Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services on the Democratic side.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this suspension bill and congratulate the chairman of the committee for taking the bulbs and baubles and whistles off the Christmas tree that they stacked on this bill initially. I am disappointed that we were not able to do more for our reservists, but I am pleased that we are doing more than they had originally thought on the other side of the aisle. And I am glad to see that we are bringing a clean bill to the floor and that is not bogged down with fish tackle boxes and foreign bettors on horse races. I do hope during these very sober hours and days that the majority will think more and more about how we can be of assistance to those brave men and women who have volunteered or who are in the Reserve to see what we can do to not only give them political support, but legislatively to give them real support for the dedication that they continuously show not only in defense of this great country, but now in following the mandates of the President. I would like to say that during time of war, we have become historically accustomed to the fact that we share sacrifices. Soon our chairman will be presenting to us an obscene tax bill that is anything but sacrifice, but would reward the wealthy. I do hope that as the House has caused the committee's leadership to change its mind and try to do things fairly, that we will see a change in attitude as this country is on the brink of war where shared sacrifice means exactly what the President said it would mean, and that is that we all be prepared to give support. I support the Armed Forces tax fairness bill. I do hope we will see more bills of this kind in the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we stand on the brink of an invasion of Iraq, we must ask ourselves if there are better ways to secure long- lasting peace and prosperity in the Middle East. I invite you to read excerpts of my remarks against an invasion of Iraq and in support of national service that I delivered Sunday, March 9, 2003 at Riverside Church. I was really moved by the sermon delivered by the Reverend Dr. James Forbes, Jr. that morning. The reading from the Bible was the parable of the weeds in the wheat field. It tells how the weeds will be destroyed but only after the weeds and the wheat grow up together and the wheat is allowed to mature. It was a great analogy as we take a look at a world today--a world that would have us believe that the weeds would be Saddam Hussein and that some are saying we have to destroy the entire wheat field in order to get him. Understanding the Power of the People Every minute of every day of every year that we live is actually part of history. We never really perceive what it is we do, how important it is, what we could have done or what we didn't do, until that day is over. Well, I can share with you now that I was not excited about that trip. I didn't intend to walk and I asked Percy why didn't he walk down there if he felt so excited about this? But he said no and set it up with Andrew Young and John Lewis. I was running for office and he said how important it would be at least for me to go down and have my picture taken. Well, having my picture taken seemed like it made a lot of sense. So I got a roundtrip ticket, and took my cashmere coat, my Stingy Brim hat, my Florsheim shoes, and went down there to have my picture taken. I had bad feet so I knew I wasn't going to march. But when the rain started coming. I saw these poor farmers, sharecroppers and young people just finding plastic to wrap their feet in. I heard them start singing the hymns and the civil rights songs. When I saw and heard all this, I knew that I just could not return to the airport. So I switched my shoes with someone that was coming back to New York, got his sneakers (kept my cashmere coat, however) and started that march from Selma to Montgomery. I cursed every step of the way of that march, wondering why in the world was I marching with no cameras, no TV, no reporters, in the darkness with a group of white Southern guardsman allegedly there to protect me. But it was only after that event was over that I fully recognized the power of Dr. Martin Luther King and fully understood the power of people who believed that they could make a difference. How little did I know in marching in that march that, as a result, Americans who had been treated as a fraction of a man would be given the power to vote in the Deep South. It was a country where lives could be taken through lynchings, where people could be beaten to death and segregated, and people would say there's nothing that we could do about it. This march, and the subsequent incidents with dogs, allowed the best of America to come out--and not only turn it around, but provide for a kid from Lennox Avenue to succeed the late and the great Adam Clayton Powell. It allowed me to be here today and say that as a result of that Voting Rights Act, we now have 39 African-American men and women serving in the House of Representatives. God is good. It means that no matter how many weeds are growing that, if we are strong enough to be the wheat to provide the light, there is no sense in giving up on this country. It's all that we got. We are the country. It is not just those people who come to Washington. It is us who decide just how strong we're going to be or how frightened we're going to be, or show silent we will be against the injustices that are taking place under our flag. An Unjust and Unwise Invasion On September the 11th, when enemies of the United States struck the World Trade Center, I think all Americans put aside whether they were Republican or Democrats, liberals or conservatives. For the first time in our history we felt the pain of hatred attacking us, and the things that we believed in. For the first time in my congressional career, New York City members were treated as members of Congress, and not merely as members of the New York delegation. We sang, ``God Bless America'' and said, under the President's leadership, that wherever this threat had come from, we were prepared to do whatever was necessary so that we would never feel the pain the way we did then. However, soon the President started talking about ``the axis of evil.'' He spoke about North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. And somewhere along the line, it was forgotten that our attackers were funded and had come from Saudi Arabia. Also lost was the fact that Osama bin Laden was the person we were searching for. Somehow the message got blurred. Soon, the President started connecting--without facts--Osama bin Laden with some force on television. And before you knew it. Saddam Hussein was transformed into the link to the tragedy that befell us at the Trade Center. Let me tell you, I have listened to President Bush privately and publicly. I have heard from the CIA and the FBI. And I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the President of the United States, has not given one scintilla of evidence to connect the actions of Saddam Hussein with the tragedies that struck us here in New York City, And, if Colin Powell, the CIA, and the FBI have evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, why in the heck didn't they give it to the U.N. inspectors so they could get these weapons out? I want to make it abundantly clear that what I learned on Lennox Avenue applies to me today. If somebody is around the corner waiting to hit me in the head with a pipe, I want him taken out right away. Preemptive strikes don't bother me. But for this great country, without any evidence that we're in imminent danger, to select a developing country that's defenseless against our power, and deliver in ultimatum that they must show evidence of how they disposed weapons of mass destruction, or we will drop bombs on them until they're sensless--3,000 high tech bombs in 48 hours--that's not the great America that I'm proud to be a part of. An attack against Iraq would be the first time that our country has ever struck another country without provocation. Doing so, we will lose the moral authority to tell other countries that God made us to live and work together. If Pakistan and India decide that they don't trust each other, if the Taiwanese and the Chinese don't trust each other, if the North Koreans fear that they're going to be attacked by South Korea, do they also have the right to a preemptive attack? What international body could we appeal to in good faith and say that they were wrong? They tell me that there will be little collateral damage, but how much is ``little'' when you're talking about the lives of people? They tell me we have the technology to reduce the loss of life of Iraq's people--mothers and children, innocent people. But if we have that technology to determine where the innocent people are in Iraq, why couldn't we use that technology to locate the weapons? Let's Talk About Oil Why Iraq? Why now? Why the rush? At the end of the day, the question has to be: Will we in New York, will we in the United States, will we on this planet, feel any safer after bombing Iraq senseless? It goes beyond Iraq or weapons of mass destruction. It has to, because we know as a fact that weapons of mass destruction are in North Korea. And take my word for it, these people in North Korea are the meanest people in the world. I know. I've dealt with them. You can't imagine people starving to death in North Korea, with 40,000 American troops in South Korea, being isolated by their former friends, the Russians, who have collapsed, the Chinese, who look at them suspiciously, the Japanese, who have had problems with them historically. The only thing they got are these dangerous weapons which they're selling, and we are saying that we got to negotiate with them while we bomb Saddam Hussein. It would seem to me if we're prepared to go to the international community to contain North Korea, that that is the least we can do for civilization and the United Nations to contain Saddam Hussein. But let's think about it, because we have to be practical about it. There ain't no oil in North Korea. Now, let's talk about oil, because some of my colleagues in Washington may be listening to me here, not just because I'm at The Riverside Church, but because C-Span is here, and we like to watch each other. So, to my colleagues that may be watching, let's talk about oil. For years we have been addicted and dependent on foreign oil and gasoline. 