Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, at a recent Senate hearing on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, Senator Norm Coleman wisely asserted that ``if you studied the Constitution, you will not find a section entitled, `The Law of Unintended Consequences.' But it might as well be there.''

Indeed, in the course of policymaking, unintended consequences can arise. It is thus the responsibility of lawmakers and policy practitioners to account for and mitigate these unforeseen effects. This seems to be the case as it relates to the Bush Administration's proposed Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

The Initiative will require all travelers to and from the Americas, the Caribbean, and Bermuda to have a passport to enter or re-enter the United States in order to strengthen border security. However, the Initiative is to be implemented in region specific phases, with travel to the Caribbean being affected by the end of 2005. Travel to Canada and Mexico will not be affected until the end of 2007--two full years later. It is expected that the early requirements will be a significant disincentive to U.S. travelers planning trips to the Caribbean, as this group is currently not required to utilize a passport.

A recent article in the New York publication CaribNews points to growing evidence of the Initiative's substantial negative impact. The article cited forecasts released by the World Travel Tourism Council (WTTC) which revealed that as much as $2.6 billion of travel related export earnings, and 188,000 travel and tourism jobs could be lost in the Caribbean due to the Initiative.

These are sobering statistics, especially considering what the Caribbean has been through in the last year. As most of us know, the Caribbean was devastated by destructive hurricanes and extreme flooding in late 2004. The region incurred billions of dollars in damage, and is only now starting to recover. In particular, the vital tourism sector is just starting to get back on its feet. If true, the forecasts by the WTTC spell further hard times ahead for our neighbors.

The American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) also cited statistics from the WTTC during the recent Senate hearing, where it stated that several Caribbean nations will be ``seriously impacted'' by the Initiative. The ASTA provided statistics that show nearly 80 percent of U.S. visitors to some islands, such as Jamaica, do not currently utilize passports. With passport processing times of up to 2 months, and processing fees which can exceed $100.00, scores of U.S. tourists may choose vacation options that entail less hassle. The group further added that imposing the new requirements on the Caribbean earlier than other regions would likely cause a ``diplomatic controversy.''

ASTA also asserted that the early requirements will have negative implications for components of the U.S. travel industry, such as cruise ships, airlines, and travel agents, due to the forecasted reduction in U.S. travelers to the region. ASTA highlighted the particular case of the cruise industry, where unlike land based travel, substantial advance booking is commonplace.

With many cruise packages to the Caribbean selling for as little as $400.00, the $100.00+ passport processing fees that WHTI would necessitate, would represent an additional 25 percent in the original vacation price. With such a large and unexpected increase, many U.S. travelers may cancel their existing reservations. With over 3,578 cruises ships visiting the region in 2004, representing 6,380,021 in total passenger potential, this is no small consequence.

Also of note, the Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) process for the WHTI--where the public and industry are provided the opportunity to give their input and concerns on the proposal--has yet to be initiated by the appropriate government authorities. This is the case despite the fact that the new travel requirements for the Caribbean are set to go into effect in little more than 6 months. Even if the process does proceed, most entities in the U.S. travel industry will not have the time, or budget, to adequately inform the public by the Dec. 31, 2005 deadline. As such, the travel industry is urging the Administration to push back the timetable for the WHTI, especially as it relates to the Caribbean.

Mr. Speaker, all these facts, statistics, and opinions suggest that with the proposed Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative we are getting a lot more than we bargained for. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to make the appropriate modifications to ensure that this policy not only strengthens the security of the American people, but also protects the interests of the American traveler, and the economic interests of the United States and our regional neighbors. More than an opportunity, it is an obligation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man whose presence in this chamber raised the level of civility and decency and lifted the hearts of each and every one of us. Yesterday, with a number of my colleagues, I attended the funeral services of Representative J.J ``Jake'' Pickle of Texas. This was a man whose gregarious spirit and good humor over 31 years was a welcomed addition to the proceedings of the chamber, and whose passion and determination to achieve a better life for all Americans were evident in his every day good will and efforts.

Jake was a natural politician because he loved to serve the people and realized that serving the people meant knowing them. He went out of his way to greet and meet individuals who were constituents, who were Americans, and who were simply human. In formal meetings or walks to this chamber or sitting around the office, Jake always had a welcoming and calming smile accompanied by a hearty greeting and oftentimes an affectionate bear hug. He was a lightening rod of energy and enthusiasm and infused that passion and concern into everyone he came in contact with.

That passion and dedication to the public carried over into his work in this chamber. I had the honor to work with Jake on the Ways and Means Committee and I know he was committed to helping the public in every way possible. He was not blinded by partisanship but believed in the right ideals and direction for this country. In the 1980s, as chair of the Social Security Subcommittee, he worked across party lines to achieve reforms in the system that would guarantee the program for future generations. He built alliances with members of different ideologies on issues of importance to him, Austin, Texas, and the American public.

His bonds and connection to public service were rooted in principle and a desire to do what was right. He often stated to me his worry in 1964 over the Civil Rights Act. He knew that legislation to secure rights that had been long denied to African Americans was overdue and right; yet he also knew of the strong opposition to civil rights legislation in his congressional district and Texas. He took the unprecedented and dangerous (for a Texan) step of supporting that legislation, which has moved the country so far in terms of race relations. He knew the importance of addressing the issue of race in America and ensuring that all Americans were treated equally in this country. While he received President Lyndon Johnson's personal appreciation for that action, he was concerned that he would not be returned to office. Fortunately, the people of Austin saw the greatness of this man and reelected him fifteen times.

There was clearly something superb about the Gentleman from Texas. He was willing to work for and do the work of the people. His smiling face, his generous handshakes, and his willingness to put his neck on the line for the right cause were a welcomed part of his role in the House of Representatives. I miss working with Gentleman Jake as he would readily discuss and debate the issue of the day with anyone and with a hearty smile on his face.

There were several well-written obituaries earlier this week after Jake Pickle's death which captured much of the spirit and essence of this fine public servant. The one I found most meaningful is the one I submit for the Record today to share with my colleagues. It is an editorial from Jake's home town newspaper, the Austin American Statesman, paying him as high a compliment as any elected official can achieve, asserting that it was ``A Privilege to be Served by Pickle.''

A Privilege To Be Served by Pickle

June 19, 2005--Elected officeholders rightly talk about the

privilege of serving the people. Occasionally, though, an

officeholder comes along so complete in dedication, energy

and humanity that the community is privileged to have his

service. And having Jake Pickle for a congressman for 31

years proved just such a privilege for Central Texas.

Jake--anyone could call him Jake; that was fine by him--

always enjoyed being the center of attention. He was a

terrific storyteller, in part because he so obviously loved

telling a story. Audiences, in turn, couldn't help but enjoy

and start laughing at his stories, and soon he was laughing

at himself and their reaction, too.

Another reason people liked him was that he so obviously

relished being with people. He was a born politician, someone

who really did get a charge out of meeting, being with and

helping people. And he found in public office a perfect way

to live out an honorable and useful life: Help others, and

bask in the thanks.

But Pickle was far more than the glad-handing, back-

slapping pal, as good as he was at that. He deeply believed

that government could do things to help and protect ordinary

people, and that's how he used his office in Congress. As he

rose in seniority in Congress and the influential House Ways

and Means Committee, he became chairman of its Social

Security subcommittee, which in the early 1980s faced the

same kind of fiscal problems it does today.

Here's an excerpt from the 1992 edition of the American

Almanac of American Politics describing Pickle:

``While other Democrats went out and demagogued the Social

Security issue on the campaign trail, Pickle pointed out its

problems and worked hard as the architect of the Social

Security rescue of 1983, when benefits were in effect cut by

raising the normal retirement age over the years to 67 in the

next century. He was a serious player on tax reform and on

trade; he has come forward with well thought out amendments

to help rural hospitals, to strengthen the Caribbean Basin

Initiative and to tax foreign subsidiaries. Recently he has

been looking closely, and to their discomfort, at government

sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not

because they seem to be in trouble now, but because he wants

to avoid huge unanticipated obligations of the sort generated

by federal deposit insurance of savings and loans.''

