, and Tuskegee Institute. At the height of nearly 70 years of service Dr. Height is the author of a new book: ``Open Wide The Freedom Gates: A Memoir.'' She continues to promote the importance of unity in black family life by organizing the Black Family Reunion Celebration, which continues to preserve the traditional values of the African-American family. Dr. Height is still active socially and professionally and serves as President Emeritus of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shulamith Koenig's outstanding contributions in the field of human rights. Ms. Koenig is the founder and executive director of PDHRE-People's Movement for Human Rights Education, an organization dedicated to promoting human rights and democracy worldwide through workshops, lectures, articles and books. Ms. Koenig has conducted workshops with educators, human rights advocates and community leaders in Asia, Africa, Central Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. For the last 14 years, Ms. Koenig has dedicated her life to educating people in the field of human rights as well as economic and social development around the world. Her efforts were recognized when the United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights award was presented to her on December 10, 2003. The United Nations Prize is given to individuals and organizations every 5 years in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. I am proud to say that Ms. Koenig is a resident of my congressional district and I commend her receipt of this prestigious honor. She now joins the list of prominent persons who have received the prize, including Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, former South African President Nelson Mandela, and President Jimmy Carter. Supported by the United Nations Development Program, Ms. Koenig spearheads the Human Rights Cities project, which has trained 500 young community leaders as human rights educators in 30 cities around the world. Founded by Ms. Koenig in 1989, the People's Movement for Human Rights Education is a nonprofit international organization, designed to improve the lives of people in more than 60 countries around the world. The organization has offices in New York, Argentina, India, Philippines, Mali, and Austria. There are schools and libraries bearing Ms. Koenig's name in Mumbai, India; Chenai, India; and Bamaco, Mali; and the library Kensington Rights Welfare Union in Philadelphia, PA. Ms. Koenig was born in Jerusalem and majored in Industrial Engineering and Management at Columbia University. She has edited and published articles in numerous books and journals and is a lecturer and an award-winning sculptor. Ms. Koenig and her husband Jerome have three children and four grandchildren.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for edification since he is bewildered?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the chairman may be fascinated by my war experiences. I did not talk about it. When he has time, I will give him more time than he will ever want to hear about it. What I am saying is this: We have an opportunity to laud our service people. You know there is one issue on this floor, and that is whether or not we were misled in getting involved in this. I do not care which side one is on. We want to laud the servicemen. Why would you put Saddam Hussein in this resolution? Why did you not leave him out so that we could have unanimous consent that we laud the military? You deliberately put Saddam Hussein in there to divide us and not to bring us together.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most difficult periods of time that I have had, because I do not get angry when the majority drafts bills in order to embarrass Democrats. I think that goes with the job. But I think it is really insulting and embarrassing when they use the troops as a vehicle to embarrass us. There is nobody on either side of the aisle that will challenge the deep respect that we have for the men and women in our Armed Forces. But when the majority drafts a bill and says this is a Republican bill, you know that there is something crummy about it. You just have to look and find out what it is. So they start saying all of these things that we agree to; but then they say, and it is a safer world as a result of Saddam Hussein being captured. It would seem to me that the lives of Americans that are on the line, their safety, that if there is anything that we as Democrats and politicians could find as sacred, if we just wanted to commend them and their families and their loved ones, that we would go out of our way to make certain that we do not put anything in there that could be described by political pundits as a poison pill. We should run it by Democrats and Republicans and say, Is there anything at all offensive in this because we do not want this to be controversial? I am so glad I was not a fly on the wall when the Republican leadership put this together because in my heart I do not truly believe that they wanted to find some way to laud the troops, but they wanted some way to try to find to embarrass Democrats. To use our military is one of the cheapest things that I think you can do. Let us talk about who these military people are that we are lauding. This is one of those things I learned on Lennox Avenue when I was a hoodlum. There are always some people talking about, Let's go to fight. Let's settle this. Bring them on and we're not going to tolerate