55- percent of the oil that we consume today comes from foreign countries. We have been promising ourselves since the days of sweater-wearing Jimmy Carter that we were going to do better. But each year we import more and more oil from abroad. Any economist will tell you--and those of you that came to church late may have seen some of them on TV this morning-- that the one thing that could possibly turn this economy around would be cheaper oil prices. That, if the price of oil continues to rise, then what we know in our community to be a recession could become a depression for us and a recession for other people in this country. The largest reservoirs of oil are in this region, with Iraq controlling most of it. But the countries in the region that do have oil have joined together in order to make certain that they keep the price of oil high so that they would get an income. They have decided that they will control the supply of oil from the region in order to get what they think would be a fair price for oil. Now, the President of the United States has said to me privately and, if you listen to him carefully, he has said it publicly, that we have to have as our first mission to seize the oil wells in Iraq. That we will be sending airborne troops there to prevent Saddam Hussein from destroying them. Once we seize those oil fields, he has said, we will bring in American and European technology. To do what? To develop the full potential of the production of oil in this area. By doing this, he shatters the restriction on the supply of oil that OPEC has put on and shatters any idea that the reduction in the supply of oil would increase the price of oil. Is the President saying this so that America would no longer have to depend on Middle Eastern heads of nations for higher oil prices? Is he saying this in order to get us out of the recession? Is he saying this because we are so dependent on foreign oil that we would want a stable supply? No. The President doesn't say that at all. This is what the President says. We have to increase the supply of oil out of Iraq so that we can get the money to restore peace and harmony to the people of Iraq to build their schools and to give them health care. That is what the President is saying that we must do. The President is also saying something else. He is saying that after we liberate Iraq--and, there is no indication that we're going to met with kids and women with little American flags waving for us--but after we liberate Iraq, that that will be the beginning of bringing democracy to all of the countries in the region. Now, I don't know that much about the Islamic faith, but I hardly think they're waiting for born-again Bush to be bringing his type of democracy to that area. If we hit Saddam Hussein, he will want to be remembered by the people in the region. Knowing that they are no friends of Israel in the region, it would seem to me that we're jeopardizing our friends and brothers and sisters in Israel from a preemptive strike by Iraq. Since they can't reach us, they will reach for our best friend, Israel. Israel will be forced to strike back with force--one, to show that she can sustain the hostility from the region and, two, because of the internal politics that exist between the hawks and the doves there. You tell me how it will not be perceived as the United States and Israel not having a ``holy war,'' especially with our President saying he's going to bring democracy to the region of the Muslim states there. Instead of us bringing a sense of peace and confidence, we're creating an atmosphere that could be chaotic as Americans go to the Middle East and Americans go abroad. The Burden Must Be Carried by All Now, whenever a nation, a community or your home is in danger, it seems to me that we all have an obligation--if we've enjoyed the benefits of living in this great nation--to say, ``What can we do to help?'' But there's a strange atmosphere that exists in Washington, that people talk about war without talking about the sacrifices of war. You don't have to be in combat, you don't have to be shot, to understand that not all of the people who go to Iraq are coming back--that families suffer the pain of losing their loved ones, and that you're going to kill people whose lives you have no right to take away. It reminds me so much when I was in P.S. 89, where there were groups of people that would say, ``Let's fight. Someone said something about your mamma. Someone offended your sister. Let's go fight. I'll hold your coat.'' You know. We got a lot of people in Washington that want to hold people's coats. I listen to these people talking about how we should have taken out Saddam Hussein a long time ago. ``We have to teach these people a lesson. We have to demonstrate the power of the United States. We have to force the United Nations to respect us.'' But we do this by sending people into harm's way. There has never been a war in which we have not said that, at least in terms of financing it, that we're going to have to pay for it through taxes. Yet this President has said, through Rumsfeld, that we can have two and three wars going on at the same time. We already have troops in Korea, Japan, Europe and Afghanistan. We're sending troops to Colombia and the Philippines. We're deploying 300,000 troops in Iraq. God knows how many more it will take for the occupation of Iraq. The President has asked for $90 billion to pay for the first month of the invasion while advocating a $674 billion tax cut for the wealthiest people in the United States. When you take a look at who the liberators will be, who will be put in harm's way, it won't be the sons and daughters of members of Congress or the President's cabinet. It won't be the rich and affluent who insist that we ``take them out now.'' No. It will be good Americans, patriotic Americans, who evaluated the economic situation in this country, and decided that the military gave them a better shake than they could get in the private sector. And so they, like me and so many others, go into the Army. When the flag goes up, they salute it because they made a contract to fight--if they were called on. Don't tell me that they'll be checking out who is in the foxhole to see whether they were drafted or volunteered. Don't tell me that, in this great country, only those who can't do better economically should be forced to carry the burden of being killed in war. I refuse to accept that. So some people have accused me of introducing legislation to reinstitute the draft just to embarrass the President or because I am against the war. Others say I did it to deter people from talking about going to war because of concern that their loved ones would be placed in harm's way. And I tell them, ``You're darned right, those are some of the reasons why I introduced it.'' It makes sense to me that, if we're going to determine that we're going to attack a nation, if we're going to determine that we're going to take a preemptive strike, if we're going to determine that no matter what the United Nations says, that we will go it alone, we have to find out who ``we'' are. And the closer that ``we'' are to our families, the less likely we are to say that we're going to war. We have a situation where the President believes that God has given him a mandate to attack Iraq. It seems that there is nothing that Saddam Hussein could ever have done to prevent war. It went beyond Saddam Hussein showing where the weapons are or proving that there are no weapons. This President is bent on getting rid of Saddam Hussein; the goal is to take him out. And so, as people were ridiculing me, I got a call from the senior senator from South Carolina. He told me, ``Charlie, I am so sick and tired of all this minority stuff.'' He said, ``While it is true that minorities find themselves in the service and in harm's way more than the general population, while it is true that they seek safe haven from the economic oppression in the military, what about some of my constituents. No one ever talks about them.'' Poor whites in rural areas face the same challenges. They love the uniform and the opportunity to serve. But it doesn't mean that they want to carry the full burden of fighting wars all over the world. He told me about the National Guard. We have 800,000 people, dedicated people, in the Guard. Many of them have already served their full careers in the military, and they have decided to live the rest of their lives in South Carolina. So they join the reserve. They join the police department. They join the fire department. They want to increase their skills in the military reserves. They want promotions. They want to increase their pensions. But they have been called up, not once, not twice, but three times. We've been pulling up the reserves, breaking up marriages, breaking up families, causing people to lose homes, and pull kids from schools. He said that it was time that the burden of fighting wars be not restricted to those people who find themselves without financial or political influence. So Senator Fritz Hollings introduced my draft bill in the other chamber. Make History--Let Your Voice Be Heard I didn't believe that my bad feet and me could make any difference in bringing about the Voting Rights Act. Sometimes, some of you may believe that the power of the United States is just so overwhelming that your voices can't be heard. But let me say this to you: At some time, at some place, somebody may just ask you, ``When your country decided that it was going to have a preemptive strike against a weak, undeveloped country to prove a point, did you say anything? Did you do anything? DId you demonstrate?'' We have a responsibility as Americans not to wait for things to happen, but to be involved in those happening things. We are America. We are history. Your voice really counts. The silence has been deafening. Why? No one wants to challenge a President after the attack of September 11, 2001. No one wants to be perceived as being unpatriotic. No one wants to be perceived as if they are not supporting our brave men and women that are stationed in the Middle East. But I tell you what. Your support of me has given me the power and the incentive, not to be classified as a profile in courage, but to represent your sentiment as you have expressed it--at the Riverside Church, in front of the United Nations, all over New York, and as we see it all over the country. You just can't be blinded by your own prejudice when the whole nation is saying that we will not be safer if we attack Iraq.