If only he were in Congress today!

Pickle worked hard for Central Texas, not just in committee

meetings and on the floor of the House of Representatives,

but by coming home and asking us, repeatedly, what we wanted

him to do. He kept doing it so well that we kept sending him

back, until he decided it was time for someone younger to

fight the good fights.

It was a privilege to have him represent us, and we're

sorry he won't be telling us any more good stories.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the significant work of the Institute of Caribbean Studies (ICS), a magnificent organization that highlights and explores the linkages between the Caribbean and the United States. Today, Representative Barbara Lee, Representative Donna Christensen, and I hosted a meeting of the Institute of Caribbean Studies in the Rayburn Building. I thank these wonderful congresswomen for joining me in our effort to raise the awareness and provide an opportunity for this Congress to explore the dynamics of the Caribbean economy, culture, and global appeal.

The Institute of Caribbean Studies works to find common links between the American public and the people of the Caribbean. It explores different avenues of change and development that are common to our two regions and seeks opportunities to nurture those developments to our collective best interests. This group is working to build a stronger economic, social, and cultural bond between two important regions of the world.

At their legislative forum today, the panels addressed the growing importance of the border security, economic development, disaster assistance, and human security. Panelists such as Foreign Minister of the Bahamas Fred Mitchell, the Jamaican Ambassador Gordon Shirley, the St. Lucian Ambassador Sonia Johnny, and the Grenadian Ambassador Denis Antonie examined various causes, effects, and responses to the challenges of linking the Caribbean and the United States. Their discussion and assessments provided important insight into the solutions and opportunities for advancement in the region.

I thank the panelists and participants for their thoughts, opinions, and wisdom on developing and encouraging a stronger linkage between our two parts of the world. I particularly would like to thank Dr. Claire Nelson, the President and Founder of the Institute, for her leadership and direction in the activities of the Institute of Caribbean Studies. I am sure that under her continued helm the organization will become a valuable resource for Congress and its deliberations on improved international relations.

I submit for the Record a copy of the mission statement and goals of the organization. I hope my colleagues will put this organization to use in developing responsible policies toward the Caribbean.

The Institute of Caribbean Studies (ICS) is a non-partisan,

non-profit 501(c)(3) organization established in 1993 and

dedicated to research, policy analysis, and education with a

focus on issues that impact the Caribbean and Caribbean

Diaspora. The purpose of the Institute is to provide a forum

for scholars, the private sector, the non-government

organization community and others interested in promoting a

dialogue on Caribbean issues. The Institute seeks to address

economic development problems facing Caribbean society, and

to adopt a thorough, systematic and coordinated long-term

perspective towards their resolution.

Since its inception, ICS has been on the forefront of the

challenge to bring attention to the issues of critical

importance to the Caribbean American community, which numbers

over 3 million. ICS represents an important role in history

as the first Caribbean-American community organization in the

Washington, DC area devoted to the successful inclusion of

Caribbean-Americans in U.S. policy making, and the economic

development of the Caribbean region. ICS has built up a

unique network of knowledgeable and committed individuals

with expertise in a variety of sectors.

ICS's location in Washington, DC makes it an ideal

interlocutor, advocate and intermediary between the U.S.

government, multilateral agencies, the private sector,

Caribbean-American communities, and Caribbean governments,

communities, and organizations in the region. ICS enjoys the

respect of a significant proportion of the Caribbean-American

community, as well as the Caribbean diplomatic corps. ICS has

established and will continue to develop partnerships and

collaborative relationships with local and national

organizations in the United States and the Caribbean, such as

the Caribbean American Chamber of Commerce and Industry,

Global Rights Law Group, National Minority Suppliers

Development Council, World Bank/IMF Caribbean Staff

Association, Caribbean Research Center, and the Caribbean

Policy Development Center to meet its objectives,

particularly those in the area of economic development and

policy making.

ICS is dedicated to building bridges between Caribbean

Americans and the U.S. population at large and advocating for

the economic welfare of the Caribbean American community.

Together with partner organizations with industry, government

and civil society, we have built the foundation to make the

Institute of Caribbean Studies, the leading Caribbean

American organization in Washington, DC. Our mission is to

provide our partners with solutions to the challenges they

face, that will enable their survival, growth, and

prosperity in the ever changing global marketplace, by

providing world class research and action that supports

their missions.

The organizational structure of the ICS provides an

established framework within which `Caribbeanists' can be

mobilized to address issues of concern and implement research

and/or program initiatives. This includes a Private Sector

Council and a Research Council.

ICS program areas are designed to:

To promote the increased participation of Caribbean

Americans in the U.S. economic and policy agenda.

To facilitate increased educational exchanges between

Caribbean and American peoples.

To foster increased cooperation between the Caribbean and

other developing country regions, such as Latin America and

Africa, as well as the developed countries of Canada and

Europe.

To facilitate the participation of, and discussion with,

the Caribbean Diaspora around the world on issues pertaining

to Caribbean development.

In keeping with its holistic philosophy of development, the

Institute develops and supports programs which serve a

multiplicity of interests--the community leader, the business

person, the policy-maker, and the scholar, across various

sectors. The program areas include: Economic Development,

Science & Technology, Education & Health, and Sociology &

Culture.

Our goal for economic development is to increase the

participation of Caribbean Americans in the U.S. business

sector, to promote increased trade and investment between the

U.S. and the Caribbean, and to support entrepreneurial

development and micro-enterprise development in the

Caribbean. Our work includes creating linkages between U.S.

small and disadvantaged businesses and Caribbean businesses,

entrepreneurial development and skills training for youth

with particular reference to, and acting as an interlocutor

and facilitator for creating partnerships between U.S.

transnational corporations and the Caribbean American

community.

Our goal in the area of science and technology is improve

the level and quality of technical assistance provided to the

Caribbean region, to support improvements in the access,

development and use of science and technology across all

sectors, and the increased access of disadvantaged

communities in the Caribbean to information technology. Our

current agenda is the support of Computer centers in

disadvantaged centers in the Caribbean and the development of

exchange and linkages programs to support science education

in the Caribbean such as support for the establishment of

children's science centers.

Our goals in education and health include increasing

transfer of technology to the Caribbean region; ensuring

Caribbean Americans equity in health care; and supporting the

provision of increased educational opportunities to

disadvantaged populations in the Caribbean. This includes

assisting in the establishment of linkage programs between

historically Black colleges and universities.

Our goal in sociology and culture include: assisting the

Caribbean-American community to participate in U.S.

democratic processes; promoting the conservation and

development of Caribbean arts and culture, and promoting an

understanding of Caribbean culture in the U.S. Our current

focus in this area is the establishment of June as Caribbean

Heritage Month in the Washington, DC metropolitan region and

the production of the DC Caribbean Film Festival.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the G.I. Bill of Rights for the 21st Century.

This week, we commemorate the 61st anniversary of the G.I. Bill. The bill was enacted in 1944 to support our troops returning from World War II with educational benefits, home loans and medical assistance. This legislation greatly impacted my life.

I was a high school dropout when I first enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1948. After serving in Korea, where I was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star, I came back home in 1952 with no idea of what to do next. I had achieved the rank of Sergeant, but now I found myself frustrated, pushing hand trucks in New York's garment district, just as I had before I was deployed to Korea. Desperate for help, I went to the Veterans Administration where I learned the government would pay for my education under the G.I. Bill. I decided to finish high school and to pursue a higher education and a law degree. The rest is history.