anything except total victory. But when it comes time to get involved in that fight, they are the same ones saying, ``You go ahead in the fight, I'll hold your coat.'' There is a lot of talk about shared sacrifice, but I hope we take a look and see who are the people who are volunteers, that is, volunteering putting their lives on the line each and every day. I remember in June of 1950 I was in Fort Lewis, Washington, and we were alerted that the Second Infantry Division was going to go to Korea to fight the North Koreans. Not one of us ever said, ``What is the fight about? What is the war about?'' We only knew that we were warriors, we were military people; and when that flag went up, we saluted it. I go off and see the Reservists. I go off and see the National Guard going to Iraq. Not one of them has asked the political question as to why are we going over there. Yet I think that we have the political responsibility when we endorse the wars to find out not only why are we doing it but we have a political responsibility to be satisfied that it is the right thing. If we differ about that, that is what America is all about. That is what the Congress is all about. But you do not put that controversy in a bill when these military people do not have the options to discuss whether the war is right or wrong. They have the responsibility to obey the Commander in Chief. I have taken a little survey along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) about who is fighting this war and these people that we are commending. Believe me, they did not sign up to get rid of Saddam Hussein. As evil as this guy may be, one day some of us may be asked the question, Was it worth 550 American lives or 3,000 people that are in our heart, some with and some without Purple Hearts? One day someone would ask, where did they come from? Did they enlist to fight terrorism, or did they enlist because there were no jobs available? Are these minorities from the inner cities that are looking for a better way of life but accept their responsibility as to why they enlisted? Do they come from districts such as the gentleman from Missouri's district, the rural areas where unemployment is rampant? And why do we find there are more blacks, almost twice as many as the population, in the Army and how does that compare where in my city 50 percent of the African American men are unemployed? Do the Members not think that had something to do with the enlistments? Do the Members not think they wanted to send a check home to their mom because they could not get a job? Do the Members not think they want the educational benefits to improve themselves, as I did as a high school dropout? And why do we have to commend them when we find out just today that 12 percent of the Nation's population is black but they represent 20 percent of those that were killed. Black deaths in the Iraq war exceeds the rate of Vietnam. Go to Hispanics, we see the same thing. Go to white Americans and we see the same thing. So we do not need a political resolution to try to polarize this Congress. We know we love and respect those people who salute that flag. And to put in a political controversial clause to attempt to embarrass us is just not going to work. How low can you get when you use the military as a way to attempt to embarrass your colleagues?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Dominican concert pianist and piano teacher Floralba Del Monte, the ``First Lady of Dominican Classical Music,'' who has just celebrated her 75th birthday, and who this year also celebrates several professional anniversaries: The 55th anniversary of her debut in the United States at Carnegie Hall; the 50th anniversary of her graduation from the Paris Conservatoire; the 45th anniversary of her appointment to the Piano Faculty at the Santo Domingo National Conservatoire of Music; the 53rd anniversary of her U.S. network television debut on CBS; and the 52nd anniversary of her debut in Washington, DC, at the Dominican Embassy. Floralba Del Monte was the first Dominican concert pianist who performed in North America, and the first Dominican performer who appeared at world-famous Carnegie Hall in New York, making her professional and U.S. debuts there on June 14th, 1949, performing on this recital the U.S. premiere of the ``Sambumbia'' or Dominican Rhapsody for Piano by Dominican composer Juan Francisco Garcia, ``Father of Dominican Music.'' In the late 1940s and the early 1950s, she was the first Dominican classical musician who professionally appeared at several of the most prestigious concert halls in New York City, including Carnegie Hall, Town Hall, Steinway Hall, Kauffmann Auditorium and Labor Temple Concert Hall; at important venues such as the International School of Arts, American Women's Union, Fun & Fine Arts Club and the Women's Club of New York; on radio stations and television networks such as NBC, CBS, The Voice of America, WNYC, and WLIB; and at distinguished residences in New York City, performances in which several Dominican piano works were performed for the first time in the U.S. These acclaimed performances established Floralba Del Monte on New York's classical music scene and social circles of the 1950s, the first Dominican performer to make a name for herself in New York. Floralba Del Monte was the first Dominican performer to appear on U.S. network television, making her debut on CBS on October 1, 1951 as one of the selected artists