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I rise to share an important article which appeared in the New York Times on February 9th that details the legacy of Mr. Arthur Ashe. The article entitled, ``A Gentleman, A Revolutionary'' was written by Mr. Donald Dell, former United States Davis Cup team captain, a leader in the sports marketing industry and a close personal friend of Mr. Ashe. The article discusses Arthur Ashe's lifelong commitment to making a difference and his selfless work for causes of freedom and justice throughout the world. It is a poignant piece and one that I believe gives a compelling example of what a principled and moral individual can accomplish for his community and his nation. [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 2003] A Gentleman, a Revolutionary (By Donald L. Dell) The Arthur Ashe I knew was not only a tennis player, an activist, a thinker, a writer; he was also a man of uncommon grace and power. On this, the 10th anniversary of his death-- Arthur died on Feb. 6, 1993--I want to express my sentiments about my good friend of 23 years. When I first met him, he was a skinny young man with a whippy tennis game. He had great wrist action in his strokes, on both his forehand and his backhand. He had a tremendous arsenal of shots; he could hit his backhand about seven different ways. He was shy, introverted, but he was a risk taker. He was never afraid to take a chance to win a point. Even then, there was a touch of the quiet revolutionary in him. As he matured, he developed into a genuinely intellectual man: inquisitive, studious, a man who loved learning. This side of his nature is what led him to champion so many causes, rationally and reasonably. To say that Arthur Ashe transcended tennis is an understatement. Yet it was tennis that remained a passion. Arthur was focused on being the best player he could be. He achieved that zenith in 1975 with his victory over Jimmy Connors to win Wimbledon--in my opinion, his greatest triumph on the court. That match remains a classic example of brains over brawn. Connors's combination of power and consistency was considered invincible, and yet Arthur diffused that force, thinking and calculating his way to the signature championship of his exceptional 15-year career. Of course, Arthur always knew that he carried more obligations than merely winning tennis matches. He knew that he was representing his race at all times. The demands of such a burden are difficult to fathom, certainly for those of us who have never experienced it. Through it all, Arthur remained patient, always willing to give of his time to meet with people, to sign autographs or to conduct a clinic for underprivileged kids. I was surprised when I read Arthur's quote that the toughest obstacle he had faced was not his two open heart surgeries, or even AIDS, but rather, as he put it, ``being born black in America.'' We had a long discussion about it. He told me that regardless of how prominent you were, each day every black person in this country was made aware that he or she was black. Arthur had faced racism as a young man growing up in Richmond, VA, and regardless of his success, he continued to have to deal with it his whole life. His commitment to making a difference, along with his sense of justice, led him to become a leader in the anti-apartheid movement. He assumed the role in his usual intellectual way. He first visited South Africa in 1973, largely as a learning experience. At the time, he was denounced by the black community, much of which felt that he was being used as a pawn by the South African government. But Arthur believed that you could not speak out against apartheid unless you knew something about it. He also thought it was important for young blacks there to see a free black man, one of accomplishment and stature in his chosen field. Arthur's sense of responsibility to his race, again coupled with his intellectual curiosity, led to one of his proudest achievements. While attempting to research the heritage of black athletes, he found no definitive work on the subject. In typical Ashe fashion, he set out to produce one. He invested three years of his time and money and employed three research assistants to write ``A Hard Road to Glory,'' a three-volume history of the black athlete in America. That work, published in 1993, is a milestone in the field of historical sports writing; the script for the television version, which Arthur also wrote, won three Emmys. For all his public achievements, I was always struck, in my personal relationship with him, by his overriding sense of trust. That trust pervaded my professional dealings with him as his lawyer for 23 years. We never had a formal contract. After an initial letter of agreement in 1970, he and I renewed each year with a handshake. Trust came naturally to him. He strongly believed--and we would debate this long and often--that there was a lot more good in people than bad. But that trusting nature belied his toughness. Clearly, Arthur was tough on the tennis court, but off the court, he was just as strong-willed. One need look no further than the strong, unpopular stands he took on issues like more stringent academic standards for college athletes. Often swimming against the tide, Arthur always chose what he believed to be the moral and principled course. And, obviously, Arthur had to be a man of great courage to deal with his medical traumas. Not once, when he learned that he had AIDS, did he say, ``Why me?'' He felt that same question could be asked of all the wonderful things he enjoyed in life. Why did he win Wimbledon? Why did he marry a beautiful, talented woman, Jeanne, who was such a major force in his life, and become father to a loving, precious child, Camera? No. When it came to adversity, Arthur preferred to pose the question differently. ``Why not me?'' he would ask. When our group was leaving South Africa in 1973, someone handed my wife, Carole, a newspaper. Rolled inside it was a poem from Don Matera, a South African poet and freedom fighter who had recently been banned and was therefore prohibited from meeting with Arthur in public. I think that poem really captures the essence of Arthur Ashe. I listened deeply when you spoke About the step-by-step revolution Of a gradual harvest, Tendered by the rains of tolerance. . . . and I loved you brother-- Not for your quiet philosophy But for the rage in your soul, Trained to be rebuked or summoned. . . . These lines reveal the true Arthur Ashe: a man of quiet philosophy, with a raging, noble soul--a man I loved so much. We may never see his like again.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act with John Dingell, the Dean of the House and Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Our Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Pete Stark, has had a leadership role in the development of this legislation, as have so many other health care leaders in our caucus. This legislation makes good on our promise to add affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage to Medicare. The Democratic bill will look, smell, taste, and feel like any other Medicare benefit, because it is a Medicare benefit. Beneficiaries will not be forced to join an HMO or other private insurer to get the prescription drugs they need. Under this legislation, every beneficiary will be guaranteed a $25 monthly premium, $100 annual deductible, 20 percent coinsurance and $2000 out-of-pocket limit, no matter where they live. We provide additional assistance for low-income beneficiaries. Those with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level ($13,470 for one person) will pay nothing. Those with incomes between 150-175 percent of poverty ($13,470- $15,715 for a single person) will pay premiums on a sliding scale with no additional cost-sharing. The Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act would: lower prescription drug costs for all Americans, regardless of whether they are covered by Medicare, give all Medicare beneficiaries the option of a reasonably-priced guaranteed prescription benefit under Medicare, and ensure that senior citizens and people with disabilities receive coverage for the drug their doctor prescribes and not some substitute that an insurance company deems ``equivalent.'' Unlike the President's and other Republicans' proposal, our plan would never force seniors into an HMO or similar private plan in order to get a prescription drug benefit. Republicans claim they will give seniors a ``Medicare'' prescription drug benefit, but their proposals are really just a way to provide subsidies to insurance plans and HMOs, not to help beneficiaries. Republicans claim they will give beneficiaries choices, but their proposals really leave virtually all of the important decisions to the private insurance companies. Under the GOP plan, private insurers will decide which drugs are covered and which are not. If your drug is not on the list, too bad. Millions of seniors will not be able to afford their prescriptions under the GOP plan. Under the GOP plan, private insurers can pick and choose which pharmacies to include in their networks. If your neighborhood pharmacy is not on the preferred list, you are out of luck. The bottom line is that those who can buy insurance under the GOP plan may find their choice of pharmacies severely limited or that they cannot get coverage for the drugs prescribed by their doctor. Ultimately, there is only one choice the President and other Republicans want to force seniors to make--the choice of either their family doctor or their life-saving medicines. Under the GOP plan, seniors in search of even modest drug benefits would have to leave the traditional Medicare program--where they have the choice of any doctor they want--and join an HMO or other private insurer that may or may not cover their family doctor. Many HMOs and private insurers have unfairly limited health care in the past. That's what the Patients' Bill of Rights debate has been about. They've been unreliable partners in Medicare to date; just look at the problems in the Medicare+Choice program. And now the Republicans want to put them in charge of this medication benefit under their ``privatization'' model. Republican leaders have never liked Medicare. Former Speaker Gingrich once said Medicare would ``wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' In 1995, Dick Armey called Medicare: ``a program I would have no part of in a free world.'' Republican proposals lay the groundwork for them to make good on their desire to do away with the program. The Republican prescription drug plan is the first step towards privatizing Medicare. They would force seniors to deal with private insurance companies instead of having the choice of getting prescriptions through Medicare. They would also institute so-called ``modernizations'' that would significantly raise the premiums of beneficiaries who wish to stay in the traditional Medicare program. In contrast, we base our plan--not on a flawed privatization model-- but on the successful Medicare program. We offer a genuine Medicare plan, providing affordable voluntary drug coverage to all American seniors through Medicare. Under this legislation, no senior will ever have to choose between putting food on the table or paying the rent or getting the medicines they need. This legislation also helps reduce the sky-rocketing costs that seniors and other beneficiaries currently pay for prescription drugs by utilizing the collective negotiating power of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries to guarantee lower drug prices. By closing some loopholes in current law that prevent or delay generic drugs from coming to market, this legislation also reduces drug prices for all Americans. While our Republican colleagues are engaged in a cynical political exercise designed to bring themselves political cover, we offer serious legislation. It would bring senior citizens Medicare prescription drug coverage. When President Harry Truman first proposed Medicare in his second term, a wide array of Republican forces were against him saying he could not do it. Truman said: ``We may not make it [now], but someday we will.'' Eventually, Truman and other Medicare advocates succeeded. Harry and Bess Truman became the first Medicare enrollees in 1965. The Republican leadership may prevent us from passing a true Medicare prescription drug benefit now, but they cannot stop us in the long run because that is what seniors and all Americans have said they really want. As Pete Stark points out, prescription drug coverage is as essential to seniors' good health in the 21st century as coverage of doctor visits and hospital stays was in the 20th century. If you want to see the real difference between Democrats and Republicans, look at Medicare prescription drug coverage. While Republicans protect the pharmaceutical industry's profits, Democrats protect seniors from skyrocketing prescription drug costs. I urge my colleagues to look at the fine print, and to vote for this legislation when the opportunity arises.