Almost 8 million veterans went to college as a result of the original G.I. Bill and we owe today's veterans that same opportunity tailored to today's needs. Today, there are Charlie Rangels from all over the country who don't know what they will be doing when they return from serving. They enlisted with the hope of a better way of life by getting an education through the G.I. Bill. More than one million men and women have served so far in Iraq and Afghanistan. These troops have put their lives on the line for our country, and we owe them nothing less than a new and improved G.I. Bill.

The new G.I. Bill recently introduced by Democrats in Congress, if passed, would improve benefits for our men and women serving today and meets the needs of veterans and military retirees.

To help our soldiers take part in our economy and help recruit new service members, the new G.I. Bill would provide the full cost for college or job training for those who serve four or more years of active duty. It would also provide $1,000 bonuses to the nearly 1 million troops who have been placed in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new G.I. Bill also honors our National Guard and Reserve by expanding military health care to cover all reservists, making sure they do not suffer a pay cut while deployed and improving incentives for recruitment and retention.

For military retirees and the families of those who died in the line of duty, the package would eliminate the Disabled Veterans Tax, allowing disabled veterans to receive disability compensation along with their retirement pension. It would also do away with the Military Families Tax which penalizes survivors, mostly widows, of those killed as a result of combat from injuries sustained in service. These widows lose their survivor benefits if they receive compensation because their spouse has died of a service-connected injury. If passed, the bill would also improve veterans' health care.

Like me, most of today's volunteers are from economically depressed urban and rural areas with high rates of unemployment. Enticed by enlistment bonuses up to $20,000, they look at the military as an economic opportunity. In effect, they are subject to an economic draft. This is why I appealed to President Bush to call on all Americans to share the burden of war.

I oppose the war in Iraq, whose justifications have all been proven false. I strongly support the troops, whose job is not to question the legitimacy of the war, but to follow the orders they are given. We must see to it that we show them how much we appreciate their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the basic fact that, in our hearts, the American people truly love democracy. We love the ability of the people to influence the actions of decision-makers, of lawmakers and presidents to be removed from or elevated to office by the will of voters, and of the community to connect amongst diverse populations through the ballot box. We have passed legislation, protested on streets and waged wars to guarantee that every American has our most basic right, the right to vote, and our defining moments have been about the protection of this individual right.

Despite the struggles and challenges of the past and our passion for voting rights, we still routinely deny the right to vote to millions of ex-offenders, who have paid back their debt to society. In many states, there is no judicial determination of this high penalty. There is no connection to the crime committed and the punishment imposed. The denial of the right to vote is automatic based simply on a conviction, regardless of the nature of the crime or the individual involved. Reversing that decision and retaining one's right to vote in many states is nearly impossible and requires action by the Governor. As a Nation, we have long fought for the right of every citizen to vote; it should not be so easy to take that right away.

This denial erases the very core of our citizenship. It places the released ex-offenders on the outskirts of society and outside the decision making process. Their voice is silenced on the important issues of their community and this great Nation. Their unalienable right is taken away by legislative fiat in the interest of being ``tough on crime.'' They are ostracized from their community and effectively denied the right to choose representatives and voice their opinion in public policy. They are relegated to the status of second- class citizens in terms of politicians, community leaders, and unfortunately themselves.

On the outskirts, many ex-offenders are frustrated and discouraged in their efforts to become contributing members of society. Denied the right to vote and to choose leaders and policymakers, ex-offenders often feel that they are not a part of this democratic system and this society. Their alienation, compounded by the stigma of their criminal record, limits their ability to be fully reintegrated into society.

If we believe in our current penal process, then the penalties imposed by judges and juries should be the only sanctions for one's crime, not the invisible sanctions of the legislature. If we do not believe in that process, then we should work to effectively reform the system and allow it to serve its true criminal, rather than civil, purpose. Regardless of our belief in the criminal justice system, disenfranchisement of ex-offenders is abhorrent to our beliefs. They are citizens. They have paid for their violations of our laws and they must be effectively reintegrated into our communities.

I submit for the Record an editorial from today's edition of the New York Times. Congress should heed the advice of the New York Times on this issue and once again protect the right to vote for all Americans. Too many have fought and died for this right to be lost.

[From the New York Times, Jun. 22, 2005]

Extending Democracy to Ex-Offenders

June 22.--The laws that strip ex-offenders of the right to

vote across the United States are the shame of the democratic

world. Of an estimated five million Americans who were barred

from voting in the last presidential election, a majority

would have been able to vote if they had been citizens of

countries like Britain, France, Germany, or Australia. Many

nations take the franchise so seriously that they arrange for

people to cast ballots while being held in prison. In the

United States, by contrast, inmates can vote only in two

states, Maine and Vermont.

This distinctly American bias--which extends to jobs,

housing, and education--keeps even law-abiding ex-offenders

confined to the margins of society, where they have a

notoriously difficult time building successful lives. A few

states, at least, are beginning to grasp this point. Some are

reconsidering postprison sanctions, including laws that bar

ex-offenders from the polls.

The Nebraska Legislature, for example, recently replaced a

lifetime voting van for convicted felons with a system in

which ex-offenders would have their rights automatically

returned after a two-year waiting period. Iowa, which also

bars former prisoners from voting for life, took a similar

step forward last week when Gov. Tom Vilsack announced his

intention to sign an executive order that would restore

voting rights to felons after they complete their sentence.

Governor Vilsack's decision is particularly important,

given that Iowa has some of the most severe postprison

sanctions in the country. Governor Vilsack's decision is

particularly important, given that Iowa has some of the most

severe postprison sanctions in the country. The other four

states with similar laws are in the South, where

disenfranchisement was created about a century ago, partly to

keep black Americans from exercising their right to vote.

The Iowa and Nebraska cases reflect a growing awareness in

some of the states that these laws offend the basic

principles of democracy. They also stigmatize millions of

Americans, many of whom have paid their debts to society and

want nothing more than to rejoin the mainstream. The more the

United States embraces this view, the healthier we will be as

a nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate that the problems of racial reconciliation will not be addressed or solved with a simple act of Congress or an apology.

Last week, after the Senate officially apologized for its failure to pass anti-lynching legislation, I came before this body to recognize the important first step of the other chamber on race relations. Today, I want to remind this chamber as well that the problems of race relations and racism did not evaporate with the end of lynchings in the 1940s, nor the end of segregation, nor the end of the Civil Rights Movement, nor the end of the 20th century. The problems and challenges are still alive and well today.

The lynchings of the early 1900s were a form of torture and control used to constrain the aspirations of African Americans and others in their fight for freedom and justice. The fear and intimidation used then curtailed the ambitions of generations of African-Americans and stifled their educational and social progress in this country for generations to come. The apology of the Senate is much appreciated, but, as I said last week, more needs to be done to undo the harmful effect of lynching and Congress's failure to act.

A champion of anti-lynching legislation in the 1940s is still an important voice of civil rights in 2005. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). will soon be celebrating its centennial year of service to race relations and reconciliation. In the early 1900s, it fought for legal remedies to escalating violence and torture against African Americans. It stood up proudly and strongly for the rights of minorities in the country as they faced a system of discrimination and harassment designed to subdue the rights of an entire group of Americans.

Today, following the apology of the Senate, the NAACP is still a voice for the disenfranchised and the powerless. Its opinions on the next steps in racial reconciliation are important and should be heeded by this body. NAACP Interim President and CEO Dennis Courtland Hayes also recognized the actions of the Senate last week as an important first step. He recommends that the U.S. Congress pursue strategies and dialogue focused on alleviating the disparities and inequalities between whites and blacks that are the consequence of the systematic oppression of blacks by whites throughout the history of the United States.

I submit for the Record the following press release from the NAACP concerning the Senate apology. I would hope that my colleagues would take a moment to listen to this sage advice. I would like to thank Mr. Hayes for his leadership on the issue and his efforts to move the nation towards a full accounting of the consequences and an acknowledgment of the debt incurred.

