Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in support of the Miller amendment, but I am a little surprised that my Republican friends believe that we do this for political reasons and that this is not the place to have political goals in terms of protecting our constituents. I would be the last one to say that the President of the United States wants to go to war for political reasons. I think it is an interest in steroids when he made this a priority in the State of the Union and was not political, and the fact that he wants to make permanent tax decreases for the rich. All we are trying to do is say that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. And we are concerned and will do everything that we can to try to bring some comfort to those people, the 9 million people who are without jobs. It means that they lose self-esteem, they lose the ability to take care of their families, some have lost their homes. And I think that whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, this should be a priority. It is okay to talk about how the stock market is going, but it gives small comfort to people that have not been able to have respect and dignity and be able to work. Now, some of my colleagues are saying that the people that we are giving unemployment assistance to, that these people will not be seeking employment. They know that is untrue, and they know they say that, too, for political reasons. But do not make politics such a dirty word. We had an election where a President received less than the popular vote. There is a reason for it, and we want to make it clear in this House of Representatives, where we are elected, the difference between you and us. So do not be offended by it because we will be talking about education, about health care, about veterans benefits, about the deficits that you have driven this country into, and we will be talking about a war that we should not be involved in too. So when you say politics, be very kind and put sugar on the words because sometimes your next speaker may have to swallow the very same words that they spoke on this floor.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the 1963 March on Washington, the life of one of the 20th century's most brilliant individuals came to an end. W.E.B. DuBois--scholar, Pan-Africanist, political leader, champion of the struggle against white supremacy in the United States-- died in Ghana on August 27, 1963. This year marks the 40th anniversary of DuBois' death. DuBois was born on February 23, 1868 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. At that time Great Barrington had perhaps 25, but not more than 50, Black people out of a population of about 5,000. While in high school DuBois showed a keen concern for the development of his race. At age fifteen he became the local correspondent for the New York Globe. While in this position he conceived it his duty to push his race forward by lectures and editorials reflecting the need for Black people to politicize themselves. Upon graduating high school DuBois desired to attend Harvard. Although he lacked the financial resources, the aid of family and friends, along with a scholarship he received to Fisk College (now University), allowed him to head to Nashville, Tennessee to further his education. In his three years at Fisk (1885-1888), DuBois' first trip to the south, his knowledge of the race problem manifested. After seeing discrimination in unimaginable ways, he developed a determination to expedite the emancipation of his people. As a result, he became a writer, editor, and a passionate orator. Simultaneously, he acquired a belligerent attitude toward the color bar. After graduation from Fisk, DuBois entered Harvard through scholarships. He received his bachelor's degree in 1890 and immediately began working toward his master's and doctor's degrees. After studying at the University of Berlin for some time, DuBois obtained his doctor's degree from Harvard. Indeed, his doctoral thesis, The Suppression of the African Slave Trade in America, remains the authoritative work on that subject, and is the first volume in Harvard's Historical Series. At the age of twenty-six, DuBois accepted a teaching job at Wilberforce in Ohio. After two years at Wilberforce, DuBois accepted a special fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania to conduct a research project in Philadelphia's seventh ward slums. This gave him the opportunity to study Blacks as a social system. The result of this endeavor was The Philadelphia Negro. This was the first time such a scientific approach to studying social phenomena was undertaken. Consequently, DuBois is known as the father of Social Science. After completing the study, DuBois accepted a position at Atlanta University to further his teachings in sociology. Originally, DuBois believed that social science could provide the knowledge to solve the race problem. However, he gradually concluded that in a climate of violent racism, social change could only be accomplished through protest. In this view, he clashed with Booker T. Washington, the most influential black leader of the period. Washington preached a philosophy of accommodation, urging blacks to accept discrimination for the time being and elevate themselves through hard work and economic gain, thus winning the respect of whites. DuBois believed that Washington's strategy, rather than freeing the black man from oppression, would serve only to perpetuate it. Two years later, in 1905, DuBois led the founding of the Niagara Movement; a small organization chiefly dedicated to attacking the platform of Booker T. Washington. The organization, which met annually until 1909, served as the ideological backbone and direct inspiration for the NAACP, founded in 1909. DuBois played a prominent part in the creation of the NAACP and became the association's director of research and editor of its magazine, The Crisis. Indeed, DuBois' Black Nationalism had several forms. The most influential of which was his advocacy of Pan-Africanism; the belief that all people of African descent had common interests and should work together in the struggle for their freedom. As the editor of The Crisis, DuBois encouraged the development of Black literature and art. DuBois urged his readers and the world to see ``Beauty in Black.'' Due to disagreements with the organization, DuBois resigned from the editorship of The Crisis and the NAACP in 1934 and returned to Atlanta University. He would devote the next 10 years of his life to teaching and scholarship. He completed two major works after resuming his duties at Atlanta University. His book, Black Reconstruction, dealt with the socio-economic development of the nation after the Civil War and portrayed the contributions of the Black people to this period. Before, Blacks were always portrayed as disorganized and chaotic. His second book of this period, Dusk of Dawn, was completed in 1940 and expounded his concepts and views on both the African's and African American's quest for freedom. In 1945, he served as an associate consultant to the American delegation at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco. Here, he charged the world organization with planning to be dominated by imperialist nations and not intending to intervene on the behalf of colonized countries. He announced that the fifth Pan-African Congress would convene to determine what pressure to apply to the world powers. This all-star cast included Kwame Nkrumah, a dedicated revolutionary, father of Ghanaian independence, and first president of Ghana; George Padmore, an international revolutionary, often called the ``Father of African Emancipation,'' who later became Nkrumah's advisor on African Affairs; and Jomo Kenyatta, called the ``Burning Spear,'' reputed leader of the Mau Mau uprising, and first president of independent Kenya. The Congress elected DuBois International President and cast him the ``Father of Pan-Africanism.'' This same year he published Color and Democracy: Colonies and Peace, and in 1947 produced The World and Africa. DuBois's outspoken criticism of American foreign policy and his involvement with the 1948 presidential campaign of Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace led to his dismissal from the NAACP in the fall of 1948. During the 1950's DuBois's continuing work with the international peace movement and open expressions of sympathy for the USSR drew the attention of the United States government and further isolated DuBois from the civil rights mainstream. In 1951, at the height of the Cold War, he was indicted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Although he was acquitted of the charge, the Department of State refused to issue DuBois a passport in 1952, barring him from foreign travel until 1958. Once the passport ban was lifted, DuBois and his wife traveled extensively, visiting England, France, Belgium, Holland, China, the USSR, and much of the Eastern bloc. On May 1, 1959, he was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in Moscow. In 1960, DuBois attended the inauguration of his friend Kwame Nkrumah as the first president of Ghana. The following year DuBois accepted Nkrumah's invitation to move there and work on the Encyclopedia Africana, a project that was never completed. On August 27, 1963, on the eve of the March on Washington, DuBois died in Accra, Ghana at the age of 94. Historians consider DuBois one of the most influential African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Born only six years after emancipation, he was active well into his 90's. Throughout his long life, DuBois remained Black America's leading public intellectual. He was a spokesman for the Negro's rights at a time when few were listening. By the time he died, he had written 17 books, edited four journals and played a leading role in reshaping black-white relations in America.