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for this and past considerations.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time to talk a little bit with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade. First I want to thank the gentleman for including the technical corrections raising the personal duty exemption for travelers returning from the Caribbean basin region to $800 so that the Caribbean basin region is not at a disadvantage with the rest of the world. But I want to further inquire whether the chairman would continue to consider making a similar correction for the U.S. insular possession including the United States Virgin Islands so that we can preserve the historic balance in personal duty exemptions. Doing so will ensure that we do not damage the Virgin Islands or other of the U.S. insular possession economies which have so heavily depended on tourism. I appreciate the spirit in which the chairman has always looked at these technical corrections, and I ask him to consider making the correction as it relates to our citizens in this area.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I rise to introduce a series of bills--a Pantheon of Black Heroes-- recognizing the historic achievements and contributions of African Americans. Several of these heroes resided and worked in the Harlem area, while others inspired or lent inspiration to our community. The Pantheon of Black Heroes is part of my continuing effort, begun years ago, to officially recognize some of America's best and brightest. Black History Month presents us with another opportunity to highlight the achievements of these men and women. It is our opportunity to ensure that our stories are told as we have lived them, and as we would have them handed down to those who follow us. I ask that my colleagues join with me in recognizing the vast contributions of these great African Americans. Arthur Ashe, Ralph Bunche, Roy Campanella, Shirley Chisholm, Katherine Dunham, Marcus Garvey, Althea Gibson, Lionel Hampton, Dorothy Height, Zora Neale Hurstson, Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Adam Clayton Power, Jr., A. Philip Randolph, Sugar Ray Robinson, Arthur Schomburg, Betty Shabazz, Madame C.J. Walker, James L. Watson, and Malcolm X.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I rise to remember the lifelong contributions that Samuel J. Simmons made to his community, to issues affecting the aging and fair housing, and to this nation. I would like to extend my deepest regrets to his family and loved ones. We all mourn the loss of this great man. For the past twenty years Samuel J. Simmons has worked tirelessly as president and chief executive of the National Caucus on Black Aged, Inc., which is dedicated to serving the needs of the most vulnerable elderly Americans, and particularly aging African-Americans. As Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the civil rights era, Mr. Simmons made enormous and lasting contributions to the infrastructure of fair employment practices that our nation holds so dear today. In doing so, Mr. Simmons administered fair housing laws, and wrote advertising guidelines to include the fair housing symbol. Following his tenure at HUD, he worked to formulate training programs for managers of government-assisted housing and certifications for managers of elderly housing programs, as the founding president of National Center for Housing Management, created by presidential executive order. His longtime work, commitment and expertise in the area of equal housing initiatives and home ownership for all Americans, was recognized with his election to the board of directors of Fannie Mae. Samuel J. Simmons's service to this nation began decades ago, when he worked with the Detroit NAACP and Michigan State labor and employment groups while our nation was beginning to address the injustice and inequality that African-Americans faced in the workplace. When he arrived in Washington, he brought energy and determination to the Post Office Department, where he fought for fair appeals procedures that would adequately address the grievance and advancement issues of minorities. For his hard work and results produced, he received a Meritorious Service Award. Samuel J. Simmons spent his lifetime selflessly working to improve the access that the most vulnerable Americans have to employment, housing and affordable healthcare, and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would provide $25.2 billion in interest-free funds over the next two years for public school construction and modernization projects. Currently, our public school system has extraordinary unmet needs for funds to construct and modernize schools. Consider the following facts: The average age of a public school in the United States is 42 years. One-third of all public schools in the United States are in need of extensive repair or replacement. Three and a half million students attend schools that need major repair or replacement. According to a recent report from the National Education Association, it will cost $332 billion to bring the existing public schools into overall good condition. Billions more will be required to construct new schools to meet expanding student enrollments. President Bush's education program places strong emphasis on raising standards in America's classrooms, but does not provide promised Federal help for the cost of additional testing and services required to reach that goal. His program also ignores the fact that school facilities are an important part of raising student performance. Inferior facilities make teaching more difficult. They also send a clear message to the student that this nation does not value their education. The President's program seems to be designed to fail. My legislation will provide funds for school modernization projects through a federal tax credit. The tax credit will, in effect, pay the interest on $25.2 billion of school modernization bonds. All decisions relating to how those funds would be used would continue to be made at the local level. My legislation is based on a successful model, the Qualified Academy Bond (QZAB) program enacted in 1997. A California local school official described that program as a ``local school district's dream'' after having successfully participated in a bond offering subsidized under that program. U.S. Education Secretary Rodney Page endorsed a similar proposal in 1999 when he was Superintendent of the Houston schools. In a statement submitted to the the Committee on Ways and Means, he said that school modernization bonds ``represent the approach to Federal aid that will have a truly consequential impact on meeting the infrastructure needs of Houston and other large urban high poverty districts.'' Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am introducing this bill today without the broad bipartisan support that it has received in the past. The lack of bipartisan support is due to the fact that the bill is fundamentally inconsistent with the President's dividend exemption proposal. I am hopeful that the Congress will reject or substantially modify the President's dividend proposal and, therefore, make it possible to pursue this bill with its former bipartisan support. Attached is a brief description of the bill and a table showing how the funds will be allocated among the States. Summary The bill would subsidize $25.2 billion in zero-interest school modernization bonds. The federal government would provide tax credits for the interest normally paid on a bond. Funds that would have gone to pay bond interest would be freed for other education needs. For each $1000 of school bonds, the net benefit of the program to State or local school districts would be approximately $500. Funding: The bill divides the interest-free funds for public school construction and modernization as follows: $22 billion over two years for zero-interest school modernization bonds ($11 billion in both 2004 and 2005). The bill would allocate 60 percent of the $22 billion in bonds to states based on school-age population. The State education agency has the authority to allocate the State's share among the schools districts in the State with no restrictions as to what schools can qualify. The remaining 40 percent of these bonds would be directly allocated to the 125 school districts with the largest number of low-income students based on ESEA Title I funding (poverty-based distribution). $400 million in school modernization bonds for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools. $2.8 billion for expansion of the existing Qualified Zone Academy Bond program (QZAB). This amount is allocated among the States based upon the number or poor students. The State education agency has the authority to allocate the State's share among the school districts in the State; except that amount may be allocated only to schools with at least 35% poor students--those schools located in Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities or which have at least 35 percent of their students eligible for free or reduced price school lunch. Federal Role: The federal government would provide a tax credit to the bond purchaser equal to the interest that would otherwise be paid on a school construction bond. No new federal bureaucracy would be created. Cost: The five-year cost to the Federal government is approximately $1.7 billion and the ten-year cost is approximately $6.8 billion. The following table shows the estimated allocations under the bill. Estimated state bond allocations Alabama........................................................