NAACP Says Lynching Resolution Long Overdue

June 15.--NAACP Interim President and CEO Dennis Courtland

Hayes said the U.S. Senate vote to apologize for the

lynchings of thousands of people, mostly African Americans,

is long overdue, but is a good first step toward

reconciliation and the official acknowledgement of a dark

period in U.S. history.

``The NAACP was formed in 1909 in reaction to the lynchings

of African Americans during the 19th and 20th centuries,''

said Hayes. ``Coming 96 years after the NAACP was founded by

black and white Americans for the purpose of halting horrific

acts such as lynchings, the Senate vote is both a validation

of the NAACP's need to exist as it approaches its centennial

and a reason to hope that one day all forms of racial

lynchings within the United States will cease. The vote

offers a ray of hope that America will persevere to see an

end to racial disparities in incarceration rates, health

care, wealth, housing and employment.''

Washington Bureau Chief Hilary Shelton said, ``Our hope is

that as we move toward reconciliation, the Congress will

establish a federal commission to investigate all of the

lynchings to determine the extent of the damage done and what

it will take for final healing.''

The resolution, sponsored by Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and

Mary Landrieu, D-La., was approved by 80 of the Senate's 100

members. Notably absent among the endorsers were two senators

from Mississippi, Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott. From

1882 to 1968, there were 4,742 lynchings nationally. During

that period, Mississippi had the highest number of lynchings,

581, according to the Tuskegee Institute records. According

to the resolution, 99 percent of the lynching perpetrators

escaped punishment.

The Senate failed to act on federal anti-lynching

legislation that passed the House of Representatives three

times between 1920 and 1940. The lynchings were often part of

a campaign of intimidation against African Americans who

sought to vote, own a business, buy land or campaign for

equal rights.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and

largest civil rights organization. Its half-million adult and

youth members throughout the United States and the world are

the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities,

conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal

opportunity in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the advice of a wise individual in international relations and a champion of the issues of Afro-descendant groups across the world--the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Mr. P.J. Patterson. He is the leader of the Jamaican People's National Party and the longest-serving Prime Minister in Jamaican history.

Prime Minister Patterson is an individual with a unique history that speaks directly to many of the problems of the developed and developing worlds. As a proud Jamaican, he knows the struggles of individuals of African descent and is pioneering ways of overcoming those challenges. Campaigning on a platform that stressed recognition of minority rights and government responsibility, Prime Minister Patterson has built a coalition of national support that has popular appeal and speaks to the hearts and minds of the Jamaican people.

Throughout his life, he has seen the challenges of poor families and individuals in rising above their economic position and achieving prosperity. He thus has used his positions in government to champion actions to the benefit of the poor. Jamaica, like much of the Caribbean and Latin America, has struggled to overcome the effects of a global hegemony and the scourge of slavery on its people. It has seen the fights of the poor, the uneducated, and the disenfranchised for an equal chance in society. Prime Minister Patterson has worked to address the harmful and devastating effects of poverty, HIV/AIDS, and globalization on the tiny, but proud, island-nation of Jamaica.

Under the leadership of people like Prime Minister Patterson, Jamaica has stood as a principled defender of justice and equality for all individuals. He is currently the chair of Group of 77 and leads its efforts to expand debt relief for poor nations. He is profoundly concerned with creating a fair system of international governance for all countries. His actions in government and behavior in life demonstrate this commitment and concern.

Mr. Patterson is an important voice on global affairs and the importance of a global commitment to justice. His advice is often wise and insightful and it is important that this Congress hear the advice of this noble gentleman on the challenges of Afro-descendant populations in the Caribbean.

I therefore submit for the Record a Carib News op-ed written by the Prime Minister of Jamaica, P.J. Patterson on his views of the connection between slavery and globalization and the exploitation of the Afro-descendant populations.

From the Fight Against Slavery, Racism and Colonialism to HIV/AIDS

Scourge and Adverse Effects of Globalization

June 21, 2005.--For almost 500 years, the Atlantic slave

trade forcibly removed over 100 million Africans to

destinations in the Americas.

This mass relocation has wreaked permanent and enormous

damage to our ancestors and their descendants on every

continent bordering the Atlantic. It led to the depopulation

and stifling of African creativity and production, and was

the genesis of a dependency relationship with Europe.

The resulting negative perception of persons of African

ancestry is one we are still struggling to overcome.

Undeniably, the slave trade was the first step toward modern

Africa's current status as a region where development has

lagged far behind that of the more industrialized nations. We

in the Caribbean also suffer from this legacy.

When slavery was eventually abolished, authoritarian

regimes were structured to keep us still in bondage so as to

maintain and increase wealth for the colonial and imperial

masters. The shift in Europe toward industry during the late

18th century heralded new and increasing challenges for

continent and Diaspora alike.

Movements such as Pan Africanism grew out of our need to

overcome these obstacles.

We cannot overlook the seminal contributions of Marcus

Garvey whose concern for the problems of Blacks led him to

found the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) in

1914. Its main objectives were to promote the spirit of

racial pride, to foster worldwide unity among people of

African descent and to establish the greatness of the African

heritage. The inspirational teachings of this influential

Black leader in the 1920s were a springboard for the success

in securing civil liberties for Blacks worldwide.

We cannot speak about African liberation without reference

to one of the greatest sons of South Africa and a towering

spirit of our times. I refer to Nelson Mandela, who for

decades was engaged in resistance to the evil system of

apartheid. Like Mahatma Gandhi, his unwavering resolve made

it possible for a nation to throw off the shackles of

oppression. He is a living lend for human compassion and the

capacity to forgive. He reminds us of another truly great

African who lived many centuries ago--St. Augustine.

I, for one, am proud of the contributions of Jamaica and

the Caribbean region to the struggle against colonialism and

apartheid in Africa through the works of our writers,

musicians, orators, and artists. The music of Bob Marley, of

Peter Tosh, and Jimmy Cliff has inspired Africans and non-

Africans alike to not only recognize the continuation of the

struggle for liberation and social justice, but to champion

the international movements against colonialism and neo-

colonialism. Songs such as ``War'' and ``Zimbabwe'' inspired

freedom fighters and became anthems for change.

Nor should we overlook the refusal of our outstanding

cricketers, Clive Lloyd, Sir Vivian Richards, Michael Holding

and their colleagues who refused the lure of money to play in

racist South Africa.

The year 1994 represented the culmination of the movement

towards the liberation in Africa. The victory over apartheid

was the outcome of the activist struggle of those who were

oppressed. The contribution of the global anti-apartheid

movement was critical to this outcome. Jamaica is proud of

having sustained its commitment to the struggle against

apartheid. Under Norman Manley, we were second only to India

in declaring sanctions against South African products.

Jamaicans of my generation could not bring ourselves to

consume any product from a package marked ``made in South

Africa.'' Successive Jamaican administrations, from both

sides of the political fence, have continued the struggle.

The hegemony of western nations has, however, over the

years sparked conflicts in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of

Congo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Within the Caribbean

context, Haiti, the first independent Black nation, has

experienced 200 years of under-development. Small wonder that

the message of peace, solidarity and redemption is of much

significance today, in this, the 21st century, as in any

other period in recent history.

In addition to the adverse effects of globalization, with

its trade constraints and rapidly changing information and

communication and communication technology, the survival of

our countries is further threatened by the scourge of the

HIV/AIDS pandemic. Notably, sub-Sahara Africa is the region

most affected with the disease, followed by the Caribbean.

Our womenfolk are at great risk and our orphanages threaten

to multiply. This epidemic acts as a significant brake on

economic growth and development. Its social and economic

consequences are already being widely felt in education,

industry, agriculture, transport, and human resources.