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of this nation's most distinguished talents in commemoration of his birthday. As a renowned photographer, poet, author, filmmaker and composer, Gordon Parks has secured his place in American society as a true Renaissance man of the arts. Born on November 30, 1912 in Kansas, Mr. Parks grew up the youngest of fifteen children in an environment stricken by poverty and racism. With the guidance of his loving, inspiring parents, he persevered despite his circumstances. Gordon Parks began his photographic journey at the age of 25, when he bought his first camera, affectionately referred to as his ``weapon against poverty and racism.'' This simple instrument did just that, allowing him to break the constraints of discrimination and rise to greatness as an artist. In 1941, Mr. Parks became the first photographer to receive a fellowship from the Julius Rosenwald Foundation and the following year, he was commissioned by the Farm Security Administration to create a visual record of the lives of America's poor in urban and rural communities. During this project, he captured one of his most popular, compelling photographs, American Gothic, the image of Ella Watson standing in front of the American flag, holding a broom. He moved on to become the first Black photographer to work at both Life and Vogue Magazines where he coined his unique style of focusing a series on one person to convey a story of humanity. Aside from chronicling the intense emotions of America's poorest, the civil rights movement and the surge of Black Nationalism, Mr. Parks' photographic repertoire also featured images of leading societal figures such as Langston Hughes, Duke Ellington, Ingrid Bergman, Barbara Streisand, Mohammed Ali, and Marcel Duchamp. Gordon Parks tried his hand in cinema, making eleven films, including ``The Learning Tree'', based on his autobiographical novel, and the 1971 film, ``Shaft''. Mr. Parks has also published twelve books, three about his life, and several are collections of poetry and photography. Musically inclined, Gordon Parks also composed a number of sonatas, concertos, a symphony and a ballet, all of which have been performed internationally. Mr. Parks has also received a number of awards for his outstanding contributions, including: Photographer of the Year from the American Society of Magazine Photographers (1960 and 1985), induction into The Black Film Makers Hall of Fame (1973), induction into the NAACP Hall of Fame (1984), Governor's Medal of Honor from the State of Kansas (1985), and honorary degrees from thirteen separate academic institutions. Gordon Parks now resides in New York City and continues to enjoy the recognition earned by his rich legacy as the premier photojournalist and creative mind of his time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the eloquent chairman of the Committee on Rules with all of the power of words and influence he has, that after a seething attack on the majority, that he would come into the well and say, but it is all in the rules. What our leader is talking about is more important than the Medicare bill. She is talking about the civility in this House of Representatives. Every one of us here today are not here just because we are so bright and so intelligent. We are here because some group of Americans have thought that we would represent their interests. They were not talking about blacks and whites or Jews or gentiles or Asian Americans or Hispanics. They were talking about Representatives in the House of Representatives. And they invested in us the right to make judgments as to what would be in their best interest. How in the world can you come to this floor and take this privilege which has been given to us to protect, not for ourselves but for the next group that will inherit the seats that we are privileged to serve in, and to say when the Speaker of this great House of Representatives, here where we truly represent the people, it is not based on every district being entitled to something because it is a State, it means that they come together. They fight. They argue. And they elect. And then the Speaker decides who would be appointed to serve on the conference committee so that our voices would be heard with that of the other body. And when you have the votes, you have the votes; and that is the way it goes. If you do not like it, wait until November and then change it. But the audacity of the majority to say that when the Speaker appoints you to the conference it makes no difference what rank you are, it makes no difference if you are the dean of the House, it makes no difference if you are the senior member of the committee of jurisdiction, it makes no difference if the minority leader appoints you to represent, who, us? No, to represent the millions of people that we have been sent here to represent. And to have the conference committee, to call it a bipartisan conference when they from time to time will let a staff person come in, is not only arrogance but it offends the very office of the Constitution to be able to say it. Now, I have the utmost respect for the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) because she has said it right; she thought this precious bill was so important that the rules did not matter. It had to go through the middle of the night, whether there was a conference or not. We had to get this thing through. Sure, my colleagues had to get it through because there was a goal beyond prescription drugs. And if that is what you want to do with Social Security, if that is what you want to do with health care, I can understand that; and that is why I am not a Republican. But for God's sake, do not disrupt the system. Do not tear away what was left to us. When you got the votes, by golly, use those votes and do what you want to do to your own Members; that does not offend me. But it does offend me if newer Members of Congress believe that is the way this House is supposed to operate. Sometimes when I go on the other side and I sit with a friend that came here many, many years ago when I did, young Democratic Members say, what are you talking to them for? And I suspect that some of the Republicans that have been here a little while, when they come over here, some of the younger Republican Members would say, why are you talking to a Democrat? And what we would say is, we are talking about our kids or we are talking about our grandkids. We will fight in the committee and we will fight on the floor, but we respect each other. It is a lack of respect not to me, you can look at me and know how many doors have been closed to me; it does not even bother me. Because in this great country, in this Republic, I can fight and I can win. But when you stack the rules against those who follow me and those who respect this institution; when you start saying it makes no difference who the Speaker assigns to a conference, because we decided that it is too important for us to let Democrats in, well, take a look and see who the Democrats are. Take a look at the diversity on this side. We did not make it this way. Democrats did. Do you think there is a Republican way for solid health care? Do you think there is a Republican way for Social Security? A Republican way for a better America? Of course not. It is for us together to be working together to try to do it. Would Democrats have contaminated the precious bill, I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)? Would we have diverted so much attention for what you were doing, this brilliant piece of work that you did in the darkness of night, brought here early in the morning to have us out here waiting until you could scrub up enough votes? It was wrong for this Congress, and it would be wrong for any Congress.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, I do not know why the majority is reserving their time. Some pretty rough accusations have been made against them as a party. It would just seem to me that there should be enough sensitivity if not to respond to us then at least to respond to those 9 million people who are without work and without hope for the future. I can understand the majority in trying to eliminate all taxes for corporations and the rich. I can understand them trying to dismantle the Social Security System and the Medicare system. These are things they have dedicated themselves to doing and can be described as being Republican and Democratic positions. But how can someone out of work be the victim of partisanship? How can they determine whether they are Republican or Democrat? How can they benefit when a kid has to be withdrawn from school because of their parents' failure to pay their tuition, or their mortgage is forced to be foreclosed on? It seems to me that at this time of the year we can at least join ranks to take care of those people who want to work each and every day. If we can spend $1 billion a week rebuilding Baghdad, we should at least give some token of appreciation for those people who have worked hard to build this Nation, to make her as strong as she is by giving to them out of their own trust funds that this Congress established to protect them; that we have the compassion, no, not the compassion, we have the responsibility to respond to their needs. Sometimes I am so proud to be a Member of this body, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to go to town hall meetings and to not ask why we tolerate the Republicans doing these things. Why does this institution, this great institution that we inherited, allow such pain and suffering to go to the least among us? It is wrong. We should vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I hope we hear sometime this morning from the majority.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Today, I am proud to join with Congressman McDermott, Chairman Royce, Congressman Jefferson, Congressman Payne and Congressman Neal in the House, and Senator Lugar in the Senate, in introducing legislation to begin the third phase of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It has been almost ten years since a bipartisan group of Members came together to help create a trade and investment framework between our great country and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. It has been more than three years since the first phase of that effort became law. In that short time, the results have been impressive: In three years, AGOA textile and apparel exports to the United States have doubled, rising from $570 million in 1999 to $1.1 billion for 2002. This total comprises 9 percent of all AGOA exports. AGOA exports now comprise approximately two percent of all U.S. textile and apparel imports--a 100 percent increase from 2000, when AGOA took effect. Africa's 92 percent export growth rate in textile and apparel products is 10 times that for China, Latin America, Europe and other major textile and apparel exporters. However, we cannot afford to sit back and admire what we have done. So much remains to be done to fulfill the promise of this important legislation and this important trade program--to fill in the gaps that still exist. So, today, I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to call upon the House, the Senate and the President to take the next important step to broaden and deepen the commercial and bilateral relationships between the United States and African countries. We need to ensure that the benefits of AGOA We need to do this for so many reasons--bringing Africa more and more into the mainstream of the world trading system, strengthening the bilateral ties between the United States and African countries, giving women and men in the poorest countries in the world the chance to earn a fair and decent living so that the seeds of growth and a better life and a middle class society are sewn, rather than the seeds of discontent that we see in some other regions of the world. To do this, we need to push forward. Specifically, we need to extend the effective date of AGOA, extend the ability of AGOA least developed countries to use fabrics from third countries, and bring under the AGOA framework the important agricultural products that many countries in the region seek to produce and export. In the agriculture area, Africa's exports have actually decreased by 4.5 percent (or $25 million) since 1999. While duty free treatment will not completely solve the problem caused in part by large domestic support programs in the EU and elsewhere, this step will certainly help. In other areas, the bill encourages both responsible conservation and responsible development through a provision in support of eco-tourism, an area where many African countries have an important natural and comparative advantage that they are seeking to use in a sustainable and responsible way. I look forward to working with many others on both sides of the aisle who have been so supportive of AGOA I and AGOA II, particularly Chairman Bill Thomas and Chairman Phil Crane of the Trade Subcommittee, Congressman Amo Houghton in the House, and Senator Bill Frist and others in the Senate, along with the distinguished African Diplomatic Corps, and so many in the business community to realize our goal. Finally, we intend this bill to be a starting point, and that as we move forward, we can work with Ambassador Zoellick and his staff, and Secretary Evans and his staff, to improve the legislation to reflect best the development needs of sub-Saharan Africa. Also hope we can work together on other initiatives to ensure that the poorest countries of the world--such as Haiti and Bangladesh and Cambodia--are not left behind after 2005.