Charlie Rangel

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 pay tribute to the 14th edition of the Pan-American Games, this year to be held in Santo Domingo Dominican Republic, from August 1st to August 17th. Since 1951, the games have carried the Olympic spirit of trying to build and strengthen international cooperation through friendly, but no less intense, competition between the countries of the Western Hemisphere. In a time when we are engaged in a global struggle against terrorism, poverty and disease, the sight of some of the region's best athletes coming and sharing the same stage peacefully gives the world hope that our current struggles are just a prologue to better days. This year's games are also a source of pride to Dominicans all over the world, especially those who live in my district's neighborhood of Washington Heights. While putting on an event of such magnitude is a challenge for any nation, there is no doubt in my mind that the world will be treated to a world-class celebration full of the best of Dominican culture. It is also a chance to sow the seeds of future economic development by showing the world that any stage can shine brightly from Santo Domingo. So it is with great enthusiasm that I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating all the participants and organizers in advance for all their achievements and hard work. Let us hope that the Pan-American Games' motto, loosely translated as ``The American spirit of friendship through sports,'' not only lasts beyond these two weeks in August, but also extends beyond sports and the island of Hispanola into the hearts of all of the world's citizens.

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 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Even though they are small in terms of the overall trade that our great Nation will be involved in, it is the first time that we are recognizing the ability to trade with our South American neighbors and to coordinate this with Mexico and the Caribbean and, indeed, to move forward so that we can end up with a free trade agreement for the Americas. It is oftentimes said that peace is not just the absence of war, but it is the ability for nations to work with each other to trade with each other to improve the quality of life and to create jobs. And to a large extent, the work that has been done on the Chile and Singapore agreements will serve as a model for agreements that have to follow. But I must say that, as we trade, we must remember that we have to, as a great Nation, have to have minimum standards that we expect that our trading partners will have. We have to make certain that we try to protect not just intellectual property rights, but environmental rights and workers' rights. We have to recognize that if we are going to become members of international organizations that have international standards, we must abide by those standards; and certainly all Americans should want to have core international work standards so that we do not drive to the minimum what we pay our workers and health standards that we try to improve. In the Chile and Singapore agreements, you will see documents that these countries are to enforce their domestic labor laws. Many of us support the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreement not only because they have decent labor laws, but they have the ability and willingness to enforce them. We are not certain that this is going to happen with other trade agreements that may be coming before this body, but we want to make it abundantly clear that the mere fact that we accept this language in Chile and Singapore does not mean that we will have to accept this language where we do not see it is abundantly clear that other nations have labor laws that follow the core international labor organization laws and the fact that they have a willingness to enforce these laws. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for purposes of control. The gentleman is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I first want to thank the chairman of my committee for what had to be a very difficult task for him in coming before this august body and expressing regret for poor judgment. All of us at some time or the other have had poor judgment, and it is always difficult for us, especially as politicians, to say publicly that we made a mistake. The reason I asked to respond is because I know that each and every one of us love this body and recognize that we are privileged, if not blessed, to have the opportunity to represent the people of the United States of America. But whether or not it is a Thomas-Rangel dispute, a Republican-Democrat dispute, the only question that we have is that we leave this place in no worse shape than we inherited it. Each Congress tries to improve the quality of civility, the partnership, the working together, the mutual respect and saying, as my chairman said, that we all want a better America, indeed a better world. But we have diversity in this country. It is our biggest strength, and to respect the American people, we have to respect each other. It is not a question of personality. We cannot afford to be personal about it. There has to be respect. Yes, the majority has the responsibility to lead and to get their legislation through, but the minority has the right to be respected, to be heard, and to know, in a timely fashion when that legislation is coming up, to know what is in the bill, to have time and to be able to use not the rules that we make up as we go along but the rules of civility that allowed this body to exist for over 200 years. These were not Republican rules. They were not Democratic rules. They were rules to say, notwithstanding your emotion, this will guide you for a better Congress and a better America. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that out of this, because our parents have always told us that out of the worst day of the worst situation, if you commit to it, you can find some good to come out of it. So do not look at it as being a Thomas-Rangel, Committee on Ways and Means issue. Let us look at this as being a House of Representatives issue. Let us see whether every committee and every Member can say that in this House we have got to respect each other no matter how much we differ. We should try to believe that the best of us is to do the best job for our country. Chairman Thomas, I thank you for coming forward and giving us the opportunity to say can we not take this House to a higher level? Can we not go back home and make the people proud of us? And whether we win or lose in terms of legislation, whether we respect each other is what I think those that we leave this Congress to would respect us for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues in celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the American Political Science Association's Congressional Fellowship, the first and oldest program of its kind on Capitol Hill. Since 1953, APSA has allowed rising leaders within government agencies, as well as those in fields like medicine, journalism and academia to get an inside view of what, when, why and how we do things here in the people's House and the other chamber. I have had the pleasure of having several fellows since I arrived here in Congress, all of whom have distinguished themselves in their ability to jump right in and perform as any veteran of my team. They do so by checking their egos at the door but not their skills and experiences, providing a different perspective