invited to appear on the Arthur Godfrey Show special that inaugurated coast-to-coast television broadcasting in the United States. During this broadcast, she performed the world premiere of her own arrangement for three pianos of the popular ``Malaguena'' by Ernesto Lecuona, starring as the First Piano of the Pan-American Piano Trio. This piano trio was founded by Floralba Del Monte in New York, and made its world debut on that historic night, with Del Monte, Peruvian pianist Elvira Roman and U.S. pianist Dolores Layko representing the three Americas--Central, South, and North. Floralba Del Monte was the first Dominican performer who performed in the Nation's Capital, making her debut there on May 16, 1952, in a gala recital at the Dominican Embassy, and giving another recital at the Pan-American Union, in which she offered the Washington, DC, premieres of several Dominican piano works. Floralba Del Monte is recognized as a pianist of exceptional interpretative force, holding a unique place in the Dominican Republic that consecrates her as one of the most revered Dominican artistic figures in Dominican history. In the Dominican Republic, as the concert pianist of most important legacy, and as the music educator of most influential pedagogical work, her artistic legacy that spans five decades of unprecedented achievements, includes: Performing the Dominican, North American, and European premieres of the most important and difficult piano works of Dominican music literature, distinguishing herself for her fervent patriotism, including Dominican piano works on her appearances in her country and abroad; being the first performer invited by the Dominican Government to give a concert tour in the country; being the mentor of the most important school of piano ever created in the Dominican Republic, a school comprising several generations of accomplished pianists, including winners of international music competitions, whom she taught during a distinguished tenure of more than 40 years as a Piano Faculty member at the Santo Domingo Conservatoire; and being director of the Santo Domingo Conservatoire, whose recently completed tenure of more than a decade is already regarded as the Golden Age of that preeminent Dominican institution. This legacy, deservingly consecrates Floralba Del Monte as the unrivaled ``First Lady of Dominican Classical Music.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for giving some of us an opportunity to show what patriots we really are and how much we love this country, which has given us one of the highest opportunities, and that is to serve in this House of Representatives. On November 30, 1950, I found myself shot by the Communist Chinese on the northern border of North Korea. When it was all over, I thanked God I had my life with the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star and came home and felt I was a patriot. That fighting was to give all Americans the opportunity, some that had been denied my forefathers, to participate fully, to support our government when we thought she was right and to be patriotic enough to be able to criticize our government when we thought she was wrong. I think we in the Congressional Black Caucus have even a higher responsibility than a lot of Members of Congress because our constituents believe in us so much that they give us the latitude to express their concerns and to talk about their aspirations as well as their fears. That is one of the reasons why we do not have to take polls, we do not have to get on the phone and ask them what do you think about the war. But we know that as great as this country is, that one of our responsibilities is to make certain that she is all that she can be; and it is our responsibility, as our forefathers before us, to take it to that higher level, and we cannot do that if the resources of this country are depleted or we find our youth are not there to pick up the baton and take it to a higher level. If this country can decide because we do not like somebody or we think that person is a threat or because they have demonized their own people or they have talked in a way that we do not like against the United States, that we can have a preemptive strike and remove that person, and then we find out later as we find every day that the information we relied on was faulty, what happens if next time the information is reliable but just no one believes us? What happens when the President says that there is an imminent threat against the United States of America, and then we find that Americans and the Congress say, yes, we have heard that before. It just seems to me that those people who voted to give the President this authority felt in their hearts that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America. But I listened carefully to the President changing all of the reasons that he had given for why he asked this Nation to send its young people to Iraq in a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. There used to be a time when he would talk about the relationship to al Qaeda. There used to be a time when he talked about weapons of mass destruction. There used to be a time that he talked about an imminent threat to the United States of America. But if I hear him correctly now, he is saying, what difference does it make, we got rid of Saddam Hussein. What difference does it make? It makes the difference if the President had come here to the House of Representatives and said, do