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for the fine work he has done over the years on this subject, and as we close one-half of this debate on this historic subject, I would just like to remind those who are recording this event that when you excluded the Democrats from participating in the conference, you excluded 20 Members who are members of the Hispanic Caucus, 39 Members that are members of the Black Caucus. You excluded the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus. And you had the arrogance to believe that you had to be Republican to be concerned about our senior citizens. But the three that were selected by the Speaker, the Republican Speaker, was the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who knows the problems of our seniors out there. It was me, who served for decades on the Committee on Ways and Means and has worked hard to participate to make this a better bill and a better Congress. But it also was the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a person who fashioned a program for the aged who are poor. He too was excluded. So it is a great honor for me to invite up to manage the other half of the time here the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). He is the dean of this Congress, and we should feel proud that we are able to serve with him. His father is the author of the Medicare bill, and we should feel ashamed that he was excluded from the conference.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to turn one-half of the time allotted to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the dean of the House of Representatives, the son of the author of the Medicare bill, who was denied admission into the conference.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This must be a very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is 10 minutes to 12. When else would the majority bring out an important piece of legislation but in the middle of the night? But more importantly than that, tomorrow for many of us is a date that many of us will never, never forget, at least those of us that were old enough to know of and to love the late John F. Kennedy. Most all of us will remember where we were or what we were doing on November 22. And I suggest to the Members that history will record what we do this evening and what we do tomorrow. The arrogance that has been displayed on this landmark piece of legislation defies description tonight, but history will record it. The audacity for people to talk about bipartisan here where for hundreds of years we inherited a House of Representatives that whether one was a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we could say in this House the people rule, and we have enjoyed saying that. Where do the Republicans get the audacity to say that when there is a conference, they would select the willing coalition, that they could look at a person and because they are a Democrat, appointed by the Speaker of this great House of Representatives, they exclude them? And let me tell the Members something else I am proud of, not just being a Member of this House, but sitting on this side of the aisle and taking a look at the faces and the backgrounds of the Members and where they come from, from the rural areas, from the inner cities, from America. We do not have senior citizens? We do not have a contribution to make? We can be excluded? And then to have the audacity to come to this floor, even if it is in the middle of the night, and call it bipartisan because you borrowed two Democrats from the other side. That is shameful. No, our citizens really will recall what we do tonight, what you have done for AARP, what you have done for the pharmaceuticals, what you have done for the private sector whom you have subsidized. The bill is only 1,100 pages, but seniors know that they asked for some help for prescription drugs. No, they did not ask for competition. They did not ask for you to set up paper outfits. They did not ask for, at the end of the day, that you try to run them out of business. And I am suggesting to you, how would you know what you are going to hear on this side when just common decency prevented you from allowing you to follow the mandate that the Speaker set when he said that the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, please go to conference, and you locked the door? One thing is clear. Seniors understand it better than a whole lot of Members do because it may in the middle of the night, but tomorrow they will be reading what we have done tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who has worked hard for decades on this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to administer the remainder of the time that has been allotted to me.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for the splendid job he has done in explaining, as he sees it, a 1,000-page bill to this House, and why we should shove this down the throats of the Members of the House of Representatives without being privy to what he is privy to. I do not know how in the world anybody can get to this well and say we are talking about a bipartisan bill when they had the Sergeant of Arms blocking out Democrats from the House from getting anywhere near the preparation of this bill. Some people claim that they know what is in it. The eloquence of the chairman of the Committee on Rules was overwhelming. Why will he not allow the rest of the House to take a look at this 1,000-page bill so that they can be just as eloquent as he. Let me tell the Members one thing. There are people in this House today that believe that in that 1,000-page bill is a plan to eliminate completely the Medicare system as we know it. I know that you know better. There are people here that really believe this is a payoff to the pharmaceuticals, to the HMOs, and even some of the folks that run around saying they represent old folks. I know you know better. There are people who truly believe that employees and retirees are going to lose out in this bill. Republicans know better, but they want to keep it a secret. It is a Republican thing. Democrats not invited. All we are saying is you put this bill together yourselves. You think you know what is the best for the Nation. You believe that Democrats have no contribution to make, whether they belong to the Congressional Black Caucus, you do not have one; the Hispanic Caucus; you do not have one; the nonexistent Jewish caucus, you have got one. No matter what you have got, you really believe that we have to be excluded until you decide what is best for us. You know something, you just may be right. All we are asking for is let us have a day to take a look at it. Let us see what makes you right. Let us see why all of these people are calling us every day say that you are wrong, and you are trying to kill the system. Tell us why would you not let into the conference the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the son of the author of the Medicare bill, the dean of the House of Representatives? Why is it that you believe that he would have nothing to offer to this bill? All I am saying is that you know what is in the bill. Give the House of Representatives, not the Republicans, not the Democrats, but the people's House, give us a chance to see what we truly believe is going to be good for the American people and our seniors. If you do that, maybe you are right. If you are afraid, you will not give us any more time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. We are talking a lot about a reconstruction of Iraq, our commitment to bring democracy in this area; and all I can see is war, war, war and read about the numbers of Americans that are in harm's way that are losing their lives. All we are saying is that we have the responsibility to share with our constituents why we are making this second down payment on a war which we have no idea as to when, if ever, it is going to conclude, how many lives are going to be lost, where is it going to be spread. Most of us accept the fact that the decision to unilaterally attack Iraq was made before 9-11, but how many other countries are on the list? Where do we go from here? It just seems to me that somewhere along the line we were looking for Osama bin Laden and then we were looking for Saddam Hussein. God knows how long the President's list is. We should be able to ask these questions. We should not leave here until every Member of this House feels satisfied that they have explored the direction in which our country is going. It bothers me that what we are talking about today is rebuilding a country that we started bombing. I do not remember coming here to rebuild Iraq, Baghdad, or any other place in the Middle East, and yet we are supposed to feel guilty if we do not fulfill this obligation, as though our mail is coming in from the GIs and the Marines that are overseas saying, for God's sakes, send some money to rebuild Iraq if you love me, because the quicker you rebuild Iraq, the quicker I will be able to get home. That is not my mail. My mail is, I want to come home because, guess what? They started the draft. No, not the draft that I advocated. But if you volunteer to serve this country, either in the active service or in the Reserves or in the National Guard, you are being drafted. Your time is being extended. They are taking you away from your home and your family. And these families are not talking about rebuilding Iraq; they want their lives rebuilt. So give us some time to better understand the President's position, and we might find out where he is going to take us from Baghdad.