on both potential legislation and daily procedures. Success in any arena depends on participants getting to know the language, procedures and customs of important institutions of power. To be effective communicators or creators of sound public policy, individuals and groups must know how the game is played, even if the rules appear to sometimes be rigged. APSA fellows leave their assignments with that type of knowledge and view of Congress that is built on practical experience and not solely on media or partisan spin. Washington does not operate in a vacuum--the things that we do echo past these great halls into the homes, schools and office buildings that dot this great land. While technology has allowed Americans to connect with each other quicker, more often and over greater distances, it has not increased the public's understanding of what gets done in Washington and the impact that debates on and off the floor have on their lives. The APSA Congressional Fellowship program is helping to bridge this gap in the public consciousness by demystifying the political process. Their alumni provide clear evidence that everyone, no matter what their profession or expertise, has a role to play in and an opportunity to impact, their government.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond in a positive way, and I make a parliamentary inquiry. Would this be the proper time to ask whether my privilege of the House motion could be heard?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share an editorial written by C. Payne Lucas, president emeritus of Africare, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that operates development programs in 26 African countries. ``Bush Should Listen Closely in Africa'' was published in Newsday earlier this month. As President George W. Bush leaves on his first trip to Africa Monday, I am reminded of a trip I made to the continent in 1985 with his father, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush. Massive drought and famine were raging in the Sahel region of West Africa at the time. Thousands of people and farm animals were dying, and most men, women and children were spending their waking moments desperately searching for food and water. Africans were calling for help, and then-President Ronald Reagan sent Bush on a factfinding mission to West Africa. I was one of a number of development specialists who accompanied him. On this visit, the vice president did not just rely on briefings from U.S. diplomats and highly placed local officials. He went out of his way to engage with--and learn from--people from all walks of life. He spoke with the people at the local level in an effort to get a firsthand account of the enormous odds they faced. Bush listened, and inspired hope. Eventually the U.S. government brought substantive emergency and development assistance to the Sahel nations. Today, Africa still faces many challenges. Some of these are as familiar as the famine we saw in the Sahel nearly 20 years ago. Others are problems that were barely on anyone's radar screen in 1985, such as the AIDS crisis. But, as it was in 1985, so it is today: In helping Africa's people cope with the problems they face, the United States and the rest of the world need to seek ideas from the people on the ground. On his trip to Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Botswana and South Africa, President George W. Bush will seek to build a better partnership, not just with the people of these five countries, but with the continent as a whole. He will be aiming to counter the long-standing complaint that the United States pays little attention to African countries beyond the desire for access to natural resources such as oil. As someone who has lived and worked in Africa, and focused nearly four decades of work on the continent, my suggestion to the president is very simple: Listen closely and learn a lot. Often, we Americans tend to think of how different sub-Saharan African countries are from ours. But those differences are minor. Africa's people want the same things we want: peace and security, a decent education for their children, health care--a better future. But, unlike those of us in the United States, Africans have far fewer means to achieve these everyday goals. This is where the United States can make a big difference. People in Africa have faith in America because they realize that we have plenty of experience in managing diversity, getting people from different racial, religious and ethnic backgrounds to work for the common good. Although we don't always realize it, Africans need these same skills in dealing with the challenges of nation-building. An active engagement by the United States can help make this happen in such countries as Sudan, Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone. For decades, we have remained committed to helping bring peace in the Mideast. We have engaged in ending bloodshed in Bosnia and Northern Ireland. Africans deserve no less. And, in this present reality, that means the United States should put troops on the ground in Liberia to prevent the continuation of bloodshed. But this issue should not overshadow other aspects of Bush's trip. In recent years, there have been signs that helping Africans in their struggle against poverty is not just a moral issue but enlightened self-interest. A case in point is the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which has increased access to the U.S. market for African businesses that manufacture textiles and other basic products. The Commerce Department reports that this measure is already having a positive impact in several African countries, creating job opportunities. The $15-billion aid package proposed by the Bush administration--and enacted by Congress--to help fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean is a very good demonstration of American leadership. We can take similar measures to help Africans find solutions to the civil wars that have plagued the continent for years, destroyed millions of lives, and drained resources that should be devoted to education and health care. Of course, the United States does not have a magic solution to all the problems that African nations face. But we can--and should--be a key part of the solution. In an increasingly interdependent world, such action will yield dividends, not just for Africans but for Americans as well. President Bush, like his father before, must listen to the people, inspire hope and provide relevant help to the Africans at the grassroots.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege under rule IX, and the form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, during a meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1776, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute; Whereas during the reading of that amendment, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means directed majority staff of the committee to ask the United States Capitol Police to remove minority party members of the committee from a room of the committee during the meeting, causing the United States Capitol Police thereupon to confront the minority party members of the committee; Whereas pending a unanimous consent request to dispense with the reading of that amendment, the chairman deliberately and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely objection by a member of the committee; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives disapproves the manner in which Representative Thomas summoned the United States Capitol Police to evict minority party members of the Committee on Ways and Means from using the library of the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the manner in which he conducted the markup in the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered reported to the House.