you want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We probably would have had a unanimous vote, yes, we do. But what if the next question was: Are you prepared to give us 532 lives of young people in order to do it? Suppose he said the price to get rid of this international terrorist was to have 2,000 men and women maimed and crippled and in our hospitals. Suppose he said in this war the Secretary of Defense would report to the American people, albeit by a leak, that he did not know if we were winning this war or not even after these losses. Suppose, further, Mr. Rumsfeld would say he had no clue whether or not we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. Suppose he said that he was just thinking out of the box, but in his opinion the whole thing was a slog. Suppose he said that in addition to having our young men and women who love this country and salute the flag every time it goes up, that enlisted into the Army coming from our inner cities and rural areas in order to get a better education and better handle on life, or like some of us who volunteered, that we could not make it economically and this was an opportunity to get better training. Suppose he said even though they had 3-, 6-, and 9-year enlistments, that they would give them additional time to serve because it was a national emergency, suppose the President had told us when he asked the Congress to take out Saddam Hussein that 20 percent of the soldiers over there would be men and women from the Reservists and the National Guard. Suppose he said they would not be all young people, they would be 30, 40, 50, even 60 years old. They would have to give up their civilian jobs, and some have already served the military. Suppose he said they would have a drop in their income from their civilian pay, and these people who go away for weekends and 2 weeks to train would now have to be separated from their wives and families for over a year. Suppose he had said that they would have to go to Iraq two and three times and that soon these civilian soldiers will be 40 percent of the occupation of Iraq. Mr. Speaker, suppose he had said that we are running out of people and that we would have to consider a draft, that we are talking about our Nation will have to make a sacrifice in order to remove terrorism from this region of the world, and everybody had to share in the sacrifice. Members of Congress, their children and grandchildren would be drafted, members of the cabinet would be drafted. Suppose he said in order to get rid of this demon, all of these things would be necessary, I wonder whether or not the President would have gotten the vote if we knew all of these facts. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am saying it is so important for us to be able to alert America that this whole idea of removing Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the terrible strike that the terrorists had in my beloved City and State of New York. The President, by the admission of Secretary O'Neill and other competent writings, had already planned to remove Saddam Hussein, that the whole concept of a preemptive strike was a part of our foreign policy, and it was the tragic event of 9/11 that allowed him to connect an idea that they already decided to do, taking advantage of the emotion of the Members of Congress who thought they were reflecting the emotion of the people in the United States. If we just allow this to go by, if we do not have competent outside investigations and if our Secretary of State said he did not know if he would have gone to the U.N. and supported this invasion if that information had been there, then what happens if we do have another crisis and that is the situation that is before us? So I ask the Congress to do this, please do not forget our true fallen heroes. It is not the ones that just return home; it is those that come home in the darkness of night. We do not even know whether we have a flag over their coffin because the press are forbidden to be there. We ask that those of us in the Congress form a caucus for these fallen heroes to be there for their families and kids and to make certain that we are treating them not like we are treating the veterans in the budget today, but that we make a commitment that even though they are not our kids in terms of being our biological kids or grandkids, they are the children of our Nation and we have made a commitment that we are going to protect them. And we are going to raise the standard before we go to war to make certain that our Nation is being threatened. Going over there and having people being killed by land mines, just standing up as sitting ducks or falling helicopters, that is not what you call fighting for America. That is being put in a no-win position and we are losing the life of one American a day. I am asking Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, be patriotic, be patriots. Sometimes it takes a little courage and we have to explain to our voters and our constituents what we are talking about. But we do not have a draft. Some Members do not know the pain the families are going through, and the President says that some Americans do not even know we are at war. Mr. President, the families of those that have been struck in Iraq, they know we are at war. We in the Congressional Black Caucus would like to educate the American people that war is hell and we should never, never, never go to war if we can negotiate a peace.