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to join my colleagues in wishing the Republic of China a happy National Day. Despite Taiwan's small size and lack of natural resources, in recent years Taiwan has emerged as an economic powerhouse. It is the world's 17th largest economy, with the world's 15th largest trade volume. This economic performance has contributed to both regional and global prosperity. At a time of economic interdependence among nations, Taiwan has a lot to offer to the world. On Taiwan's National Day, I would like to see Taiwan continue to play a major economic role in the world and further strengthen its economic ties to the United States. Indeed, bilateral trade between Taiwan and the United States topped $66 billion last year and will continue to grow--to the benefit of both nations. Congratulations, President Chen. We wish you and your people the best of luck as you seek readmission to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. You deserve a prominent place on the world stage. I also wish to add that President Chen has pledged Taiwan's resources in helping us fight worldwide terrorism. President Chen believes any attack on America is tantamount to an attack on Taiwan and all the other peace-loving countries in the world. Terrorism must be stopped and Taiwan has done its best to help eliminate terrorism worldwide. We appreciate Taiwan's support.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those of my colleagues who will vote today in support of my resolution honoring the great Ambassador Ralph Bunche. I also give my special commendation to the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, Congressman Tom Davis, as well as Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the aforementioned committee, who made a special effort to expedite getting H. Con. Res. 71 to the House floor. Ralph Bunche, who I am proud to say, lived a great portion of his life in New York, was truly a pioneer. He defied the odds of the times, achieving in a number of areas, from diplomacy to education, while standing as a quiet yet effective warrior in the struggle to breakdown the negative perceptions of inferiority then held about African- Americans. Ralph Bunche graduated valedictorian, summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1927. In 1934, he became the first African-American to receive a doctoral degree in Government and International Relations at Harvard University. Mr. Bunche continued his passion for education by establishing and chairing the Political Science Department at Howard University from 1928-1941. In 1950, Mr. Bunche became the first African-American and person of color to receive a Nobel Prize. Mr. Bunche is one of this Nation's most distinguished diplomats, and his commitment to international relations and the attainment of human rights internationally has not only benefited the United States, but has had lasting effects on the entire world. He was a founder of the United Nations, the preeminent world body, and he carried on his global mission by selflessly devoting himself to the cause of independence for many African countries, which until the 1960s, were shackled under the yoke of European colonialism. During his centennial year, I am extremely pleased that the 108th Congress has elected to recognize one of the great architects of the United Nations, which, in the wake of the unilateral invasion of Iraq, is facing its greatest challenge as the embodiment of peacekeeping and international cooperation. This resolution is especially appropriate at this time, for in recognizing Ralph Bunche, we also acknowledge the value of the United Nations to the world and especially, to the United States.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in 1976 Congressman Tip O'Neill from Massachusetts was selected by the House to serve as Speaker; and while for most of us that was an exciting era, most people did not know that when he came to Washington and brought his family, he brought the wonderful and the beautiful Mildred O'Neill with him. All of us have heard and talked about so often the partnerships and the sacrifices that wives and children make for those of us who have offered ourselves for public service, but I do not think that was so with Millie and Tip O'Neill because they just seemed like a perfect movie Hollywood couple that just loved each other and did not mind expressing that love in front of everybody. I had the opportunity for 12 consecutive years to travel with Tip O'Neill as he was invited around the world as Speaker; but I do not know whether it was Tip or Millie, but one thing was abundantly clear, that they were not Democratic trips. They were not Republican trips. It was traveling with Millie and Tip O'Neill, and they made everyone feel like just one big congressional family, representing this great body and representing these great United States. You always feel when you have lost somebody that you just did not spend enough time saying how much you appreciated them while they were here, and I tried to tell Millie how much I loved her, and Millie had been very kind to me, as had Speaker Tip O'Neill; but I suspect that for the rest of us, many who never knew this wonderful couple, that we can take time out as we lost Millie to see whether we could be more sensitive and appreciative, not only to our wives but to our families that are either with us here in Washington or back at home, and that some way we can go to the Members who were fortunate to serve at a time where we did not dislike each other as a body, we may have disagreed on war or disagreed on policy, disagreed on theories, but at the end of the day, we were just so proud to be Members of this House. It was people like Millie who kept our families together, who kept encouraging our wives, who really inspired a lot of our Members to want to be good Members of Congress and not Democratic and Republican Members of Congress. So I would just like to join with so many people who knew and loved Millie O'Neill. Not nearly as much as Tip did, but we always will remember him singing to her and her batting eyes as though it was a flirtatious first date. We will miss you, Millie, as we miss Tip. So many of us are just so fortunate and so lucky that if we do not have them, we have their fond memories.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a national hero: a woman who broke the color lines in tennis, pioneering in a sport which had closed its doors to people of color for many years. On September 28, 2003, Althea Gibson died, at the age of 76, at East Orange General Hospital in New Jersey. Though unknown to many Americans, Althea Gibson paved the way for Black people in the sport of tennis, allowing athletes such as Venus and Serena Williams to reach their present level of prominence. Althea Gibson was born in Silver, South Carolina, and soon moved to New York City's Harlem where she developed her love of the game. She won a series of tournaments for Black players, including the National Negro Girl's Championships in 1944 and 1945, which earned her great recognition. This acclaim persuaded officials at the U.S. National Tennis Championships, the precursor to the U.S. Open, to allow Ms. Gibson to compete in 1950. In participating in this preeminent tournament, Ms. Gibson became the first Black woman to desegregate professional tennis. The following year, she played in the Wimbledon tournament, but lost in the quarterfinals. In 1955, Ms. Gibson joined the Goodwill Athletic tour, sponsored by the State Department and while touring in 1956, she became the first Black player to win French Championships. In the following year she won the singles and doubles championships at Wimbledon. In 1957 and 1958, Ms. Gibson returned to the U.S. National Tennis Championships, winning in both years and being named the Associated Press female athlete of the year each year, as well--the first Black woman to receive such an honor. Due to racism, however, Althea Gibson was not able to acquire endorsements and tennis brought very little financial security. Ms. Gibson left the sport in the late 1950's and joined the Harlem Globetrotters Basketball Team tour, where she played exhibition tennis matches. After retiring from tennis, Althea Gibson took up competitive golf and desegregated the Ladies Professional Golf Association tour in the early 1960's. She settled in New Jersey, where she had several jobs from athletic commissioner to manager of the recreation department in the city of East Orange. Ms. Gibson wrote two autobiographies, ``I Always Wanted To Be Somebody'' (1958) and ``So Much To Live For'' (1968). With the death of Althea Gibson, America has lost one of its groundbreaking sports heroes; however, her memory and accomplishments will continue to live on.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Bill Thomas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, John Boehner, Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and George Miller, Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, to introduce the ``Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003.'' This bill responds to the most pressing pension issue of the day that affects the retirement benefits of 44 million American workers, their families, and beneficiaries. I am pleased that bipartisan cooperation has allowed this process to move forward and enabled us to take action on this important issue. The lack of retirement security for millions of workers is an issue that demands our immediate attention. More than 50 percent of American workers who work full-time and play by all the rules of corporate America have no retirement benefits. I will not rest until this Congressional body takes the necessary steps to correct this disparity. The issue addressed in this bill is of great importance as well. The fortunate few workers who do have a pension benefit under our defined benefit system are depending on us to protect those benefits. This bill would accomplish this goal for the next two years by providing plan sponsors the certainty they need in determining the amount that must be contributed to the plan. However, a permanent solution to this issue must be found. The long-term viability of the defined benefit plan system is crucial for the secured retirement of millions of American workers. Designing a plan to maintain this viability will be a challenge we must undertake over the next two years. Any permanent solution must balance the competing elements of this issue, including (1) providing financial relief to employers who maintain defined benefit plans, (2) protecting the financial security of the pension benefits promised to workers under these plans, and (3) protecting the financial strength of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the agency that insures benefits under these plans. I remain hopeful that we can work together to accomplish these goals. I have long supported the idea of advancing legislation on this issue in a free and unfettered manner. This issue should not be held hostage to additional pension reforms that have little or no chance of being enacted this year. I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a long-term solution to this issue.