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere belief that at the end of the day we will all be reading from the same page. In order for us to really resolve this issue, truth has to prevail. I suggest to the majority that we will be referring to the timing of the telephone calls, which is recorded. No one is going to dispute in this House that the police were called and they arrived in the library prior to the time that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and members of the majority had any problem. I repeat, the police were called and arrived, and I am referring to the time clock and the record. So that is all I have to say about this. Whether they should have been called and they were not called to stop any disturbance, they were called to get us out of that room.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have much of a dispute here. First of all, we were not saying that the majority violated any rules by giving us the substitute 2 minutes before midnight and the description right after midnight. That is your prerogative to do. We think it is wrong. We are not charging you with violating rules. And the time fact as to when we got up to leave, yes, we did. We had to decide what we were going to do, and we did get up and leave the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) behind. The question is, did the chief of staff come as soon as we got up and say that the Chair told us to leave the room? And even though you may not know who directed the sergeant, the police to take us out of the room, the record will show they received a call and they know who they received it from. It was from the chief of staff from the Committee on Ways and Means or someone saying they were speaking for the chief, and it was after that that the police came. I do not know whether the chairman rescinded the direction to kick us out of the room, but what we are saying today is that that never should have happened. That room belongs to us just as much as it belongs to the Republicans. So we are not arguing with you about violating the rules, but when we objected, that is the only thing that we have. We used the tools that we have. We did not give you unanimous consent to have the substitute to be considered. You may call it a waste of time. We have call it our constitutional prerogative.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the truth. And if what the majority is saying is that somehow the chairman recognized that what he did was wrong and rescinded that, we in that room had no idea that it was rescinded. The police had us in that room. They sent for their superior, and they sent for the Sergeant of Arms. The same person who came to tell us that the chairman wanted us to leave could have very easily come into that room and said that the chairman had changed his mind. That did not happen.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this discussion at the end of the day would tend to bring more civility to the relationship between the minority and the majority Members. We can continue the animosity. We can continue the ill feelings. But this would not serve our Nation well, and it certainly should not make Democrats or Republicans more proud to be a Member of this august body. We should be proud when we differ when we debate; but once we start eroding and abusing the powers of the majority, we do not do it for this Congress, but we do it for the Congress that follows. We do not have that right. No one person has the right to take away the rights that have been given to us by the Constitution in this great Nation. Last night, just before midnight, a substitute pension bill was filed. After midnight, its description was filed. The underlying bill was a $230 billion bill of 207 pages. The substitute was a $50 billion bill and 90 pages. Members of our committee, Democratic members and I would suspect Republicans as well, had no clue as to the fact that this was coming up on a Friday; and when it did come up, we did not have time to read to see what were the major differences between the substitute and the underlying bill. When the chairman of the committee asked for unanimous consent to waive the reading of the substitute, I objected and there was some discussion, but I maintained the objection because the Chair really had made up his mind that he was going to move forward with that legislation. After talking with some of the senior members of the minority, we decided that we had go to the library. This library has been used historically since I have been on that committee for discussions with majority, minority, collectively. It has been used by the Trade Caucus, Republicans and Democrats. It is a beautiful place right behind our beautiful hearing room. We went back there just to discuss what was in the substitute and how we would handle it. We were not there, I want to emphasize that all of these things are recorded because the time factor is so essential. I was not in that room 2 minutes when I was approached by the chairman's chief of staff who asked me and the Democrats to leave the library. I asked why. She told me because the chairman wanted to use the library for the Republican members. I asked her to advise the Chair that we were not leaving. It was less than 3 minutes that a House Capitol policeman came and said that a disturbance has been reported. All of the Democrats were in the library at this time with the exception of the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who was outside to make certain that if there was an attempt to waive the rules, the reading of the substitute, that he could object. The police officer asked us to leave because he was reported that there was a disturbance. I asked what did he intend to do because we were not leaving. He said he would report to his superior. In less than 3 minutes a lieutenant came of the Capitol policemen. I asked him why was he there, and he stated because the patrolman had received this message, and he had received notice that he was to remove us. I told him what I told the police officer, that we had decided collectively that we would not be moved, and I asked what they intended to do. He said that he had to get a better reading of this from the Sergeant of Arms. The Sergeant of Arms came and said he was advised by the Capitol Police that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked that we be removed from the room. I said we would not be removed, and the Sergeant of Arms said that he thought that was an issue to be resolved by Members of Congress and members of the committee. I suggest to you that once we start taking away the privacy of Members, the privacy of members of the committee the privilege to use space that is there for the sole purpose of us to deliberate, then it is a situation that effects not me, not the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, not the Democrats and Republicans in this House of Representatives, but it effects this institution. We should not allow the abuse of power or personalities to interfere with the responsibilities we have. We have a responsibility to pass this Congress, certainly, if not in better shape, than in no worse shape than the great institution that we inherit it.