There are those of us in political life who have never

concealed our unwavering commitment to equity and social

justice, between nations and within our domestic borders. For

this, we were once branded ideological heretics.

Today, it is conceded that the force of globalization and

the building of a market economy will not by themselves

bridge the disparities between the developed and developing

world. Nor will it result in the reduction of poverty,

ignorance, and disease.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to a truly exceptional former member of this chamber. Congressman Peter Rodino was an extraordinary man in extraordinary times. The significance and importance of this great individual is immediately evidenced by the words, praises, and acclamations from his colleagues here today.

I had the privilege of serving as a member of the House Judiciary Committee under his chairmanship for several years and then experienced the defining moment for his career as he led us through the consideration of articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. His obvious integrity and steady leadership of the Committee during this period were reassuring to a Nation recoiling from the complicity of a President in the perpetration of criminal acts.

When the Nation needed a guiding hand in this national crisis, Peter Rodino steered us with diligence, respect, and thoughtfulness. He is best known for presiding over the impeachment trial of President Nixon. This was not a task that he took lightly nor pursued with great venom. He led the Judiciary Committee cautiously through its deliberation and consideration of the issue. He knew that a partisan approach would be divisive to the country and that Congress should act with all seriousness when reversing the public will. As the chairman, Mr. Rodino ensured that the Judiciary Committee behaved responsibly. He brought his personal gravitas and respect to the hearings and guaranteed that the proceedings were respected by all.

When the Congress needed a leader to meet the challenge posed by the Civil Rights Movement, Peter Rodino in his classic style stood up and fought for the civil rights of all Americans. In the 1960s, when the country faced an energized black constituency determined to fulfill the promises of the Constitution, Peter Rodino stood up to defend their civil rights. He was one of the primary sponsors of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1964. From the Civil Rights Act to the Equal Rights Amendment, he supported every significant piece of civil rights legislation that emerged during his tenure in office. He was a supporter of the equality of every citizen and fought to ensure that justice was not denied to any group.

Peter Rodino's life was not confined to Congress. He was a proud Italian-American and a dutiful public servant who repeatedly and selflessly gave of his time, experience, and wisdom. Prior to entering Congress, he fought in Italy and Africa during World War II, earning a Bronze Star, and later served with the Italian military, receiving a Knight of Order of Crown. After retiring from Congress, he taught and inspired future lawyers at Seton Hall University Law School. At Seton Hall, the Rodino Law Society continues his legacy of activism, responsibility, and duty and stands as a sign of his commitment to guiding future generations.

I am proud to have served with Peter Rodino for 20 years in this chamber. He led by example and respected each member and person he met. He was a member who regularly engaged in both political and personal conversations with members on both sides of aisles. He was a product of his time--a time where civility and respect formed the public character and members regularly chatted with one another about the best interests of this country and their personal lives. As a congressional leader, Peter encouraged Republicans and Democrats alike to interact more, debate the issues of the day, and work towards solving the problems of this Nation.

I am glad that this chamber is taking the time to recognize the importance of this wonderful man. I will miss Peter Rodino for all of these reasons and many more. He was clearly an extraordinary man who represented the very best of this Nation. Sometimes I wish there were more Rodinos in this chamber and in our public life.

Mr. Speaker, I just want people to know that the whole country is not run by distinguished women from California. But I certainly do appreciate the leadership that you have taken. God knows how much better off our country would have been if

we had recognized the brain power that we have with minority women in this country. But we have that to work on.

I do not know where to start, because there are certain people that believe that we are not supporting the troops when we are anxious that they return home well to their families.

But I can say that I visited those that have been wounded. I have the 369th. They call themselves the Hell Fighters. They are a National Guard outfit. They have been to the Persian Gulf. They have been to Iraq. I am always there when they leave. I am always there when they come home. And I want the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) to know that they appreciate what we are doing for them.

What people do not understand when they talk about the patriotism of our fighting men and women, they are so right, unlike those of us who have a responsibility to participate, whether we are going to have peace or war for our great Nation, any veteran will tell you, when that flag goes up, you are in the military, you salute it. You do not challenge the military. You do not challenge the President. You do what you have been trained to do, and that is to destroy the enemy.

And so no matter how patriotic our men and women are, and they are that, bringing them home to their loved ones means we are patriotic too.

I remember when I first enlisted in the Army. I was 18 years old. I had not finished high school. Spinning my wheels. Did not know which way to go. Saw the uniform, saw the check, could send the check home to mom; my brother had before me. Seemed like a pretty good deal.

Now, no way did I know that in August of 1950 I would be sent to Korea, which I am embarrassed to admit I had no idea where it was, to engage in a police action, which did not sound too bad to me, being a policeman. I went there in August of 1950 and guess what? The Second Infantry Division that left Fort Washington to go there is still there today.

Getting into wars in countries is a heck of a lot easier than getting out of them. And so in that war, we did not even declare war. You know, it was a police action. It was the United Nations. It was Truman telling us to go. The majority of our outfit, they were either killed or captured.

And since I had an opportunity to be exposed about education, I felt for those who God blessed to allow to live, that we had a special obligation not to allow that to happen to other people's kids. Here we have a situation where people who have served their country and joined the Reserve have been called up two and three times. Families have been broken. I remember when I introduced my draft bill the first time, I got a call from Senator Hollings from South Carolina.

He says, you are worried about minorities and poor folks. You better start thinking of my Reservists. Families are being broken. People have already served and being called two and three times. Wives are complaining, the employers have not called them since their favorite employee was twice called up to serve the country. Tuition has not been paid. Marriages have been broken.

And then you take a look at the other side, the Charlie Rangels all over the country, different colors, different backgrounds, different languages, some not even citizens, but spinning their wheels and hoping for a better way of life, getting an education like I got with the GI bill. Where do they come from?

Well, just ask the Pentagon. They do not come from communities that chief executive officers live in. They do not come from kids with families of those in the White House or in the Pentagon. As a matter of fact, I have talked with some of the private marketers that are hired by the Pentagon, and as someone says, they rob banks because that is where the money is. They fish because that is where the fish are. They recruit where the hopeless are in terms of unemployment.

I asked the question, Do most of them come from areas of high unemployment? Yes, that is where they recruit. It makes sense. Now we have not got the retention. People are not being retained. People are not volunteering. You would think that if the President of the United States believes that, and that fighting terrorism in Iraq is in our national defense, what a speech a President could gave to all of America. I could hear it now.

If we do not bring freedom and liberty to every country that seeks it, if we do not have regime change where we do not like people, if we do not bomb and invade and superimpose our government, then our country would be jeopardized. So what are you asking, Mr. President? We are asking all of you not to allow the poor to just carry on this fight. This is a fight for freedom and liberty; you should be so proud to enlist.

So you make a plea to the poor, to the middle class and to the wealthy, to the men and women of this country that love it. Volunteer. Instead, what do they say when they do not meet their quotas? Well, the $10,000 for 3 years did not work, so we doubled it to $20,000. Now it is $30,000. So do not worry, Mr. President, it is going to be $40,000, and we will get those kids one way or the other.

And now we have got parents saying, do not do that to my kid. He loves us. If I were offered $40,000 at 18 years old off the street of Harlem, I would ask how many years can I take? I mean, that is a lot of money even with inflation being what it is today.

It seems to me that we should not need a draft if Americans thought we were doing the right thing. Makes sense to me. You would leave your job in the Congress if you are young enough. If there is something I can do, I will do it because this country has been extremely good to me.

But I know one thing, that for all of the people that are talking about that they are supporting the war, I ask one question: Would you put your kids in harm's way to indicate your support for this war? It seems like it is so easy, when I was a kid for someone to pick a fight, and then when it is time to go to fight, they said I will hold your coat. That is what America is doing today.