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) was an important step toward protecting retirement benefits for millions of American workers. Over the years, ERISA has developed into a complex legislative framework. Congress regularly revisits this important area of law in a effort to perfect it. In its efforts, Congress may be making it better as it seeks to enhance the protections provided to many workers and their beneficiaries, but this is not without added complexity. For those of us who are not comfortable making casual conversation on such topics as actuarial assumptions and technical funding rules we have valued the service EBRI has provided over these many years. EBRI is a nonpartisan research organization that specializes in employee benefits. It collects and analyzes the relevant data and make it available in a format that is easily understood by all of us. The service EBRI provides is invaluable. Many of us in Congress find it particularly useful because of the balanced format in which the information is presented. This makes the information EBRI distributes acceptable by all sides in the debate. In addition, it provides a common base of knowledge that helps us evaluate conflicting proposals. EBRI has now been doing this important work for a quarter of a century. As EBRI celebrates its 25th anniversary, I want to take this opportunity to wish the valuable organization well. It is my hope that they keep these analyses coming. We will need them more than ever in the months ahead.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share an excerpt from an important policy brief published by the Brookings Institute on the meaning of citizenship and national service. What is our civic responsibility to this land, as people who enjoy the benefits of living in a vibrant democracy? How can we keep the social contract between all segments of society without a shared sense of sacrifice and duty? Authors E.J. Dionne, Jr. and Kayla Meltzer Drogosz provide a good overview of the subject and the importance of this issue to the future success of this country. The Promise of National Service: A (Very) Brief History of an Idea (By E.J. Dionne, Jr. and Kayla Meltzer Drogosz) the service idea and the american experiment Divisions over the meaning of service are rooted deeply in our history. When the United States was founded, liberal and civic republican ideas jostled for dominance. The liberals-- they might now be called libertarians--viewed personal freedom as the heart of the American experiment. The civic republicans valued freedom, too, but they stressed that self- rule demanded a great deal from citizens. The liberals stressed rights. The civic republicans stressed obligations to a common good and, as the philosopher Michael Sandel has put it in his book, Democracy's Discontents, ``a concern for the whole, a moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake.'' In our time, the clash between these older traditions lives on in the intellectual wars between libertarians and communitarians. On national service, libertarians lean toward skepticism, communitarians toward a warm embrace. America has changed since September 11, 2001. Respect for service soared as the nation forged a new and stronger sense of solidarity in the face of deadly enemies. What has been said so often still bears repeating: our view of heroes underwent a remarkable and sudden change. The new heroes are public servants--police, firefighters, rescue workers, postal workers whose lives were threatened, men and women in uniform--not the CEOs, high-tech wizards, rock stars, or sports figures who dominated the 1990s. At a time when citizens focus on urgent national needs, those who serve their country naturally rise in public esteem. Robert Putnam, a pioneer in research on civic engagement, captures the post-9/11 moment powerfully. He argues that because of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--and the courage shown by those on the plane that went down over Pennsylvania--``we have a more capacious sense of `we' than we have had in the adult experience of most Americans now alive.'' september 11 and the service ideal Accordingly, the politics of national service were also transformed. Even before September 11, President Bush had signaled a warmer view of service than many in his party. In choosing two Republican supporters of the idea--former Mayor Steve Goldsmith of Indianapolis and Leslie Lenkowsky, CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service--to head his administration's service effort, Bush made clear he intended to take it seriously. After September 11, service became a stronger theme in the president's rhetoric. In his 2001 State of the Union message, he called on Americans to give two years of service to the nation over their lifetimes and announced the creation of the USA Freedom Corps. It was a patriotic, post-September 11 gloss on the old Clinton ideas--and the ideas of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bush's father, the first President Bush, who offered the nation a thousand points of light. There is also a new acknowledgment across the political divides that government support for volunteers can provide essential help for valuable institutions that we too often take for granted. It is easy for politicians to talk about the urgency of strengthening ``civil society.'' But through AmeriCorps and other programs, the government has found a practical (and not particularly costly) way to make the talk real. Paradoxically, as the journalist Steven Waldman points out, AmeriCorps, a Democratic initiative, fit neatly with the Republicans' emphasis on faith-based programs. Democrats accepted the need to strengthen programs outside of government; Republicans accepted that voluntary programs could use government's help. This interplay between government and independent communal action may be especially important in the United States, where powerful and intricate links have always existed--long before the term ``faith-based organizations'' was invented--between the religious and civic spheres. That national service has become a bipartisan goal is an important achievement. It is reflected in the White House's Citizen Service Act and in bills cosponsored by, among others, Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Evan Bayh (D- Ind.). Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has made an ambitious service proposal a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. These legislative ideas mirrored the spirit of the moment. As Marc Magee and Steven Nider of the Progressive Policy Institute reported a year ago, in the first nine months after September 11 applications for AmeriCorps jumped 50 percent, those for the Peace Corps doubled, and those for Teach for America tripled. Yes, a difficult private economy certainly pushed more young Americans toward such public endeavors. Nonetheless, their choices point to the continued power of the service idea. citizenship and service Citizenship cannot be reduced to service. The good works of faith communities and the private sector--or ``communities of character,'' as President Bush has called them--cannot replace the responsibilities of government. Service can become a form of cheap grace, a generalized call on citizens to do kind things as an alternative to a genuine summons for national sacrifice or a fair apportionment of burdens among the more and less powerful or wealthy. But when service is seen as a bridge to genuine political and civic responsibility, it can strengthen democratic government and foster the republican virtues. Lenkowsky made this connection when he urged attendees at a Corporation for National and Community Service conference to turn ``civic outrage into civic engagement'' by increasing the reach and effectiveness of volunteer programs. No one can dispute visionaries like former Senator Harris Wofford, chairman of America's Promise, and Alan Khazei, cofounder and CEO of City Year, who have shown how AmeriCorps, VISTA, Senior Corps, and Peace Corps have transformed communities. But Paul Light of Brookings questions whether this transformation is sustainable. Can episodic volunteerism build the capacity and effectiveness of public and nonprofit organizations? Will the new respect for service make government bashing less satisfying as a hobby? It is possible, but not likely. Underlying the debate over national service is an argument over whether service is necessary or merely ``nice.'' If service is just a nice thing to do, it's easy to understand the strong reservations about government-led service programs from critics such as Bruce Chapman who, in 1966, wrote The Wrong Man in Uniform, one of the earliest calls for a volunteer military. But service has the potential to be far more than something nice. Will Marshall and Marc Magee of the Progressive Policy Institute argue that the service idea could be a departure comparable to breakthroughs in earlier eras toward a stronger sense of citizenship. ``Like settlement houses and night school, which helped America absorb waves of immigration,'' they write, ``national service opens new paths of upward mobility for young Americans and the people they serve. And, like the G.I. Bill, national service should be seen as a longterm investment in the education, skills, and ingenuity of our people.'' Service, then, is not simply a good in itself, but a means to many ends. It creates bridges between groups that have little to do with each other on any given day, and as the New Left's Port Huron Statement put it forty years ago, draws citizens ``out of isolation and into community.'' Michael Brown, the co-founder of City Year, says service can activate ``people's justice nerve,'' creating a thirst for social improvement. It could foster civic and political participation in a society that seems not to hold public service in the highest esteem. But this very plurality of ends creates a certain skepticism about service. If it offers something for everyone, how serious can the idea really be? Michael Lind, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, is right when he says that ``within the small but vocal community of national service enthusiasts, there is far more agreement on the policy of national service than on its purpose.'' In the post-September 11 environment, he argues that the one compelling case for citizen service would rest on the need to expand the nation's capacity to prepare for and respond to domestic emergencies, notably those caused by terrorism. answering the call to service However one conceives of service, surely one of its ends-- or, at least, one of the ends that wins the broadest assent-- is the urgency of finding new ways to engage young Americans in public life after a long period of estrangement. In his 2000 campaign, Sen. McCain--initially a skeptic of national service, now a strong supporter--won a wide following among young people by urging them to aspire to things ``beyond your