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

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legendary Celia Cruz, who passed away of cancer on July 16, 2003, at the age of 78. I join with the people of my district and other citizens of the global community in mourning the loss of the woman who was rightly called ``La Reina de la Salsa.'' I recall fondly her solo and group performances with many musical greats, but in particular the ones with my late dear friend, Tito Puente. I recall most notably her performances at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. during the Americanos Festival and the Hispanic Heritage Awards. Ms. Cruz changed the world through her voice, helping not only to establish modern salsa music but also set a bar of excellence for all performers, male and female. She rose from humble roots in Cuba to become a global citizen who's gift of song and dance extended beyond language through more than 70 albums that incorporated everything from mambo, to son, to modern reggae and hip-hop. Ms. Cruz's unique vocal abilities earned her hundreds of awards and honors, including a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and three honorary doctorates. Her talent earned her fans all over the world, serving to proudly uplift Latinos worldwide and helping to break down racial and gender barriers in unprecedented ways in music, politics and culture. Her grace and hard work kept her producing Grammy-winning albums until the very end of her life, challenging the perception that life, success and beauty stop at the certain age. Our condolences naturally go out to her husband Pedro, who more than anyone knew the rare and precious jewel that we had among us. However, while she has departed this earthly plane, her legacy will live forever in the hearts and minds of those who cherished her work in present and the generations of those fans yet to be born. I leave with my colleagues two articles written respectively by the New York Times' Jon Pareles and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. The article details Ms. Cruz's accomplishments and why life was always better with a little bit of ``Azucar!'' [From the New York Times, July 17, 2003] Celia Cruz, Petite Powerhouse of Latin Music, Dies at 77 (By Jon Pareles) Celia Cruz, the Cuban singer who became the queen of Latin music, died yesterday at her home in Fort Lee, N.J. She was 77. The cause was complications after surgery for a brain tumor, said a spokeswoman, Blanca Lasalle. Onstage, Ms. Cruz was a petite woman who wore tight, glittering dresses and towering wigs, dancing in high heels and belting songs that she punctuated with shouts of ``Azucar!'' (``Sugar!''). She was a vocal powerhouse, with a tough, raspy voice that could ride the percussive attack of a rumba or bring hard-won emotion to a lovelorn Cuban son. ``When people hear me sing,'' she said in an interview with The New York Times, ``I want them to be happy, happy, happy. I don't want them thinking about when there's not any money, or when there's fighting at home. My message is always felicidad--happiness.'' In a career that began in the 1940's, Ms. Cruz sang with every major Latin bandleader and recorded more than 70 albums. She sang a full spectrum of Afro-Cuban music, from the religious chants of santeria to mambos and cha-chas to modern salsa. Yet unlike many of the Latin musicians in her wake, she didn't court a crossover audience. She recorded in Spanish, modestly saying that her English was not good enough. Ms. Cruz was born in Havana to a poor family, and she regularly sang her brothers and sisters to sleep. She won a radio talent contest after a cousin took her to the radio station Garcia Serra; first prize was a cake. She went on to study at the Havana Conservatory and to sing on radio programs. In 1950, she joined La Sonora Matancera, Cuba's most popular band. ``I wanted to be a mother, a teacher and a housewife,'' she told The New York Times. ``But when I began to sing with La Sonora Matancera, I thought, `This is my chance, and I'm going to do it.''' She toured with the group constantly, sometimes singing five sets a day; they were also headliners at Havana's most celebrated nightclub, the Tropicana, and performed on radio and television. But in 1960, a year after Fidel Castro took power in Cuba, she was touring Mexico with La Sonora Matancera and decided not to return to Cuba. Years later, Cuba refused permission for her to attend her father's funeral. Ms. Cruz moved to New York in 1961, and later to Fort Lee. In 1962, she married Pedro Knight, a trumpeter from La Sonora Matancera who became her musical director and manager. He survives her, along with two sisters, Gladys Becquer and Dolores Cruz. In New York, she held on to her Cuban roots while adding some of the city's Puerto Rican and later Dominican elements to her music. She sang with Tito Puente's orchestra in the 1960's, a collaboration she periodically renewed through the next decades, and in the 1970's she also sang with bandleaders like Johnny Pacheco, Willie Colon and Ray Barretto. She performed with the Fania All-Stars at Yankee Stadium in 1975. ``Women are afraid to sing salsa,'' she once said. ``I don't know why. Maybe they think it's for men.'' She added, ``But I think everybody can sing everything.'' She continued to modernize her music, working with Miami- based producers like Willy Chirino and Emilio Estefan and with Sergio George in New York, who produced her most recent albums. She also collaborated with many of the musicians who admired her, among them Luciano Pavarotti, Gloria Estefan, David Byrne of Talking Heads and the Brazilian songwriter Caetano Veloso. In 1989, Ms. Cruz won a Grammy award for best tropical Latin performance for an album in collaboration with Mr. Barretto, ``Ritmo en el Corazon.'' In 1989, Yale University awarded Ms. Cruz an honorary doctorate (alongside Stephen Hawking), and in 1990 the main street of Little Havana in Miami, Calle Ocho, added the name Celia Cruz Way. In 1994, President Clinton gave her the National Medal of Arts. She won the first Latin Grammy Award for best tropical album in 2000. Until last year, Ms. Cruz continued to perform and record constantly on an international circuit that included jazz festivals and arena concerts along with Latin clubs. She had surgery for a brain tumor in December 2002, but in February she returned to the studio to record an album, ``Regalo de Alma,'' that is due for release Aug. 5 on Sony Discos. That same month, her 2002 album, ``La Negra Tiene Tumbao,'' won the Grammy Award for best salsa album. In March, the Telemundo network broadcast a live concert tribute to Ms. Cruz, in which she performed alongside other Latin stars, including Marc Anthony, to raise money for the Celia Cruz Foundation for Hispanic students to study music. It will give its first five grants on her birthday this year, Oct. 21.