Do not tell me that these young people want to fight, I suppose those people being drafted do, that would be an insult to all of the heroes and sheroes that have been drafted, or at least the men that have been drafted that defended this country. But the truth of the matter is that if we have a draft, if we had a draft, we would not be in Iraq today.

If we had a draft, we would not be rattling swords in North Korea. If we had a draft, we would not be threatening Syria and Iran. We would go to the international community with the strength of the United States of America and persuade those countries that terrorism is not just an American problem, it is an international problem, and with mutual respect, sit down and talk with them to see how we can bring peace to the Middle East.

This is going to be one of a series of nights that we know how awkward it is to be against the President when the Nation is at war. But that is true of so many things that happen that we are not proud of. It is so easy not to stand up. It is so easy to say, I hope they know what they are doing in Washington. It is so easy to hope that everything is going to work out okay.

But we have had a lot of problems in this country because people are waiting for someone else to do something. And I think as our numbers grow that we will soon make it comfortable for people just to ask the question: Why did we go in the first place? Was there a plan which projected for the 21st century to go to knock off Saddam Hussein before 9/11? Did everyone that was in the Cabinet that has written books, Clark did, Woodward who wrote the book on this, did O'Neill, who was Secretary of the Treasury when they said that after 9/11, the President was committed to go after Saddam Hussein, even though there was no evidence that they should go that way?

You hear more about the papers from England, the intelligence reports that we have got to show that even the British intelligence indicated that was the route that we were going. We find now all of the reasons that were given were not true. And as you hear us over and over, and listen to the priests and the nuns and the ministers and the imams and the rabbis recognize that all we are talking about is not defending our country, we have got a new standard now.

You do not go to war just when you are attacked. You do not go to war just

when you have imminent danger of being attacked. Now, subjectively, we can go to war to avoid the attack being imminent. That subjective standard will no longer be just ours. It will belong to North Korea, South Korea. It will belong to India and Pakistan, and the moral value of the greatest democracy that has ever been created would be shattered just because no one stood up.

Well, we have seen what happened in history and we want to make it very comfortable for you not to get involved politically but to listen to the facts. And at the end of the day, when Condoleeza Rice and the President are asked, and maybe some Democrats, if you knew then what you know now, would you have committed this great country to war? Because all you got out of it is a pretty crummy election even by Florida standards, and the fact that we have no clue as to where we are going to get additional troops to stay there until they get their act together or to train them.

So I thank the three gentlewomen from California and especially, well, not especially, because all of the gentlewomen are giants in this. And one day, and I hope one day soon, the people who held us in suspicion because we are standing up, and we have to thank God that we have constituents that allow us to do it, that the least that we can say that we have done is to create an atmosphere where good people can stand up when they know in their hearts that they are doing the right thing.

Let me try that. Suppose they did call and the mother would say, Would you remind me as to why my beloved child lost his or her life? Would they say because Saddam Hussein was a mean, evil man when we have so many mean and evil people in this world? Would they say that we wanted to show them what democracy really is and they had an election? Would they say that we want to bring order to this part of the world? Would they say that, and we are prepared to do this further, the President's inaugural address and speeches he has given?

How would they answer about the weapons of mass destruction if the bereaved asked?

Suppose they asked, Was this connected with the attack of 9/11? What would they say? Suppose they said, well, Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden? Was he not the villain, or did 15 of the 19 terrorists come from Saudi Arabia? Suppose they asked, What were you doing tip-toeing through the gardens at the ranch with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?

Suppose they asked, Why did the Saudis get special treatment in leaving the country to go to Saudi Arabia? I do not know. Maybe, just maybe, we should not ask a mother to get those kind of answers. And just maybe, we should not have to lose a child to challenge those type of answers.

I tell you as a lawyer and someone that would advise somebody, I would not ask them to ask to see Secretary Rumsfeld.

Members have to remember this is the same person that told the whole country that he did not know whether we were winning or losing the war. Is that something to tell someone?

He said that it is a slog, whatever the heck that is. And he said something that he was so right in, that he really did not know whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. And we can answer him, and the world can, because we lack the sensitive sophistication to understand that a life is a life, whether it is an American, whether it is an Iraqi, in the tens of thousands and sometimes the hundreds of thousands.

I talked with Colin Powell about this and I asked him, How do you train a young patriotic soldier to go to a foreign country to kill terrorists that you do not know what they look like, what uniform they wear, what language they speak, and you can only react when you are being fired upon? Can you imagine how many terrorists we create when these cowardly people go to a school, go to a hospital, go to a mosque and fire at our troops? And those who have served would know, you have no option except to destroy where that fire is coming from. And if you destroy innocent people, we no longer call that human life. You know what we call it? Collateral damage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an African- American day of celebration of freedom and justice. Juneteenth marks the end of slavery for African-American communities around the country. It is a day to embrace our freedom and equality, to reflect on the progress we have made as people, and to ponder our future role in this country.

Despite the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1963, it took two and a half years--June 1965--for the liberation of all slaves in the United States to occur. For 140 years now, African- Americans have celebrated the final attainment of their freedom on the 19th of June. Tradition has it that it is the date when news of emancipation from slavery was finally delivered to slaves in Texas, the furthest point from Washington where slavery existed. The most accepted explanation is that the delay was caused by the primitive communications of the day, but some historians believe that the news of emancipation was deliberately denied to slaves.

On this Juneteenth, African-Americans across the country will contemplate the importance of their freedom compared to their ancestors. They will reflect on their ability and rights to hold a job, to ride a bus, to own property, to live unencumbered by the government, and to make decisions about their own lives. Some will think about the obstacles that remain in their way of achieving the ``American dream.'' Others will ponder the future of their children and the opportunities ahead of them.

I, for one, would think both about how far we have come as a country and how much further we need to go to erase racism and discrimination from our society. Once the slaves of plantation owners, African- Americans now can freely move about the country, hold jobs and careers of importance, marry their chosen partner, provide for their families, raise their kids, and live in true freedom. African-Americans are graduating from college at increasing rates; receiving medical, professional, and doctoral degrees; working in major corporations and businesses; and making decisions about the future of this country. We have come a long way in our struggle for equality.

Nonetheless, we have far to go. Less than half of African-American families own their own homes and they are twice as likely to be denied mortgages as whites. While the unemployment rate for whites is 5 percent, the black unemployment rate is 10 percent. African-Americans are three times more likely to be arrested as whites and on average serve longer sentences than whites. Crime, drugs, and poverty are rampant in many minority communities. Many young African-Americans are disillusioned, frustrated, and feel powerless in their own country.

The challenges African-Americans are facing today are rooted in the system of slavery. After emancipation, segregation, a system of continued oppression, was imposed which maintained the disparities between blacks and whites. It fueled the animosities, resentments, and discrimination that would separate and divide this country. We are still grappling with the effects of slavery, racism, and discrimination. We must do more to undo the wrongs of that evil institution.

On this Juneteenth, let this great country come together to reflect on the role slavery has played in our system today.

Seventeen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for giving us who knew and loved Peter an opportunity to share our views. It has not gone unnoticed that the gentleman from New Jersey has reminded me on a number of occasions that if I had endorsed him earlier, he would have had as much seniority as I have today. But I do recall that he never, ever, in the heat of campaigns, said anything to take away from the integrity of this great American, Peter Rodino.

Ironically, even though the chairman of that committee when I first got here was from Brooklyn, I did not know Mannie Celler, but the gentleman from New Jersey knows him, the closeness of Newark and Harlem.

I did know Peter Rodino, and during the time I was in the State legislature, he was telling me what the Congress was doing or not doing or should be doing about the international drug trafficking and about the plight that our cities were having with addiction and crime.

So when I came here, I was so honored to be on that committee, never knowing that my friend Peter Rodino would be the chairman of that committee in such a short period of time. But Peter really loved this country. He really loved the Judiciary Committee. And I never saw anyone that felt so warmly about his home country. He really was proud of being an Italian and wanted so much to make certain that he brought honor to his people and his community, to his constituents and to the Congress.