$354,922 Alaska...........................................................53,398 Arizona.........................................................337,448 Arkansas........................................................183,516 California....................................................3,109,598 Colorado........................................................296,358 Connecticut.....................................................292,085 Delaware.........................................................49,070 District of Columbia.............................................88,904 Florida.......................................................1,188,467 Georgia.........................................................654,051 Hawaii...........................................................77,438 Idaho............................................................93,409 Illinois......................................................1,221,868 Indiana.........................................................459,436 Iowa............................................................196,453 Kansas..........................................................196,866 Kentucky........................................................295,249 Louisiana.......................................................473,051 Maine............................................................84,355 Maryland........................................................395,270 Massachusetts...................................................467,254 Michigan......................................................1,006,867 Minnesota.......................................................378,952 Mississippi.....................................................237,537 Missouri........................................................452,673 Montana..........................................................65,077 Nebraska........................................................131,275 Nevada...........................................................92,951 New Hampshire....................................................80,802 New Jersey......................................................660,175 New Mexico......................................................157,627 New York......................................................2,476,435 North Carolina..................................................488,119 North Dakota.....................................................46,596 Ohio..........................................................1,019,626 Oklahoma........................................................277,839 Oregon..........................................................235,626 Pennsylvania..................................................1,044,126 Puerto Rico.....................................................378,751 Rhode Island.....................................................90,648 South Carolina..................................................284,932 South Dakota.....................................................56,180 Tennessee.......................................................421,577 Texas.........................................................1,998,390 Utah............................................................175,947 Vermont..........................................................42,022 Virginia........................................................422,902 Washington......................................................402,308 West Virginia...................................................123,951 Wisconsin.......................................................491,648 Wyoming..........................................................38,712 Outlying Areas...................................................51,263 BIA Schools.....................................................400,000

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this year as we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday and Black History Month, that Dr. Martin Luther King be remembered not only for his involvement in the civil rights movement, but also for his quest to achieve peace and justice for all by speaking out against war. On April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King gave a speech entitled ``Beyond Vietnam.'' In this speech, Dr. King spoke out against the Vietnam war, and more importantly, spoke of the need to wage peace, not war. In the weeks that President Bush and his administration have been leading this country to war against Iraq, I have found myself going through many of the same motions of a man who opposed a war more than thirty years ago. I began by voting against the Congressional Resolution that gave President Bush the authority to carry out this war, and have most recently pushed for Americans to more carefully consider the costs of going to war without just cause by introducing a bill that would reinstate the draft. My push to reinstate the draft was meant to first, show my opposition to a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq and second, to insure that if America does go to war, that an equitable representation of all classes of Americans are making the sacrifice for our great country. In being reintroduced to Dr. King's speech, I found that, while he was attempting to end a war, his goals in giving the ``Beyond Vietnam'' speech were similar to my own, in that he wanted the persons being called upon to fight the war to realize that the war they were fighting was serving the needs of persons that were not interested in serving their needs. As have I, Dr. King recognized that the poor were disproportionately shouldering the burden of a war. Dr. King described the war as a ``cruel manipulation of the poor'' and an ``enemy of the poor'' that was ``sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population.'' The recognition that the sacrifices being made for this country were (and continue to) not be shared was only one of a number of realizations Dr. King made in regards to the Vietnam War. As many of the insights he made then continue to be relevant in our journey down the warpath to Iraq, I invite you to read these excerpts from a speech delivered on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City and consider the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. [. . .] The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: ``A time comes when silence is betrayal.'' That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. [. . .] I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. [. . .] Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents. Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle 1, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor--both black and white--through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor. My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked--and rightly so--what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today--my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent. [. . .] Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land. [. . .] And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries. They must see Americans as strange liberators. [. . .] After the French were defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modem dictators--our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with the north. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change--especially in terms of their need for land and peace. The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy--and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us--not their fellow Vietnamese--the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go--primarily women and children and the aged. [. . .] They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one ``Vietcong''-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them--mostly children. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones? We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. [. . .] Now there is little left to build on-- save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers. [. . .] They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence? Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition. [. . .] At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor. [. . .] This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words: ``Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.'' If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. [. . .] The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. [. . .] I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict: (1) End all bombing in North and South Vietnam; (2) Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation; (3) Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos; (4) Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government; (5) Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement. [. . .] Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible. [. . .] The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen- concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God. In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military ``advisors'' in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, ``Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.'' [. . .] I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a ``thing-oriented'' society to a ``person-oriented'' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. [. . .] A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: ``This is not just.'' It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: ``This is not just.'' The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. [. . .] We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world--a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight. Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter--but beautiful--struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues a bill I have introduced today to prohibit discrimination in the rental of housing to members of the armed forces. It has been reported in the press that managers of certain apartment properties in my home state of New York have required renters to sign an affidavit stating that they are not in the military. This practice, aimed at members of the armed forces who might be called off to war, is an outrageous form of discrimination, particularly at a time when young Americans are on their way overseas to defend our country. This legislation is meant as a deterrent to this kind of practice by any landlord or property management company anywhere in the country. The bill would make it a federal crime to discriminate in rentals to members of the armed forces with a penalty of up to a year imprisonment. The reason mentioned for requiring the affidavit is to relieve landlords of the potential need to seek court orders to evict military families who may have defaulted on their rent. I have never before heard this concern raised by a landlord. But the bottom line is that discrimination against individuals or an entire class of people cannot be defended under any circumstance. In New York City, this practice is already outlawed under local anti-discrimination laws. However, there remains a glaring absence in federal and state law of the protections provided for in my bill, thus leaving members of the military in most of New York State and the rest of the country vulnerable. At this time of crisis in our country, in which we are asking so much of our military, the governing principle should be one of shared sacrifice--and certainly not discrimination.