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and I have brought this amendment to this piece of legislation which would expand the coverage of the $15 billion emergency plan for AIDS relief to include 14 additional countries in the Caribbean. Recently, the President had a very successful trip to Africa where, in support of the African Growth and Opportunity Bill, he made it abundantly clear that in order to be healthy trading partners with the United States of America you had to be healthy, and the $15 billion was an attempt to prevent and to provide cure for the ravaging epidemic that has swept sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to Africa, Haiti and Guyana were named. What we are saying is that we have spent a lot of time and effort in trying to build a better Caribbean basin initiative program where our friends in the Caribbean can share in trade with the United States of America. The leaders of the countries in this area believe that in order to get a handle on this disease, which is the largest region second only to sub- Saharan Africa, that you have to go beyond Guyana, you have to go beyond Haiti; you have to have a comprehensive approach to this disease in education, in prevention and in cure. And so it makes a lot of sense, we think, that as we approach this serious disease, that we give the leaders, especially the medical leaders in this area, an opportunity to put their program to work. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has spent most of her legislative career trying to correct this disease, and I thank her for her effort, and I ask unanimous consent that she be entitled to yield to whomever the time would allow her to yield to.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has been in effect for over 2\1/2\ years. It was implemented on October 2, 2000. At present, 38 sub-Saharan African countries are designated as eligible under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); however, implementation of trade benefits for two of these countries, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Gambia, is not final. Two other countries achieved eligibility on January 1, 2003, Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone. (The attachment lists the eligible 38 countries.) To date, small countries near South Africa have been the most successful users of the program so far--Lesotho and Swaziland have tripled exports to the United States since 1999. Lesotho's exports to the United States, for example, are up from $110 million to $321 million in 2002. In practical terms, these sales have created 15,000 jobs. Farther north, export growth has been strong in Kenya--whose government believes AGOA has created 150,000 local jobs. South Africa is now an auto exporter, shipping 17,000 cars to the United States in the first 10 months of 2002. Additionally, 19 AGOA countries have met the additional requirements to receive duty-free and quota-free treatment for exports of their apparel and textiles products. Seventeen of the 19 countries have qualified for the provisions for less-developed countries, which allows the use of non-U.S. and non-AGOA fabric through September 30, 2004 (only Mauritius and South Africa are not eligible). AGOA's sectoral effects to date have been most evident in the textiles and apparel sector. In 3 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 2 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. Energy-related exports from AGOA countries continue to predominate; however, their overall share is declining, e.g., down to 76 percent of AGOA imports in 2002, from 83 percent in 2001. Additionally, the reason for the decline is not because energy exports from AGOA countries have dropped, but rather other imports have increased. For example, AGOA imports of transportation equipment were 4 percent of all AGOA imports in 2001, but those imports grew by 81 percent and are now 6 percent of all imports under AGOA. Not all African countries have participated fully and equally in AGOA's remarkable early record of success. Progress has been less evident for Tanzania, Ethiopia and much of West Africa. Moreover, despite the success in textiles and apparel, overall U.S. imports from Africa dropped by $3.4 billion, or about 25 percent, last year. This is because most African countries still rely on natural resources (especially oil, diamonds and precious metals) whose prices are volatile. Higher light-manufactured exports were thus offset by lower prices for oil and natural gas early in 2002, which cut Africa's energy export revenue by about $4 billion, while South Africa saw a $400 million decline in exports of platinum, palladium and rhodium. More serious in the long term is that AGOA benefits are limited in agriculture. Here, largely due to lower coffee and cocoa prices, Africa's exports are down by 4.5 percent (or $25 million) since 1999. EU and American subsidies also probably hamper African farmers trying to diversify out of tropical commodities. However, AGOA does seem to be helping Africa export value-added agricultural products; while preserved fruits, vegetables and juices are still a small percentage of Africa's total farm exports, they are up from $22 million to $39 million since 1999, with South Africa the leading supplier. To ensure that AGOA's early successes continue, it needs to be updated, extended and expanded to meet the current and future challenges in the U.S.