As I heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) say, assuming the chairmanship of that committee in the shadows of Mannie Celler was not an easy thing to do. We were constantly reminded, and I see the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) here, that impeachment did not automatically go to the Judiciary Committee. And more than once the Speaker would say if we did not move on to either impeach President Nixon or get off his back that a special select committee would be called.

Every time we came here on Monday, we were beseeched by Members asking us, ``What are you going to do? Get on with it? We are facing an election, and you guys are just on television.''

That was a lot of pressure on Peter Rodino, who had assumed these new responsibilities. There was some testimony that was embargoed but recently was released, which to me said a lot about Peter. It had to do with the tapes that President Nixon had with conversations he had with Haldeman, Erlichman, and Dean. And the President was very concerned about the life expectancy of Thurgood Marshall and went on in his rambling way of talking about people who would not be replacing him based on their color and religion. So he went through blacks, and he went through Jewish people, and then he went through Italians, in a most derogatory way. The way the operation was on the committee was that we would have a transcript, and we would listen to the tape. But when it got to the Italian part of the tape, it was excised in the written transcript and silenced on the tape. But any Member could go to the Chief Counsel to see what was excised, and he had excised that part that spoke against the Italian people and why they should not be expected to get a judgeship because of their backgrounds.

I came out and I said, ``Peter, why the heck would you take this off of the tape?'' And he said, ``Because it had nothing to do with the relevancy of whether or not the President of the United States should be impeached.'' And I smiled because that is the integrity of a person, who could have received headlines throughout the country for exposing the President, wanting so much to have due process overcome the prejudices and the partisanship that certainly did not exist as it does today but it was there. And Peter just felt that defaming people in the privacy of the White House did not determine whether or not he had violated the Constitution.

Peter Rodino was one heck of a courageous guy and, indeed, rose to the occasion where those of us that were on the committee knew that the wrongdoers in the White House were so afraid that the impeachment of President Nixon will cause havoc not only in the government, but throughout these United States. And when articles were voted, Peter went to the rear of the Judiciary room to call his family and, with tears in his eyes, announced that the President of the United States had Articles of Impeachment voted against him.

A lot of people do not know, but Peter became the most popular person not for the decision but because he kept this country together. He kept this Congress together. And a lot of people do not know, but Mario Biaggi knew that a committee was formed to have Peter Rodino as a candidate for Vice President of the United States to run with Jimmy Carter. And we discussed that he got his interview, and that was when Mondale prevailed. But I would suspect that those people who came to this great country forcefully, or because they wanted to get here would have to show that if a guy like Peter Rodino from the streets of Newark could face the international responsibility of stabilizing the world's most powerful government and to come out with the scores that he did as a great American, I know his wife, Joy, and his family would know that this is a great country, Peter Rodino was a great person, and the integrity of this Congress was raised to a level that I do not remember ever reading about since.

I want to thank the gentleman (Mr. Payne) and our colleagues for never allowing this world to forget what a person from Newark or Harlem or anywhere in this country, when challenged, they could meet this challenge.

I thank Mr. Payne for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate one of the proudest institutions of human society--the father. This Sunday, many in our country will turn those individuals who often go underappreciated throughout our lives. As a father myself, I know the joys and wonders of being a father and I applaud those fathers that stand up for and behind their children throughout their lives.

Dads are an important aspect of many of our lives. They, like mothers, dedicate their lives to the rearing of their kids. They sacrifice and suffer for the betterment of the family. They fret and worry constantly over the safety and future of their loved ones. Fathers nevertheless play an important role in the lives of the community, intentionally or not. They are an integral part of the national fabric that weaves and connects us to one another and to our collective futures.

Fathers on Father's Day seldom get to the attention and praise that mothers do on Mother's Day. We get interesting ties, not fresh roses. Greeting cards on Father's Days are rarely as lovely and thoughtful. The importance of fathers, like mothers, however is not reflected in the gifts and praises lauded on us. The importance is seen at birthdays and holidays, graduations and weddings. Our biggest accomplishments are turning our little boys into men and our girls into women. That is where our praise comes from.

Nonetheless, I want to acknowledge the fathers of this country today. I want to thank them for spending time with their families, providing the necessities of life to their children, caring and supporting their wives, and being role models for and leaders of their communities. I want to recognize the hard work and sacrifice that they endure for their loved ones and the advice and wisdom they give to guide the family. I applaud their daily efforts, sympathize with their trials and tribulations, and encourage them to persevere through difficult moments. The rewards far outweigh the sacrifices.

I especially want to thank the fathers that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Their service to this nation means they will not able to hold their kids and their wives on this Father's Day. I also want to thank the fathers of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. They too will be unable to hold their kids and their wives because of their service to this country. I have spoken before about my admiration and love for our military forces. The sacrifices they endure for our freedom and safety must be appreciated and we must continue to recognize and honor these men and women on Father's Day and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule on the defense appropriation bill so that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) might give us an opportunity to vote, to consider and vote on her amendment, which actually contains a strategy for success in Iraq by allowing or asking the President to tell us, within 30 days after the enactment, what is his plan for success to bring the troops home.

Whether you voted for or against the war, or whether you are concerned about it, everyone has to be concerned about our troops that are there. The way this war has been waged is putting a huge strain on our men and women in uniform, and has become a threat to our armed forces' capacity to meet future needs. And if you take a look at what is happening with our military being spread through 120 countries, you will recognize that the administration's so-called ``strategy'' requires more troops to add on to the troops that are already in Iraq.

The problem that we are having is recruitment. We are not finding, notwithstanding the increases in bonuses up to $40,000, that we are getting the recruits that we need. We also find that they reduced the standards. One no longer has to be a high school graduate; they are now taking sub-high school graduates. And all the while, the President has still made no direct appeal to areas of this country, other than those where jobs and opportunity are lacking, to join the service and share in the sacrifices needed to defend this great republic.

So I am hoping if you are concerned about our troops, you will give us a chance to ask the President, how in the heck are we going to get out of this so that we can preserve our armed forces and stop taking advantage of the heroes who have served far more than their fair share?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments and success of the Caribbean Multi-National Business Conference, organized by the New York Carib News, which will celebrate its tenth anniversary this year in the U.S. Virgin Islands between November 10 and 13. Thanks to the hard work and dedicated effort of the organizers of this event, a real dialogue between U.S. and Caribbean businesses has emerged that promises to generate plenty of economic benefit for both the U.S. and the island nations of the Caribbean.

Karl and Faye Rodney, the publishers of the New York Carib News have brought together hundreds of elected officials, civic leaders, entrepreneurs, and business executives from the U.S. and the Caribbean to explore the possibilities and opportunities for economic growth and expansion in the Caribbean. This year's conference will be held in St. Thomas and promises to be an extraordinary success.

Personally, I have found the conference extremely influential in building and supporting political and econbmic relationships between this country and the nations of the Caribbean. I have also had the honor of participating in these successful conferences and know that they are extremely enlightening and educational endeavors that nurture a growing and important global sector in the world.

This conference has repeatedly addressed important issues of concern to our mutual economic interets. It has concentrated on the challenges and problems of foreign investment, market access, and private sector support. The attendees at the conference come with bright ideas and innovative solutions to these problems and to addressing our common concerns.

I encourage my colleagues and businesses throughout the country to consider attending this year's conference. I submit for the Record a Carib News article providing an assessment of this year's planning and the opportunities available for corporations, government leader, and citizens, written by Tony Best, who always participates and provides wise guidance and counsel.

Set for St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

A decade after it was launched to build bridges between

Caribbean and the U.S. businsses the Caribbean Multi-National

Business Conference is moving towards an important milestone

in its evolution.