own self-interest.'' Many surveys suggest that young Americans are deeply engaged in civic activity. One by Harvard's Kennedy Institute of Politics in October 2002 found that 61 percent of its national sample of undergraduates reported performing some form of community service in the past year. And as Paul Light has shown in a new survey, liberal arts college graduates from the Class of 2003 are eager to find jobs that provide opportunities to help people. However, when they hear the phrase ``public service,'' they think of the kind of work they see in the nonprofit sector and not in government or politics. If we are to expand young people's understanding of public service, then service learning initiatives in public schools must continue to be linked with a heightened sense of civic responsibility and personal effectiveness. If the new generation connected its impulses to service with politics, it could become one of the great reforming generations in American history. And service could become a pathway to a stronger sense of citizenship. As the columnist Jane Eisner argues, service ``must produce more than individual fulfillment for those involved and temporary assistance for communities in need.'' It should, she says, ``lead to an appetite for substantive change, a commitment to address the social problems that have created the need for service in the first place.'' Eisner and others have suggested that as a nation, we should celebrate the first vote cast by young people with the same fanfare that greets other moments of passage to adult responsibility. The goal would be to encourage a new generation to make the connection ``between service to the community and participation in the very process that governs community life.'' A focus on the links service forges between the rights and responsibilities of citizenship could offer new ways out of old political impasses. For example, Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, suggests that a two-year commitment to national service could become a pathway for undocumented workers to legalize their status and for legal immigrants to speed their passage to citizenship. Stern also proposes that former felons now denied voting rights might ``earn credits toward restoration of full citizenship'' through service. At its best, service is not make-work, but what Harry Boyte and Nancy Kari, in their book, Building America, have called ``public work.'' It is work that ``is visible, open to inspection, whose significance is widely recognized'' and can be carried out by ``a mix of people whose interests, backgrounds, and resources may be quite different.'' Service as public work is the essence of the democratic project. It solves common problems and creates common things. Public work entails not only altruism, but also enlightened self- interest--a desire to build a society in which the serving citizen wants to live. Skepticism, Realism, Hope Service alone cannot build a stronger sense of citizenship. Citizenship is meaningless unless citizens have the power to achieve their goals and to change their communities and the nation. It is thus possible to be skeptical about the new call to service, and it is absolutely necessary to be realistic. Speeches about service can be a convenient way for politicians to call for sacrifice without demanding much of citizens. At little cost to themselves, advocates of both conservative and liberal individualism can use service to shroud their real intentions behind the decent drapery of community feeling. William Galston, a scholar who has devoted years of energy to promoting research and action to excite young Americans to public engagement, worries that the failure to link post- September 11 rhetoric about service to actual calls for civic action could lead to the very sort of cynicism service advocates decry. ``Would Pearl Harbor have been a defining event if it had not been followed by a national mobilization and four years of war that altered the lives of soldiers and civilians alike?'' Galston asks. ``In the immediate wake of September 11, the administration's failure to call for any real sacrifice from citizens fortified my belief that the terrorist attack would be the functional equivalent of Pearl Harbor without World War II, intensifying insecurity without altering civic behavior.'' Theda Skocpol, another wise student of American civic life, sounds an equally useful warning. ``Absent organizational innovations and new public policies,'' she writes, ``the reinvigorated sense of the American `we' that was born of the travails of 9/11 may well gradually dissipate, leaving only ripples on the managerial routines of contemporary U.S. civic life.'' In fact, as Skocpol and Galston suggest, mere exhortation to serve will do little to foster public--and especially political--participation if too many citizens see the public realm as broken. The issue of whether Americans have been called to any real sort of sacrifice is, of course, the point of Rep. Rangel calling for a renewal of the draft. It is neither race- baiting nor class warfare--Rangel was accused of both--to suggest that a democratic society has a problem when members of its most privileged classes are not among the first to rally to the colors at a time of trouble. This problem also worries Charles Moskos, the nation's premier student of service and the military experience. Moskos has explored ways of expanding the circle of commitment and promoting the idea of the ``citizen soldier.'' This idea has caught on in a wide range of political circles. As Stanley Kurtz wrote in the National Review in April, ``In a world of looming military challenges, the citizen-soldier program may be our last chance to expand the armed forces without a draft.'' John Lehman, the Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan, has also offered helpful remedies short of a draft to overcome what he agrees is a fundamental problem: that ``the burdens of defense and the perils of combat do not fall even close to fairly across all of our society.'' From Service to Citizenship If the problems of inequality are vexing where military service is concerned, they can also be troubling for service at home. Service, badly conceived, can distance citizens from public problems by seeing the server more as a missionary uplifting the needy than as a fellow citizen. Michael Schudson, a professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego, sees President Bush's ideal citizen is a ``Rotarian, moved by a sense of neighborliness, Christian charity, and social responsibility, but untouched by having a personal stake in public justice.'' Schudson's point is not to knock Rotarians. It is to argue that self-interest in pursuit of justice is a virtue. As Schudson notes in describing the civil rights movement, the most dramatic expansion of democracy and citizenship in our lifetime was brought about by citizens ``driven not by a desire to serve but by an effort to overcome indignities they themselves have suffered.'' The point is brought home powerfully by Charles Cobb, who sees the civil rights movement as being best understood ``as a movement of community organizing rather than one of protest.'' The civil rights movement performed a huge national service--and inspired many specific forms of service, including the registration of thousands of voters. This quintessentially civic, ``good government'' act, the registration of new voters, was also a powerful form of rebellion in places that denied African Americans the right to vote. These are essential points. Yet it is also true that Rotarians are good citizens. Neighborliness, charity, and social responsibility are genuine virtues. And it is just possible that a nation responding to the call to service would, over time, become a nation deeply engaged in questions of public justice. The debate over national service is a debate over how we Americans think of ourselves. It is a debate over how we will solve public problems and what we owe to our country and to each other. If our nation is to continue to prosper, it is a debate we will have in every generation. For if we decide that there are no public things to which we should be willing to pledge some of our time and some of our effort--not to mention ``our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor''--we will be breaking faith with our nation's experiment in liberty rooted in mutual assistance and democratic aspiration.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor, recognize and celebrate the anniversary of his birth on the 16th of August and to praise Marcus Garvey for his seminal contribution to the civil rights movement. Marcus Garvey, born in rural St. Ann's Bay, Jamaica rose from the humblest of beginnings to attain international stature. He brought African nationalism and pride to the oppressed African-American community. In doing so, he challenged mainstream white America and predominant racist stereotypes. The passion and fervor with which the African-American community responded to Marcus Garvey's arrival indicated the boiling energy and pride that existed but without leadership. Marcus Garvey provided that leader, took pride in his skin color, and demanded that others do the same. In doing so, he energized a generation of African-Americans and laid much of the groundwork for the civil-rights movement. In 1914, Garvey formed the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and the African Communities League (ACL) while studying in England. In doing so, Garvey sought ``to work for the general uplift of the Negro peoples of the world.'' At its peak, in 1922-1924, Garvey's movement encompassed over 8 million proud followers. Through the hundreds of UNIA chapters throughout the world and the newspaper Negro World, Garvey encouraged and worked for economic success and political influence for his followers. He urged people of African descent to create their own businesses and to wield the influence that accompanies personal wealth. He refused the notion that African-Americans could not succeed as entrepreneurs in the mold of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Such notions were novel and exciting for oppressed minorities around the world. In what would prove to be a fatal mistake, Mr. Garvey organized a steamship company called ``Black Star Line.'' Garvey designed his company to realize his dream of a powerful African nation built on the foundations of black culture and independence. The fundamental principle of Garvey's repatriation to Africa movement was one of pride. He wanted people of African descent to celebrate themselves and raise their culture to international prominence. Garvey awakened, energized and cultivated the modern nationalist movements that eventually opposed European colonial domination and began African self-determination. Garvey sought to combat the racism and the stigma of black skin that had seeped into the culture of his own people. He made black dolls for black children and called for separate black institutions under black leadership. Mr. Garvey's pride and