-Africa trading relationship. Key issues that need to be addressed include the following: The more liberal apparel benefits for least-developed AGOA countries are set to expire in 2004, just as worldwide quotas will be eliminated. (Currently, least-developed AGOA beneficiaries can use third country fabric in qualifying apparel. This flexibility was necessary because few of these countries have fabric-making capacity.) I propose to extend LDC benefits for a short period of time, while creating incentives for LDC countries to develop fabric-making capacity. All AGOA benefits (apparel and otherwise) expire in 2008. The President has already indicated he will support an extension of the overall program beyond 2008. I propose to make AGOA benefits permanent. Sub-Saharan Africa has a tremendous amount of opportunity to export agricultural products. Unfortunately, many of the products do not meet U.S. sanitary/phytosanitary requirements. Currently, there are only about three USDA personnel (APHIS workers) providing technical assistance to the Africans to meet U.S. standards. Include a provision providing substantially more technical assistance for development of the agricultural sector. The AGOA apparel rules of origin (yarn forward requirements, very specific rules on findings, trimmings, etc.) are fairly onerous, and in many cases, make little commercial sense. Streamline the rules of origin. The United States is currently a party to dozens of international tax treaties with other countries. These treaties prevent double taxation for U.S. firms operating abroad, and include transparency requirements for other countries' systems of taxation. Include a provision encouraging the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate tax treaties with appropriate AGOA countries. HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis epidemics continue to plague the continent. Include a provision to provide tax credits to U.S. firms with operations in AGOA countries when they make cash contributions to the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The main deterrent to African investment is the lack of infrastructure in AGOA countries. Find a way to increase development in this area--perhaps through OPIC or the World Bank/IMF. There are several areas where Congress can clarify its intent. An AGOA III bill would be a natural venue to address these issues. Imports under AGOA have been a significant share of all U.S. imports from sub-Saharan Africa. In 2001, AGOA imports were $8.2 billion, or 39 percent of the total U.S. imports from sub-Saharan Africa of $21 billion. In 2002, AGOA imports rose to $9 billion, or 49 percent of the total U.S. imports of $18.2 billion from the region. Since petroleum imports are by far the major imports under AGOA, Nigeria, a leading oil producer, is the major import supplier under AGOA. Nigeria supplied 60 percent of AGOA imports in 2002, and together with South Africa (15 percent) and Gabon (13 percent), accounted for 88 percent of all AGOA imports last year. In comparison, 14 AGOA-eligible countries accounted for less than 1 percent of AGOA imports, and of those, 5 did not ship anything. In 2002, the 107th Congress approved several amendments to the AGOA in the Trade Act of 2002. These amendments are commonly called AGOA II. They include doubling the cap for apparel assembled in an AGOA country from fabric made in an AGOA country to 7 percent of overall imports over an 8-year period (by 2008). However, the cap under the special rule for lesser-developed countries was left unchanged. They allowed Namibia and Botswana to qualify for the special rule for less-developed countries, even though their per capita incomes exceed the limit set under AGOA. They clarified that AGOA benefits be given to ``knit-to- shape'' articles, garments cut in both the United States and an AGOA beneficiary country (``hybrid cutting''), and merino wool sweaters knit in AGOA beneficiary countries. They authorized $9.5 million to the Customs Service for textile transhipment enforcement, and broadened trade adjustment assistance to cover production shifts to an AGOA beneficiary country. The United States and five southern African countries (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland) are scheduled to begin free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations in late May. Preliminary discussions have focused on the negotiation's timetable and framework. Once begun, FTA negotiating rounds are expected to occur every 7 weeks with the target completion date set for the end of 2004. USTR notified Congress of its intent to enter into these negotiations in November 2002. Since this will be the United States' first FTA in sub-Saharan Africa, other AGOA countries will be watching the process closely to determine how they might take advantage of such an opportunity in the future. USTR appears to understand that a more ``developmental'' approach needs to be taken with the SACU FTA. Specifically, USTR has told Congressional staff that they: (1) recognize the need for asymmetrical treatment, i.e., treating Botswana, Swaziland, Nambia and, particularly, Lesotho (an LLDC country) differently than South Africa; and (2) will strive to provide sufficient technical assistance to help these countries eventually become full FTA trading partners. An initial $2 million in U.S. funds has already been set aside for new trade capacity building initiatives related to the FTA. USTR believes they can attain these goals even while addressing U.S. industries' interests. SACU is the largest U.S. export market in sub-Saharan Africa. U.S. exports to SACU totaled more than $3.1 billion in 2001--most to South Africa ($3 billion). Leading U.S. sales to the region include machinery, vehicles, aircraft, medical instruments, plastics, chemicals, cereals, pharmaceuticals and wood and paper products. U.S. foreign direct investment in the SACU countries totaled $2.8 billion in 2000, largely in manufacturing, wholesaling and services. The five SACU countries are leading beneficiaries of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The SACU countries were the top U.S. supplier of non-fuel goods under AGOA in 2001, accounting for more than a quarter of U.S. non-fuel imports from eligible sub-Saharan African countries. (Since oil exports boost the export numbers for many African countries, one needs to look at non-fuel exports to assess the benefit of AGOA.) Between 2000 and 2001, total U.S. non-fuel AGOA goods from South Africa grew by more than 30 percent, from Lesotho by 53 percent, and from Swaziland by 50 percent. Increases were seen in the textile and apparel, transportation equipment and agriculture sectors. As a result of AGOA, Namibia received a multimillion investment in an integrated textile and clothing production complex, and negotiations are under way for two additional factories.