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will ask a simple question. Do Members of Congress feel that the threats posed by Iraq, North Korea, and terrorism are sufficiently real that all Americans should bear some sacrifice in responding to those threats? Our Nation in times of war always has responded by requiring sacrifices from all segments of our society. Individuals in our military are asked to bear the highest sacrifice. They are forced to leave their homes and risk their lives overseas. Those fortunate enough to remain at home during the war have been asked to support the military through rationing, increased taxes, or diversion of government resources from domestic programs. The President's rhetoric about the seriousness of the risk posed by Iraq and terrorism is inconsistent with his actual program. He places our military at risk but does not ask all other segments of our society to sacrifice for the cause. Only the poor will be forced to sacrifice through reductions in the domestic safety net. Other segments of our society are promised tax reductions, not sacrifice, with the greatest tax reductions enjoyed by the wealthiest segment of our society. The Department of Defense surveys clearly indicate that both active- duty and reserve members of the Armed Forces are primarily from low- income families. The fact that only one member of the Congress has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military is stark confirmation of the accuracy of those surveys. However every Member of Congress, by virtue of their congressional salary alone, will have sufficient income to enjoy large tax reductions under the Bush Administration policy. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I am introducing today will not increase taxes on any American above the level that is currently in effect. It simply suspends all further tax reductions under the 2001 Tax Act until the President certifies that the situations in Iraq and North Korea have been resolved, there has been an adequate response to international terrorism, and no member of the Armed Services is involuntarily on duty because of those situations. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the sacrifices required by my legislation do not meet the standard that this country has required in the past. It will not increase taxes, it will simply defer future tax reductions. Our seriousness about pursuing action overseas will be highly questionable if this Congress does not require that small sacrifice from those so fortunate to be able to stay at home. I recognize that some will attack my legislation as being ``class warfare.'' I would respond to that criticism by pointing out that all future tax reductions under the 2001 Act would be deferred by my legislation, including the limited benefits promised to lower income individuals. I recognize that the wealthiest segment of our society would have the largest benefits subject to deferral. However, that fact is not my doing, it is a simple reflection of the unfair nature of the 2001 Act. The administration and many Republican Members of the Congress have vociferously attacked the legislation that I introduced earlier to reinstate the draft. It is clear that they do not believe that their cause in Iraq is of sufficient importance to risk the lives of their children. Now I am asking whether it is sufficiently important to sacrifice tax benefits promised in the future.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, news release, news release, news release. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has said that the Republican- controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House cannot legislate, that they cannot provide for the one million Americans who are seeking jobs but whose unemployment compensation has expired. Who is going to deliver this message to the empowered Republican President who has now told the American people that he controls the agenda? And now we find out that the chairman of the awesome and powerful and influential Committee on Ways and Means cannot legislate in the people's House. Well, I do not believe it. My colleagues do not believe it, and the only reason I am commenting on it is because I do not want the American people to believe it. We have a million people out there. They do not have dividends or savings; all they have is heart and are looking for work. They are Americans that will be called on to fight the wars. They have lost their jobs, lost health benefits, but they have not lost their dignity. But we will have people to believe that somewhere down the line they will not have to pay taxes on their dividends and jobs will be created for them. The other side of the aisle says we would like to help them because of compassionate conservatism, but we just cannot do it. We have majorities in the House and the Senate, but the House has to do what the Senate did; the Senate has to do what the House would do. Do not do this to these people. They should just say they do not want to do it because they do not believe in it. They did not do it before the Christmas holidays, and they are just giving a little interest today. Mr. Speaker, so I do not know how the other side of the aisle is going to explain it back home, but I know one thing, and that is we have 84,000 New Yorkers. They took the hit for this Nation. They are looking for work. I will go back and tell them that we discussed it with the Republicans, and they said that Democrats and Republicans will not be able even to debate coverage for the 84,000 people who are without work who paid into the fund. I will tell them that we cannot even vote on it because we do not want to complicate it for the Republican-controlled Senate. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for the purposes of control.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, those of us that come from urban communities know of circumstances when someone is grabbed by the police and they are interrogated, and they have what is called a ``good cop-bad cop'' rule. The good cop talks about compassion and sensitivity and why he is our friend, and why he wants to help us; but the bad cop is the one that is mean-spirited, the one that is in the back, and the one that ultimately is going to see that we get hurt. Our beloved President is the good cop. He is the one that talks about conservatism, but with compassion. He is the one that says that he does not know why the Congress did not take care of the 800,000 people who lost their unemployment compensation after the Christmas holidays. But, Mr. Speaker, someplace in the House of Representatives lurks the bad cop. He was the one that would not allow us to vote for workmen's compensation before we left here for the Christmas holidays. While the President talks about unemployment compensation and benefits, and while all of us will be voting for the President's package, the bad cop is there saying, yes, but do not give benefits to the 1 million people whose extended benefits have expired, that have worked every day, that have paid into the unemployment compensation, that are looking for jobs. The bad cop says that we cannot afford to help those million people. Eighty-four thousand New Yorkers who took the hit for 9-11, not for our city, not for our State, but for the United States of America and for the free world, they are looking for work. They are looking to listen to the good cop. They are looking for compassion. But the bad cop says, no, we will help you later, much later, because we have to cut taxes on dividends. And if you live long enough and survive long enough, you will be able to get a job. Where is the compassion? But, Mr. Speaker, I am just as hard-nosed as any Republican that is in this House. I know when one wins the majority, he or she wins the votes and does what they want to do. The difference between me and the bad cop is that I thought we had the right to come here and at least debate our position. If Members do not want the substitute that really takes care, in a small part, of a million people who are seeking work, why do they not give us a chance to at least debate it? How does the bad cop just cut off debate, and then they tell us that we have a motion to recommit? So all we are saying is, can we not lose with dignity? Can we not lose with compassion? Can they not give us a chance, as they have found $675 billion for the wealthy, to at least let us debate to provide unemployment compensation benefits for a million people? If they will not give us the substitute, could they not waive the point of order for at least the motion to recommit? No, Mr. Speaker, the bad cop is in charge here, and the compassionate cop remains in the White House.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I rise to introduce the remarks that I delivered in connection with the Special Joint Session of Congress convened in New York City on September 6, 2002. Along with my remarks, I would like to introduce the remarks of Mrs. Susan Magazine, Assistant Commissioner of the Family Assistance Unit of the Fire Department of New York City, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. I believe that the nature and occasion of the event necessitates that these remarks be entered into the Record, so that along with the events at the Special Joint Session, they can be recorded for posterity. Rangel. You people look beautiful. (Laughter.) Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Governor. On behalf of our New York delegation, and especially Ben Gilman, who has been my friend for over 30 years, who leave us--where are you, Ben? (Applause.) ... and our entire delegation, which I hope would rise at this time, the supporters of our resolution . . . (Laughter.) ... I want to thank the leadership in the House and the Senate for supporting this resolution, our mayor and governor for giving it its political support, Ms. Annenberg for giving us our financial support, and most importantly all of you who took time from your busy schedules, and indeed our legislative schedules, to come to our great city to give us an opportunity to say thank you. History is a strange thing when you're making it. You're just not aware of the courage you may have or the shortcomings that you may have. And as the mayor, in telling you about the attributes of New York, it could be perceived that most of us from New York City have a little more self-esteem than we really need to get by. (Laughter.) Rangel. But when we were hit, we were afraid, we were scared. We didn't know whether we were going to be hit again. And Jerry Nadler, who's district was hit, was one of the first to get there. And as the mayor said and the governor said, people came from all over. Not just our heroic policemen and firemen and emergency workers, but kids came, flags were there, foods were there, doctors were there. Everyone wanted to help. Most of the New York congressional delegation in the city, we were there because it was a primary day. And so when we got back to Washington, we didn't know what to expect. We went by car. We went by bus. We went by train. And when we saw our colleagues there, singing ``God Bless America,'' we recognized that we were not just New Yorkers; that we were Americans. It wasn't just . . . (Applause.) It wasn't just our great city that was hit, it was our great country that was attacked. And we did come together, not as Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives, but we came together in support of our president and our legislative leaders to let all of our foes know that we were united in our resolve to make certain that we would do all that we could to see that this does not happen again. And even now as we gather to praise those that fought so hard for our country, that became our heroes, we send a message to our enemies that it is our resolve to say once again: ``Don't tread on the United States of America; that we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to seek out and to destroy those who seek to destroy our way of life.'' Rangel. And we come back to where the Congress has met over 200 years ago, and I cannot but be emotionally involved in believing how proud our forefathers should be of us, to come back after 200 years, and to see what we have done with their Constitution, how much we treasured it, how much we expanded it, and how much today as we meet are we prepared to protect it. How little did they know that those who picked cotton during those days, those that would come into our country to build our roads and our railroads, those that would come from foreign countries seeking religious and economic freedom, would be coming here as a part of the United States Congress 200 years later. (Applause.) U.S. history is strange because not only are we living it, but to give New Yorkers an opportunity to say thank you to our colleagues in the House means that we're saying thank you to America. We are basically saying, as New Yorkers, ``God bless this great country, that gives us an opportunity to have our diversity, and to continue to believe that a part of the legacy that we are going to leave to those to follow us, is that we're not going to allow terrorism to instill terror in our heart; that our basic commitment has to be that while we would not allow an enemy to intimidate us, we're not going to allow terror to take away our basic freedoms; that we're not going to strike any unknown country without knowing where the enemy actually is; and that the opportunities that we have been given as a people, of education, of Social Security, of health care, of opportunity that we're going to make certain that, as we protect this country, we protect those civil liberties that have been passed on to us so that when the next Congress meets, no matter where they meet, they will be saying that we protected the Constitution that was given to us over 200 years ago.'' (Applause.) Rangel. My mother, your mother, everyone always said that during times of pain, that you'd have to seek and you can find some good in it. But the truth of the matter is that when we were struck, it was hard to believe that we could find some good. But there was good that we found out; that America gave us an opportunity to say thank you to each other. America gave us an opportunity to see how blessed we were; that we could look at each other without seeing color, without seeing party label, without seeing where we came from, and recognize that we had an obligation to protect what we have. Mr. Governor, Mr. Mayor, thank you for giving us the support of bringing us together. And now we can say that we really owe a lot to each other, because we need each other. We hope this never happens again, but thank you, Congress, for helping us when you needed us, and not withstanding our attitude, we deeply appreciate the opportunity. (Applause.) Bloomberg. More than 2,800 people lost their lives at the World Trade Center, but the toll could have been far, far worse if it were not for the valor and professionalism of our local and regional firefighters, police officers and emergency service personnel. (Applause.) Bloomberg. Showing tremendous courage, they effected the rescue of more than 25,000 people from the World Trade Center, the largest and most successful emergency evacuation in modem history. Their heroism inspired the nation. Three hundred and forty-three members of the Fire Department of New York City gave their lives for freedom on 9/11. We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice. It is now my privilege to introduce Susan Magazine. She is the assistant commissioner in charge of the fire department's Family Assistance Unit. She is also a woman who lost her husband Jay, who worked at the World Trade Center. Susan? (Applause.) Magazine. Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg. Mayor, Governor Pataki, distinguished members of Congress, honored guests, I am honored to have been asked to come here this afternoon to speak with you. I came here because I think it's very important that you, our nation's leaders, hear directly from someone who lost a loved one, a family member last September 11. As the mayor said, my husband Jay was one of the more than 2,800 people who perished at the World Trade Center on that day. Jay and I spent our entire adult lives together. On October 17th of next month, we would have celebrated our 20th wedding anniversary. We have two children. Melissa is 14 and Andrew is 11. Melissa starts high school next week, and Andrew starts middle school. Jay was the catering sales manager at Windows on the World, the spectacular restaurant at the top of the north tower. One of our favorite shared family memories was all of us--Jay, me, Melissa and Andrew--going up to the restaurant all wearing hard hats during the construction work to reopen Windows on the World. Magazine. What a beautiful restaurant it was. When you were up there you felt like you were on top of the world. And Jay loved it. He loved working at Windows. He loved working in the Trade Center. He loved the vibrancy of downtown Manhattan. I recently attended a dinner for a hunger relief organization that Jay was involved with to present the first annual Jay Magazine Award of Excellence. The recipient of the award was Jay's friend, Michael Lomonaco, who was the chef at Windows. When Michael accepted the award he told a story about how he and Jay would meet almost every morning in the Windows cafeteria for coffee. And every morning as they were leaving, Jay would turn to Michael and say, ``You know, we're the luckiest guys in the world to be working here.'' When our kids went to visit Jay, which was often, they would look out of his office window. You felt like you could see all of New York City from there. And he would tell them that if they looked really, really hard uptown that they could see our apartment. It was so magical up there. Now, like thousands of other families, Melissa, Andrew and I are trying to figure out how to move on and how to live our lives. That doesn't mean that we will ever forget. It doesn't mean that we're trying to get back to normal. Normal does not exist anymore for any one of the families that lost someone that they loved on that day. It means that each one of us has to find a new normal. We have no choice. And my family is doing that. We're surrounded by incredible family, wonderful friends and support of communities. And we're doing it with the assistance of our neighbors, of our communities and you, our policy-makers. And we are extremely thankful for all of the support that we have received from people everywhere. Let me illustrate with a personal story. Our family held a memorial service for Jay at the end of September. Jay had always been in the catering and restaurant businesses and had many friends, colleagues and clients all over the country. At that service blank cards were distributed with envelopes addressed to our children. People were asked to write down their memories of Jay, to tell us stories about the Jay that they knew. The response was unbelievable. Hundreds and hundreds of cards have come back from people who knew Jay. And then, we got cards and letters from people who didn't know Jay, but had heard about him and had heard about our family, and wanted to somehow try to connect and try and give some comfort to an individual family. Experiences like that continue to be repeated every day for the families who have been affected by September 11th. As our nation's leaders, you should know that at the Family Assistance Unit of the fire department, we spent hours each day responding to letters and gifts from all over the country: from your states, and your districts. And we respond to each one of them. We received cartons of letters from schools, camps, houses of worships, individual people from all over the country, teddy bears, quilts, pictures, books, offers of weekends away for family members, paintings, scholarships for children, songs, poems, prayers. Whatever it is that people have to give, they want to reach out to individual family members and somehow try and make a difference to each family. And these are the people that you represent. Please tell the men and the women and the families in your home districts and your states how much it means to us that so many Americans have offered us their generosity and their kindness. The events of September 11th were an attack on our nation and they were attacks on individuals and individual families. Every one of the people who perished on that day was a husband, a father, a son, a wife, a mother, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a neighbor, a friend. Over 2,800 individual people were lost on that day. And it's been remarkable to me how many Americans truly understand that each of us were real people, were real families who have experienced this enormous tragedy in very individual, very personal and very immediate ways. Every day the people who work