his activism threatened white America, and J. Edgar Hoover quickly took notice. After failing to uncover any evidence of subversion, Marcus Garvey was arrested and convicted of mail fraud relating to ``Black Star Line.'' His sentence was eventually commuted, and Garvey was deported to his native Jamaica. Considering that Marcus Garvey spent only 10 of his 52 years in the United States, his impact on our culture was phenomenal. The ideas that Mr. Garvey espoused were not necessarily phenomenal in their originality, but Mr. Garvey's charisma and rhetorical excellence forced not only African-Americans, but mainstream America, to listen to his message. While I encourage my colleagues to reexamine H. Con. Res. 74, exonerating Marcus Garvey, I've risen today so that Mr. Garvey's legacy and his contributions to racial equality are not forgotten. I would like to share with you an Op-ed that I wrote in March of last year in support of H. Con. Res. 74. In 1987, the centenary of Marcus Garvey's birth when I first introduced legislation to exonerate the great civil rights leader, the New York Times cited a study of J. Edgar Hoover's role in Garvey's prosecution: ``Hoover saw the blacks and the reds as a larger conspiracy. The new Negro movement, which Garvey symbolized, Hoover saw as a terrible threat to the American way.'' Even then, in 1987, Hoover remained a near sacrosanct figure in Washington, not yet fully exposed as a bully who wielded the power of the nation's preeminent law enforcement organization. Today, the late former director of the FBI is widely discredited as a power-hungry blackmailer of U.S. presidents and a hateful bigot and slanderer of Martin Luther King who shied away from prosecuting organized crime while doing everything in his power to intimidate and undermine leaders of civil rights aniti-war movements of the 1960's. As Hoover's reputation declines--a pending bill in the U.S. House of Representatives would strike his name from FBI headquarters in Washington--Garvey's is rising. Last year's PBS documentary on Garvey placed his name among the giants of American 20th century Black history. Marcus Garvey was one of America's great Black leaders and in the early 1920's he was wrongfully prosecuted and imprisoned on charges of mail fraud. It is time high time that the Congress of the United States of American recognizes this injustice and clear his name. Born in St. Ann's Bay, Jamaica, August 17, 1887, Garvey epitomized the strength and pride of the people of the Caribbean. Garvey was virtually self-taught, reading voraciously from his father's extensive library. By 1910, and when residing in Kingston, he quickly established himself as a spellbinding orator and political organizer. Garvey's philosophy and accomplishments challenged the myths of inferiority that demeaned people of African heritage in the 1920s. When lynching of Black men was commonplace, when house burning by Southern Klansmen and northern rioters were routine when theories of white supremacy were acceptable and notions of equality subversive, Marcus Garvey preached racial pride and economic independence. He raised more than one million dollars from thousands of investors in the United States, the Caribbean, Africa and Europe to establish the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and his well-known Black Star Line steamship company. The Black Star Line was established to purchase ships to initiate trade with and evenutually carry New World Blacks to Africa. Indeed, one of Garvey's most important legacies was his internationalism, his recognition that the struggles of the Black people of America were linked by blood and history to the quests for independence by people of color around the world. Garvey's success inevitably drew suspicion of an ambitious J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered the surveillance and infiltration of Garvey's UNIA. When evidence of subversion failed to turn up, Garvey was indicted on a business offense. Garvey's trial was a mockery of justice. The charges were confused, the evidence flimsy, and the judge biased. To make matters worse, Garvey insisted on defending himself. In 1923, Garvey was convicted of mail fraud and sentenced to five years in prison. His appeals to higher courts were promptly denied. Numerous petitions for Presidential pardons signed by thousands of the very people whom he was accused of defrauding-were rebuffed. Garvey's prosecution was one of this nation's great miscarriages of justice. This fact has been well documented by Prof. Robert Hill, editor of the Garvey papers at UCLA, historian John Henrik Clark and others. Yet, the government has held firm in its conviction that Garvey was a ``menace,'' as he was described by the young J. Edgar Hoover, who made Garvey one of his first targets, as FBI director. Among his last was Martin Luther King, a philosophical successor to Garvey, who was branded a ``communist,'' wiretapped and hounded by the aging Hoover. It may be difficult to comprehend today, but in the racial climate of the 1920's, Garvey success was his greatest liability. At a time when Black people were stigmatized as intellectually inferior--and were economically more disadvantaged than today accomplishments of the magnitude achieved by Garvey were immediately and almost universally dismissed as fraudulent. But as Garvey's mystique has grown, so too has our understanding of the wealth of his contributions and his historical importance as the trailblazer for the great civil rights leaders who followed. In the United States, where he lived for 10 of his 53 years, Garvey inspired hundreds of thousands of Black American supporters with hope for a better future. Today, he stands out in the pantheon of Black America's greatest and most controversial leaders. But in the records of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Courts, Garvey remains ex-convict number 19359. Almost 75 years ago, Marcus Garvey was released from Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, his sentence commuted by President Calvin Coolidge. Deported to his native Jamaica, Garvey died 13 years later, and entered history as that nation's preeminent hero. As a role model to millions of common people in the Americas and the Third World, he would inspire the independence movements that liberated colonial Africa. Despite the harassment and the weakness of the evidence against him, Garvey's prosecution may have been inevitable in the 1920's. But by unbiased standards, the charges were not substantiated and his conviction was not justified. We cannot overturn the verdict but we can prove that times have changed and that we now know better.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate Jamaica on the forty-first anniversary of her Independence and the 169th anniversary of emancipation in Jamaica and the Caribbean. I take pleasure in reflecting upon the magnitude of Jamaica's contribution to New York City, our nation, and the world and expressing my personal appreciation for the association I have had with Jamaica and its people over the years. I have been privileged to know and work with all of the Prime Ministers of Jamaica since my election to the Congress, beginning with Prime Minister Michael Manley's appeal for assistance to prevent retaliation by the U.S. Government in response to a justified increase in the royalty paid by U.S. aluminum companies for the exploitation of Jamaica's bauxite. I was privileged to work with Jamaican leaders in the creation and expansion of the Caribbean Basin Initiative which has in the last twenty years significantly increased the trade and commercial relationship between the U.S. and Jamaica and I continue to work in support of the Jamaican government's efforts to obtain U.S. government recognition of the need for special and differential treatment of small economies in the negotiation of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Jamaica has produced extraordinary leaders from Marcus Garvey to Alexander Bustamente to Norman and Michael Manley who have significantly contributed to the historical global struggle for freedom, self-determination and human rights. I salute Jamaica on this anniversary and the great legacy it has created for us all.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 212, the Year of the Korean War Veteran resolution, and I commend its sponsor, my colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas. The resolution marks the final year of the United States' 50th anniversary of the Korean War Commemoration and the 50th year of the Armistice. We celebrate the Armistice which ended the War, but we do so with the knowledge that no formal peace treaty was ever signed, and that only a fragile peace has endured across the tense demilitarized zone dividing North and South. The conflict, so aptly called ``the Forgotten War, took 54,000 American lives. Another 103,000 Americans were wounded, 5,000 were missing in action, and 7,000 were held as prisoners of war. The sacrifices of America's fighting men and women transformed Korea into a thriving economic partner of the U.S. and a powerful front-line democracy against the tyranny of communism. Fifty years after the end of hostilities, the guns across the border are still silent, but the region and the world are increasingly fearful of the possibility of a new war on the peninsula. With the announcement of its nuclear capability by the government in the North, not only the U.S., but our friends in the region--Japan, China, Russia, and particularly South Korea, are now searching for ways to diffuse an impending crisis. North Korea's intentions are not entirely understood, but the country's militancy are clearly worsened by its poverty and isolation. The situation requires a skillful hand in dealing with a government that sometimes seems motivated by desperation. I encourage President Bush to work with our allies in the region in pursuing negotiations and a peaceful resolution of a growing crisis. Threats and intimidation will not succeed in our dealings with North Korea.