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am announcing the introduction of H. Con. Res. 210 honoring Army Spc. Shoshana Nyree Johnson, former POW in Iraq, and the first African-American woman POW. Specialist Johnson was deployed to the Persian Gulf region as a member of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company. On March 23, 2003, Iraqi Troops ambushed her unit in Nsiriyah, Iraq, and Specialist Johnson and five other members of her unit were captured and held as prisoners of war. Specialist Johnson, four other members of her unit, and two helicopter pilots were rescued by United States Marines on April 13, 2003. Specialist Johnson, who suffered gunshot wounds in both ankles, displayed extraordinary courage and valor during her 21-day ordeal, and outstanding dignity since her release. She was honored on Capitol Hill on June 12, 2003, at an event hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus. Specialist Johnson described her experience as ``just doing her job,'' and asked for prayers for those still fighting in Iraq. She also remembered fellow POW Private First Class Jessica Lynch, a member of her unit who was also captured and released. The humility of her remarks reflected the hero that she is. H. Con. Res. 210 honors Specialist Shoshana Johnson for her sacrifice and for representing the highest ideals of service in the United States Armed Forces. To cosponsor this Resolution, please call Jean Mathis of my staff on extension 54365.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, for its work on behalf of the people of New York. In particular, I applaud the members for their continuing efforts to rebuild the City's infrastructure after the destruction caused by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York City. The 6,800 member local, headed by President Claude Fort, has been a New York City mainstay for decades, building and maintaining vital components of the city's infrastructure. Since its inception in 1937, the local's engineers, architects, scientists, chemists, planners and other technical specialists have designed, constructed, and maintained the City's infrastructure of bridges, highways, subways, sewer and water systems, schools and libraries; they also enforce air, water, fire, and building codes. Hundreds of members are currently at work on a massive project to add a third water tunnel in the New York City area. The ``Third Water Tunnel Project'' is a system of sixty miles of underground aqueducts running through Westchester, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn. When completed, the tunnel will increase water delivery for the City's eastern and southern areas, allow drainage and treatment of the two existing tunnels, and provide an alternate delivery water system in the event service is disrupted in either of the two existing tunnels. Since the September 11 attack, Local 375 members have worked on every aspect of restoring the City's vital systems to full service. They helped restore the Cortlandt Street Subway Station and lines that had been buried by debris and flooded by broken water mains after the collapse of the Twin Towers. Hundreds of tons of debris were removed from the tunnels while engineers ensured that the rescue and recovery work could proceed safely. Local 375 members worked arduously from the time they were dispatched to Ground Zero immediately following the September 11, 2001, attack. Dedicated professional and technical workers performed flawlessly in cleaning up the site in dangerous demolition operations. In addition to strategic planning for the job, they monitored air quality and tested for anthrax. They even assisted in recovery and rescue efforts, and conducted DNA testing for victim identification. Members inspected adjacent buildings to ensure that all fire protection systems were working. Few people outside of New York City know who is responsible for the life sustaining work that they do, but the fact is that without Local 375, New York could not exist as a City. I commend the union's leaders and the entire membership, many of whom reside in my Congressional District, for their contributions to our City and for performing their difficult jobs in a manner above and beyond the call of duty.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those days that we will never forget as legislators. This is one of those days that I think as legislators we will never forget. And even though we have some people who have not studied the bill that are so anxious to believe that they are going to get prescription drug relief, I think at the end of the day that they might be able to see that this is the first step that has been specifically designed not to reform the Medicare system as we know it but to dissolve it. There are some people who are honest enough, at least outside of this hallway, to admit that that is exactly what they would want to do, to dissolve the Medicare. Many of the people on the other side of the aisle, and perhaps a handful on our side, believe that health care should not be an entitlement, Social Security should not be an entitlement; that the free marketplace should be able to work its will; that government should not be involved in providing