for the city of New York go to enormous lengths to do whatever they can for us, for the families. The city, the state and the entire nation have given us their support. Thank you. And when you go home, thank your constituents for their kindness, for their generosity and for never, ever letting anyone forget. Thank you. (Applause.) Bloomberg. Susan, thank you. And to you and to all the families, all we can really say is, ``Those we lost are in our prayers and God bless.'' For the terrorists, the attack on the World Trade Center, as devastating as it was, was a failure. It did not accomplish what they hoped it would. It did not weaken us. Instead, it united us. It brought us together as a nation determined to defend our freedoms and to punish those responsible for this despicable act. Ordinary Americans showed the goodness in their hearts. They responded to 9/11 as if their own home communities had been attacked. An unprecedented outpouring of support flooded into New York from across the nation. The following video you're about to see is our way of saying, ``Thank you, America.'' (Videotape presentation). Bloomberg. I want to thank the Interpublic Sports and Entertainment Group chairman, Mark Dowley, for producing that video and donating their services. (Applause.) The power, majesty and proud heritage of the United States are expressed in our national symbol, the American bald eagle. On behalf of the people of New York City, I am pleased to memorialize this historic joint session of Congress in our city by presenting a commemorative Steuben glass eagle to the House of Representatives. Minority Leader Gephardt? (Applause.) Thank you on behalf of all New Yorkers. Gephardt. Thank you so much. I accept this on behalf of all of our members. And, Charlie, I don't think you have an attitude at all. (Laughter.) Thank you. (Applause.) Bloomberg. The city is also proud to present a commemorative eagle to the Senate. Minority Leader Lott, would you come up to the podium, please? (Applause.) Bloomberg. On behalf of all New Yorkers, thank you, sir. Lott. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. On behalf of the United States Senate, we express to you our appreciation for all you've done, and for this. Senator Daschle and I will find a special place for this great eagle. Thank you. (Applause.) Bloomberg. Thank you. Speaker? (Applause.) And Tom Daschle. (Applause.) Hastert. On behalf of the U.S. Congress, we have a unique gift: a token of that day, and a token of the strength of this nation. Over the Capitol of the United States flew the flag of the United States of America. And on September 11th, we took that flag down. We kept it. We weren't sure exactly how we were going to use that flag. But we think it's very appropriate today to give it to the city of New York as a memento of what this Congress believes in: the ability and strength of the people of New York, the spirit of the people of New York is truly the spirit of America. Thank you. (Applause.) Daschle. On September 11th, when the people of South Dakota saw what happened, they dropped everything. One ranch couple, themselves struggling right now, sold 100 head of cattle, and donated the proceeds to the victims and their families. A class of second graders collected pennies, thinking that they might be able to collect or raise a couple of hundred dollars. They raised $1,776.05. I'm sure you could find similar stories from Speaker Hastert's constituents in Illinois, Senator Lott's in Mississippi, Congressman Gephardt's in Missouri. But in reaching out to help the people of New York, we realized it was the people of New York who were helping us. Your courage helped steady a wounded nation. So today, I join Speaker Hastert, on behalf of all of those you inspired, to present you this flag. We hope it'll find a home in the memorial you build to the victims of September 11th, to let all New Yorkers know that they didn't just inspire a city, they inspired a nation. (Applause.) Bloomberg. Dick, would you come up? And, Trent, and if you could come up here as well. (Applause.) Bloomberg. Thank you. Earlier, I proudly, perhaps boastfully but accurately, referred to New York City as the nation's cultural capital. I will now demonstrate that this was not an idol boast. It is my great pleasure to introduce a great composer, arranger, conductor, musician, and in my book most importantly an educator. The winner of the Pulitzer Prize for music, and the artistic director of jazz, at Lincoln Center, Winton Marsalis. (Applause) (Musical presentation.) (Applause.) Bloomberg. As to my boast about culture, I will rest my case. (Laughter.) Thank you. Well, thank you for joining us for this historic event. The members of Congress will now exit, en masse to visit ground zero and to pay their personal respects to the more than 2,800 people who died for freedom. Governor Pataki and I will go with them. But to facilitate their orderly departure, I would ask that all other guests please remain seated until the members have left for the ballroom. Thank you for your cooperation. And thank you for showing your support for the greatest city on Earth.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I do not doubt the good intent that the gentleman has in providing some moneyless way, some way that we do not have any financial obligation to pay for it, to give relief to the Medicare physicians. But I might suggest that you are opening up Pandora's box with hospitals, nursing homes, Medicaid. I do not know why you would just go to this, just because we have not been able to address the problems of the people that are waiting for help. All of these hospitals are calling Members all over wondering for what reason are we singling out Medicare physicians for what they might call special treatment. If Members are so sophisticated that they are going to say this is an entitlement that is completely in the hands of the administration and it is just a question of which numbers they are going to use, but we are now going to hold them harmless in case they make a mistake, then I really do not think that this is the way that we should go. I had hoped, and I do hope, that this is the end of the type of procedure that we have that the minority finds out what you are up to when the bill comes out. But maybe we can conclude by taking this off the calendar, seeing what can be worked out and start getting ready to start the new Congress on a different footing. I think some of these things could be adjusted. But it seems like this is a monkey wrench in the whole darn thing.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, he did not go nearly far enough, but I could hardly vote against it. The interesting part is going to be this part.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that with the overwhelming Republican victory in the House and Senate and a Republican President, that this would be an ideal time to see whether or not we can at least ease the need for the partisanship we had had in the past and to see whether or not we could get some basic things done for the country and plan better for the future of how we are going to work in the Congress. I guess the major thing that we have to do is just talk with each other and maybe not go through the process of having hearings and going to the committees and all of that formality, but at least to be able to alert people as to how you would like to close out this Congress. So we are adding to the Military Tax Fairness Act, that no one could be against except communists, some pretty good measures. One is to give some relief to our stopgap extension for the funding of welfare. It is small. We do not know where we are going or what we are going to do, but there is no sense letting the poor folks suffer for our confusion, so moving on that at a later date makes a lot of sense since you could not complete it this year. The unemployment benefit extension to me only gives relief to three States, Oregon, Washington and Arkansas, and does not come anywhere near acting as though we are addressing the ever-increasing unemployment, especially in my State; and I wish we would have done something with that. I guess the major hurdle that we have to overcome, and one of the reasons why I am opposing the rule, is because no one has explained the creativity of how we are going to give assistance to Medicare physicians. I assume that Republicans on the Committee on Rules already know what this means; and just maybe, just maybe, they might explain how we can pay Medicare doctors and forget all of the other providers. Now, it was explained to me that we do not have the money to pay anybody else and that the administration would pay the Medicare doctors, and if they did pay the Medicare doctors, that this would say that the administration cannot be sued. Now, I know some smart people are trying to figure this out. First of all, I do not know who is going to sue the administration; but if you are giving them some type of amnesty for paying the Medicare doctors, then the same legal creative mind that is going to spare the administration for doing the right thing for paying the doctors should have them do the right thing to pay for Medicare, and we will not sue them; to pay for the nursing homes, and we will not sue them; to pay for the teaching hospitals, and we will not sue them. So I do not know where we are going with this. But I would hate in the last few hours of this Congress to end up providing a fig leaf for the administration, when we know they are not thinking about doing anything illegal. So if they can do this without the Congress, let them do it and take care of the needs of the other people, because our hospitals are suffering; and I just do not know why we are rifle- shooting the Medicare physicians and just ignoring the health maintenance organizations and their needs. So I expect as soon as I sit down that someone might explain this to me, and maybe, just maybe, we might be able on the previous question to change these things so we can leave together, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as a Congress who could not complete their work on time and is just trying to get something done that we are proud of when we go home. But I think the best way to do this is to defeat the rule and to come back with something that I really think would make us feel a little more proud of who we are. I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity; and I look forward to hearing from the majority, especially now that the chairman of the committee, he has not spoken to me since we have been back, but I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him and hope we can set a new tone here, and I think just by explaining why we are not suing the administration for just singling out Medicare physicians, when we ought to sue if they ignore the rest of the people that deserve some type of assistance.