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this time to highlight some of the contributions that baseball players of Dominican decent are making not only to America's national pastime, but also to communities in the Dominican Republic. It isn't long into SportsCenter or any other sports highlight show before one notices that some of the game's greatest contemporary players hail from the DR. Perennial All-Stars like Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, joined now by youngsters like Odalis Perez, Albert Pujols, Carlos Delgado, Alfonso Soriano and Miguel Tejada, are redefining the game by challenging long-established records and moving the bar of excellence higher than many would have imagined. Baseball has a long established tradition in the DR, showcasing Negro-League stars like Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson in winter league games at a time when the color-line barred African-Americans from playing with white players in America. And these new stars know that they follow in the footsteps of major league trailblazers like Felipe Alou, Joaquin Andujar, George Bell, Rico Carty, Tony Fernandez, Pedro Guerrero, Juan Marichal, and Jose Rijo. However, what makes these ballplayers different from athletes of the past is that they can afford not only to be positive role models of behavior, but also economic role models of philanthropy. According to Major League Baseball, the 79 Dominican major league baseball players earn a combined salary of $210 million. Like many immigrants, they send money directly home to family members. However, they also contribute to the local economy by building homes, investing in business ventures and making contributions to charities based in their hometowns. Their success in the major leagues has also brought in Major League Baseball as a partner in the island's economic development. According to a recent study, MLB has created 1,200 jobs, with $14.7 million going directly to the country through the operation of 30 baseball academies that are all looking to find the next diamond in the rough. These are academies that not only provide services, but also buy from local merchants, which has lead to the creation of as many as 900 new jobs. Success in baseball is not based on the play of one player but on the efforts of the entire team. These Dominican athletes know that the best way that they can truly honor the sacrifices of their family and friends is making sure that they give back with both their hearts and their wallets. Collectively, they and other Dominicans around the world are helping to shatter the myth that some people are forever destined to be the recipients of handouts and hand-me-downs. That with an investment of faith and money, talent can surface to change a game--and the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very important national holiday in the Dominican Republic, Restoration Day or El Dia de la Restauracion, celebrated annually on August 16. Although the Dominican Republic declared its independence from Spain in 1821, it wasn't until February 27, 1844, that they established constitutional self-rule. However, years later a series of internal events led a faction of government to call on Spain to reclaim their former Caribbean colony. With the United States in the middle of its own civil war, the Dominican people were left to their own resources to wage another battle for their country's freedom. Starting on August 16, 1863, nationalists launched a counteroffensive against the Spanish crown, ultimately leading Spain to withdraw from the island of Hispaniola on March 3, 1865. For Dominicans, August 16 is a second Independence Day, a lasting symbol of the dedication of their community to be free. In the Dominican Republic, it has been, among other things, the traditional day when victorious candidates assume the presidency. In the United States, the day serves as a cultural holiday around which many hold concerts, festivals and other celebrations. In my own city of New York, there is a grand parade down Sixth Avenue, from 36th to 56th Streets. This year, it also marks the end of Dominican Heritage week, a time when New Yorkers of all ages get an opportunity to learn about this vibrant Latino community. So I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this holiday with Dominicans all over the world. The success of our current democracy in many ways depends on us never forgetting the sacrifice of those who have fought for the cause of freedom and peaceful self-rule all over the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate Trinidad on the forty-first anniversary of her Independence and the 169th anniversary of emancipation in Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean. Trinidad and Tobago and the U.S. have long enjoyed a prosperous relationship that has hinged upon interests in investment, trade, and regional security. Often noted for holding one of the largest and most elaborate Carnival celebrations in the world, there is much to know about how this small island nation evolved and has come to be such a great friend to our nation. Trinidad was settled by the Spanish a century after Columbus landed there. The original inhabitants--Arawak and Carib Indians--were largely wiped out by the Spanish colonizers, and the survivors were gradually assimilated. Although it attracted French, free Black, and other non- Spanish settlers, Trinidad remained under Spanish rule until the British captured it in 1797. During the colonial period, Trinidad's economy relied on large sugar and cocoa plantations. Tobago's development was similar to other plantation islands in the Lesser Antilles and quite different from Trinidad's . The smaller island of the pair, Tobago became known first as Tavaco, then Tabagua, then as Tobago. This was the name given by its tribal people who used a long stemmed pipe in which they smoked a herb called Vcohiba, known today as tobacco. During the colonial period, French, Dutch, and British forces fought over possession of Tobago, and the island changed hands 22 times--more often than any other West Indian island. Tobago was finally ceded to Great Britain in 1814. Trinidad and Tobago were incorporated into a single colony in 1888. Trinidad became an oil economy in the 20th century. Oil was discovered in the Guayguaygare, Point Fortin, and Forest Reserve areas in Trinidad. Over time oil and oil related exports came to dominate the economy. The establishment of U.S. bases on the island in 1941 in exchange for 50 destroyers which at the time was sorely needed by an overstretched Britain, resulted in the construction of numerous roads. Additionally, the G.I.s injected American culture and money into a stagnant economy and shifted the focus of the country from Britain to the U.S. In the 1950s, the British sponsored the West Indies Federation as a potential post-colonial model, in the belief that most of the Caribbean islands would be unable to survive politically or economically on their own. The Caribbean peoples thought otherwise and the Federation collapsed in the early 1960s. In Trinidad and Tobago a movement was being born in the 1950s. After receiving his Ph.D. and serving as assistant professor at Howard University, Eric Williams returned to Trinidad and Tobago and formed the People's National Movement (PNM), a political party of which he became the leader. In September of 1956, the PNM won the national elections and he became the chief minister of the country from 1956 to 1959, premier from 1959 to 1962, and prime minister from 1962 to 1981. During his term as prime minister, Williams led Trinidad and Tobago into full independence within the Commonwealth in 1962. Eric Williams is considered the father of Trinidad and Tobago. He died in office on March 29, 1981. After its 1962 independence, Trinidad joined the United Nations and the Commonwealth. In 1967, it became the first Commonwealth country to join the Organization of American States (OAS). A U.S. embassy was established in Port of Spain in 1962, replacing the former consulate general. Today, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago remains a stable government with close ties and a working relationship to the United States. Evidence of government stability is represented in the fact that U.S. investment in Trinidad and Tobago exceeds one and one-quarter billion dollars. In addition, Trinidad and Tobago is becoming the leading importer of liquefied natural gas to the U.S. It also is active in the U.S.-initiated Summit of the Americas process and fully supports the establishment of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. With a population of 1.2 million people and the size of the state of Delaware, Trinidad and Tobago maintains strong relations with its Caribbean neighbors as well. As the most industrialized and second- largest country in the English-speaking Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago has taken a leading role in the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), and strongly supports CARICOM economic integration efforts. The two countries also share its people and culture. There are large numbers of U.S. citizens and permanent residents of Trinidadian origin living in the United States. These individuals keep strong cultural ties to their country of origin. About 20,000 U.S. citizens visit Trinidad and Tobago on vacation or for business every year, and over 2,700 American citizens are residents. In addition, Trinidad like carnivals are held in numerous cities across the U.S. with a major celebration occurring in Brooklyn every Labor Day of which Trinidadians have played an integral role in sustaining. The Trinidadian, Jessie Wardell was responsible for obtaining the first street permit to celebrate Carnival outdoors on Lenox Avenue in Harlem. Trinidadian, Rufus Gorin, moved the Carnival to Brooklyn where he paired with the Trinidadian, Carlos Lezama, and formed the West Indian American Day carnival Association (WIADCA), which for over thirty years has participated in attracting millions of people to New York to participate in the largest Carnival celebration in the U.S. I take great pleasure in reflecting upon the magnitude of Trinidad and Tobago's contribution to New York City, our nation, and the world and expressing my personal appreciation for the association I have had with her people over the years. I salute the republic of Trinidad and Tobago and her accomplishments and ask that you join me in honoring her as she celebrates her 41st Anniversary.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of New York's oldest celebrations of Dominican culture, Manhattan's Dominican Day Parade. The annual parade, which once ran through the heart of Washington Heights, has grown to become one of August's most anticipated celebrations of cultural and ethnic pride on New York's Sixth Avenue. This year's parade on August 10th not only comes on the heels of the Dominican Republic's hosting of the 14th edition of the Pan-American Games, it also kicks off Dominican Heritage Week in New York City. From then to August 16th, New Yorkers of all ages will get a chance to learn about some of the ways in which this vibrant community is transforming the Nation. We have begun to hear of Dominicans and Dominican-Americans in the context of stars like baseball slugger Sammy Sosa, designer Oscar de la Renta, and Miss Universe 2002 Amelia Vega. However, there are hundreds of Dominican professionals and an increasing amount of Dominican students that are blazing trails in government, law, science, and technology. They understand that they stand on the shoulders of not only the sacrifices that their parents have made but also on the achievements of members of other freedom-loving people. In many ways, their journey is similar to other immigrant groups that have landed on our shores. But make no mistake, the people of the Dominican Republic have a style all their own. They are part of the wonderful mosaic that is America whose continuing empowerment can only help this country reach its full potential as a democracy.