these type of services. Ultimately, I do believe that when the bill is studied and they see that the transfer of the ability to determine how much prescription drugs will cost, which prescriptions would be filled, what is the recipient entitled to, when does the bill lock into place, and at the year 2010 what do they do with the voucher if we do not have Medicare, all of these things, I think, will be answered at some time, but I really hope that they are answered today. We have many people that have worked hard on this bill; certainly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has been a champion for health care for decades; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will be handling the remainder of this bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and so many others. But as I have said so many times publicly, at some point in time people will be asking, when they were moving to dissolve Medicare, where were you and what were you doing? I think, as so many votes in the past, that people will remember this vote. And those of us who oppose this piece of legislation will be giving our colleagues an opportunity on voting for legislation that provides all of the coverage that the letter requested from AARP, and while parts of the letter was read, I think it is safe to say that the objections that were raised to the bill or the questions that they had hoped that would be changed, that that is handled in the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allocate the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), with the understanding that he be permitted to allocate the rest of the remaining time.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that we all are concerned about our older citizens and those that are to follow, and certainly we all have to appreciate the fact that we are all here because we stand on someone else's shoulders, someone else who made the sacrifice, and I am very proud to share the responsibility of this bill with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has dedicated his entire life, and his dad before him, in making certain that he and those of us who support him and what he believes in improves the quality of life of not only the seniors today. It took us a long time to get where we are where people feel some degree of comfort that the Federal Government will be there for them, whether it is Social Security, whether it is Medicaid, whether it is Medicare. It has been government, yes, this government, this wonderful government, this government who gave me the GI bill, this government which allowed older citizens to have some degree of pride in having Social Security to cushion themselves from poverty, and this government that provided health care for the very poor, and under Medicare we had hoped that we would have provided prescription drugs for them. I do not know when this animosity came against government, why we felt we had to starve these programs which some of us have been so proud of. Somebody asked how do you pay for your bill? This is a strange thing to ask, especially when the chairman of the Committee on the Budget is on the floor. He has been able to do magic with numbers over there. He started out with a $5.6 trillion surplus, and with magic converted it to a $3.4 trillion deficit. He can take $9 trillion and find some way to spend it in tax cuts. Even tonight, some $173 billion, $100 billion just found last night, and we will get $400 billion from what they have allocated, but we think that it takes twice that much. Is that asking to do, is that something that we have to go to the Committee on the Budget for and ask? Can you sprinkle your magic powder on us and make it possible for the older people not to have gaps in services? Is it asking too much to treat them, not that they are wealthy in dollars and cents, but they are wealthy in terms of the investment they made in this country to make it possible for the multinationals and the wealthy people to get the tax breaks that they are getting, and it seems to me since compassion is not there, that maybe we can look at it as a cost savings vehicle. How many senior citizens will not have to go to the hospitals which are so expensive, how much of a part of our health expenses is a part of the institutions which our seniors are forced to go into? If you have to make a decision and you are in doubt, why not make the doubt in favor of the senior citizens? Everything that is missing in the Republican bill that is good, we put in our bill to make certain that it is better. One thing that we are saying is this, do not hate the government until you do not have any need for it. And seniors when they read the difference of the bills, and you bet your life they can read, they may be old but they are not stupid. They can pick up the daily newspapers, and if they do not go to the pharmaceutical corporations but rather go to the local drugstore, they will find out in short order who is their best friend. Do not knock the government. It is not as bad as some Members think. Give the people an opportunity so that we can say citizens, we appreciate all that you have done for us, and we in the Congress believe that the least we can do for you as you grow older is to ease your pain and, more important, the fear you have that once you go to the doctor that at least you will be able to get the drugs that are prescribed for your illness. Mr. Speaker, we do not have to challenge each other's integrity, but I tell Members this, that there are Members on the other side of the aisle that hold Social Security in utter contempt. There are Members who talk about Medicare as though the communists created the package, and they resented it when it started, and they think it is worse than ever today. What I am saying is let us do what they tell doctors to do, and do no harm. Let us leave here saying that at least on this day there was a substitute, they did not have to do it the way the majority would want. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, and I ask unanimous consent that he may further allocate that time.