It is the 10th anniversary of an innovation in economic and

social developmet partnerships, spurred by links between the

large, mediumsized and small businesses in an area that

stretches from New York, Washington DC, Miami, Colorado,

Chicago, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, and other parts of the U.S.

to such nations and territories as Jamaica, Barbados, St.

Lucia, St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Grenada, St.

Marteen, the Bahamas, and St. Kitts-Nevis.

The annual Caribbean Multi-National conference which

brought together about 4,000 Caribbean and U.S. business amd

Government leaders since 1995 to discuss everything from

investment, Hemispheric trade and bilateral economic and

social partnerships to U.S.-Caribbean relations and health

and education challenges is scheduled to be held at Caribbean

regional integration, in the U.S. and the Caribbean,

especially the members of CARICOM is bemg held this year in

St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands between November 10-13.

The conference has become a highly sucessful annual event

for those interested in creating profitable business

parnerships in the Caribbean and for goverment

representatives whose goal is to improve the quality of

people's lives, said Pamela Richards, U.S. Virgin Island's

Commissioner of Tourism, who is also Chairman of the Board of

the Caribbean Tourism Organization.

We have seen the positive results of these meetings, ever

since the 1998 meeting in St. Croix. We are delighted that we

are being given another opportunity to serve as hosts.

With issues that range from foreign investment, access to

markets, the essential role of the private sector in economic

expansion and job creation to the march forward in

information communications technology on the table for

consideration, this year's meeting in St. Thomas, Dr. Karl

Rodney, Publisher of the New York Carib News and the driving

force behind the conference's 10-year record of success, said

that they expect the sessions in St. Thomas to attract the

largest gatherings of participants.

We have already seen an exceptionally high level of

interest, he explained. One reason is the appeal of St.

Thomas. Another is the track record of providing participants

with a unique chance to explore commercial deals and to share

ideas about new business ventures in several fields, be it

retailing, manufacturing, tourism, and other services and

import-export.

The presence of many members of the U.S. Congress, senior

Caribbean government ministers and their advisers would once

again allow them to have a meaningful exchange of ideas about

moving U.S Caribbean relations forward. U.S. Congressional

delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Representative Dr.

Donna Christian Christensen, agreed. We in Congress and

outside of it, know the value of the conference both in terms

of the business ventures that evolve out of the private

meetings and the public sessions and the discussions which

take place during the Dialogue between elected

representatives and other Government officials from the U.S.

and the Caribbean, said Congresswoman who has attended almost

all the conference. That's why we in the U.S. Virgin Islands

consider it an honor to welcome the participants from across

the U.S. and the Caribbean.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the first racially integrated civil rights movement in this country: the Underground Railroad. I recognize the author of the first highly regarded and well researched book on this topic to be written in 100 years, Fergus M. Bordewich. In ``Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America,'' Fergus Bordewich has revealed the truth behind the myth of the Underground Railroad. I was privileged this evening to host with Senator Charles Schumer of New York a reception to recognize the contribution this new book is making to a greater awareness and understanding of the history of slavery and racial oppression in this Nation and of the heroic efforts of brave Americans to resist these evils.

The myth which generations of Americans have believed is that the Underground Railroad was a monochromatic narrative of high-minded whites assisting terrified helpless blacks to freedom. This myth disintegrates in the powerful true stories of the heroes of the Underground Railroad. The railroad was not a system of tracks. The railroad consisted of people along routes in rural areas and forested areas in cities and on plantations: people who for political and spiritual and religious reasons had one goal: to free human beings from slavery.

In ``Bound for Canaan,'' Mr. Bordewich delivers a powerful message in the gripping personal stories of the heroes who were the Underground Railroad, the slaves and the free. Mr. Bordewich writes in his introduction: ``Only recently have African Americans begun to be restored to their rightful place at the center of the story. But the Underground Railroad is no more `Black history than it is White history': it is American history, and it swept into its orbit courageous Americans of every hue. It was the country's first racially integrated civil rights movement in which whites and blacks worked together for six decades before the Civil War, taking great risks together, saving tens of thousands of lives together and ultimately succeeding together in one of the most ambitious political undertakings in American history.''

This political undertaking has not ended; it has continued. Blacks and whites worked together in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s; some paying the ultimate price to bring the freedom that had not yet been fully realized in the South because Blacks could not vote. On June 13, 2005, jury selection began in Philadelphia Mississippi in the Civil Rights case against Edgar Ray Killen for the slayings of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, three young civil rights workers, white and black, brutally killed in 1964. Together with thousands of others, Black and White, took great risks in the tradition of the people who were the Underground Railroad, ultimately bringing the vote to the descendants of the slaves the Underground Railroad saved. They are not forgotten. People of good will have kept their memories alive and their

cause alive. The trial now is important because it reminds us of the high price of freedom and who has paid that price.

Emmett Till's case has been reopened and this reopening is important for the same reason. He was 14 years old in 1955 when on a visit to his relatives in Mississippi he was kidnapped from his uncle's house. When Emmett Till's body was found and returned to his mother in Chicago, it was so disfigured from beating and torture that his mother almost didn't recognize him. She refused offers from the funeral home to clean up his battered body. For his funeral, she insisted on an open casket. The two men tried for the murder were acquitted by a jury of 12 white men. However in a 1956 article in Look magazine, these two men confessed to Emmett Till's brutal murder. The article, pictures of Emmett Till and the confessions reenergized the Civil Rights movement. People all over America were outraged. Artistic works drawing on the incident included the first play by eventual Nobel laureate Toni Morrison, a poem by Langston Hughes and a song by Bob Dylan.

On May 10, 2004, the United States Department of Justice announced that it would reopen the case, an action that many had been calling for to determine if others had been involved in the kidnapping and murder of Emmett Till. In October 2004, the Justice Department confirmed it was focused on two people who had not been charged in the original trial. On June 1, 2005, the body of Emmett Till was exhumed. Through the work of many people, Black and White, this child's killers may finally be brought to justice.

On June 13, 2005, the Senate apologized for refusing in the past to make lynching a federal crime. This was an important vote for the Senate to take. It shows that we as Americans can recognize and take responsibility for terrible mistakes of our past.

It also reminds us that the Underground Railroad was ``illegal'' and many who helped slaves to freedom broke the law. Slaves were property and were expected to be returned to their owners if discovered attempting to run away. The Fugitive Slave Act voted into Law on August 26, 1850 made anyone who hindered a slave catcher, attempted the rescue of a recaptured fugitive, directly or indirectly assisted a fugitive to escape, or harbored a fugitive, liable to a fine of up to one thousand dollars and six months' imprisonment, plus damages of one thousand dollars to the owner for each slave that was lost. Even with the enactment of the law, the Underground Railroad continued its work.

Now we know the crime was slavery. Just as we now recognize lynching was a heinous crime, we must come to see that the laws of the day contributed to the oppression of the Black race by the White majority.

The truth is always important no matter when we learn it. We thank Fergus M. Bordewich for his excellent history of the Underground Railroad.

Reviews of ``Bound for Canaan'' from The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, and other publications have given this book high praise.

John J. Miller of the Wall Street Journal wrote Fergus M. Bordewich ``has written an excellent book that is probably as close to a definitive history as we are likely to see.''

Cornell West, University Professor of Religion, Princeton University, and author of ``Race Matters'' wrote ``This is a masterful story--a deeply American story-- of the quest for freedom. This multi-racial movement is still a beacon of hope in our present dark times.`

For today, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we reflect on the importance of the racially integrated Civil Rights movement that began with the Underground Railroad and continues today. The men and women who challenged slavery, the policy of segregation, and the policies of racism should be commended for their deeds. They should have the full appreciation of this Nation. Mr. Fergus M. Bordewich deserves the thanks of this Nation for an important book on the history of the first racially integrated civil rights movement in this country.