Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my recent introduction of legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen. The Congressional Gold Medal was first awarded over 200 years ago to Americans whose courage and determination in battle exemplified the spirit of our nation.

In keeping with this tradition, I am honored to join with Senator Levin in concurrently introducing this legislation to bestow Congress' highest honor to this deserving group of individuals.

The Tuskegee Airmen overcame segregation and prejudice to become one of the most highly respected fighter groups of WorId War II. In so doing, they helped to destroy the racist conceptions of their time, and set in motion the eventual desegregation of the Armed Services.

Before 1940, African Americans were barred from flying for the U.S. military. However, the great threat posed by the Nazis, and the demands of Black Americans for full citizenship, including the right to fight for their country as patriots, persuaded the American government to provide an opportunity for African Americans to serve, even though in segregated units.

The Airmen completed 15,500 missions, destroyed 260 enemy aircraft, sank one enemy destroyer, and demolished numerous enemy installations. They also would have the WWII distinction of never losing a bomber under their escort, despite flying in some of the enemies' most heavily defended areas.

During their WorId War II service, the Airmen would earn 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 744 Air Medals, 8 Purple Hearts, and 14 Bronze Stars. At the war's end they had not only helped to defeat the Germans, they helped to set in motion the eventual desegregation of the Armed Services a few years later.

The Tuskegee Airmen were patriots in the truest sense of the word. Their belief in themselves, and in the promise of America, gave them the strength to overcome incredible obstacles, and accomplish what was then considered impossible. Their courage inspired a generation, and their determination strengthened a nation.

The Tuskegee Airmen deserve an honor befitting their contribution to our country, so I respectfully urge my fellow colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my New York colleague for extending me the 5 minutes.

I rise in opposition to the rule because it appears to be inconsistent with all of the things that the President is talking about.

The President is talking about relieving the tax burdens of working Americans, and yet there is no provision at all for the alternative minimum tax that is going to grab the middle income people with a tax that they do not deserve, and the Committee on Ways and Means and this Congress never intended that they have to carry this burden.

I am glad that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) saw fit to put the $50 billion in because it is an indication that they know that a war is going on, and I only wish that they would put something in there to help those veterans that are fighting the war.

Lastly, if the President is going around the country selling this concept that we ought to eliminate this Social Security system and set up a new system, everyone agrees that it is going to cost a lot of money to do this. The transition is very, very costly. It runs into trillions of dollars, and yet there is not one scintilla of evidence that the President's legislative ideas are considered by the House in this budget.

The President had a press conference today, and he has indicated that the personal accounts, as he called them, and private accounts, as we called them, actually will not do anything to make the Social Security system solvent. So, in support of the President's position, what we are saying here in defeating the rule, give us the opportunity to bring legislation to my colleagues that would prohibit us from taking the contributions that are made to the Social Security fund out of that and putting it into a private fund, which the President agrees with us has nothing to do with saving Social Security.

As a matter of fact, he says that personal accounts will make sure that individual workers get a better deal in whatever emerges as a Social Security system, which means that if it is separate and just to make someone feel good because they have private investments, then come, Mr. President and my fellow colleagues of the other side of the aisle, and let us talk about it by taking personal private accounts off of the table and, in a bipartisan way, help us to get something that emerges out of Social Security.

Then, if we want to encourage incentives for savings, since the third rail that the President has grabbed is changing the income tax system, then let us work together and put incentives in the tax system that would encourage low and middle income workers to have a savings.

It just seems to me to have a budget today that excludes the real cost of the war, that punishes veterans that suffered in the war, that makes no provisions for relieving the economic pain that is going to be caused by the alternative minimum tax, and to act like the President going for 60 cities in 60 days will have no legislative impact, then let us save a lot of money and say that we cannot deal with Social Security reform today, not because we do not have a problem, but the President is committed in making certain that we do not find a bipartisan solution.

But the President going into districts knocking Democrats because they are not coming forward to work with him is inconsistent with what our President has said when he brought this subject up, and that is keep your powder dry, do not be critical because I will be coming up with a bill, and then after that come to us.

The President has changed his position three times. First, he says there is no crisis; and we agree with him that there is a problem. Two, he indicates that the personal accounts really are not the solution and have nothing to do with the solution of solvency. And, three, he is now saying he wants ideas instead of coming up with what he thinks should be the solution.

It just seems to me that it is up to us to make certain that we still work for a bipartisan solution; and if the President does not believe that his personal and our private accounts are going to help us in resolving this problem, then for God's sake let us get on with Social Security and with the help of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), a personal friend of the President who listens to him, tell him we agree with the President that if it does not solve the problem, get out of the way and let us together, Republicans and Democrats, solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, the plight of Sub-Saharan Africa is one that has concerned our country for some time now. Africa faces many challenges that potentially threaten long-term stability, including the world's most serious HIV/AIDS pandemic, widespread rural and urban poverty, and civil and ethnic conflict. In constant dollar terms, incomes in Africa are only about $100 higher than in 1960.

With so many problems facing the continent, many Americans may wonder what they themselves can do to help. This question was addressed in a recent news release from Julius E. Coles, President of Africare. Africare is the oldest and largest African-American organization dedicated to African development. While his organization oversees the distribution of millions of dollars to projects across Africa, Mr. Coles has offered in this release some simple steps that average Americans can take in the effort to help Africa. In short, he advocates that Americans get to know Africa--its history, people, food, languages, music, and current events.

In so doing they will be gaining the knowledge and understanding necessary to advocate effectively for Africa to their elected officials. With large African communities in most cities, Americans have ample opportunity to get to know Africa without even leaving home. Americans should also begin to invest in companies and ventures that engage in sustainable and mutually beneficial investment in Africa, or take the extra step to buy products made in Africa.

In addition, Americans should remember to donate to reputable charity and nonprofit organizations that operate in Africa. As governmental capacity in most African nations is lacking, the non-profit sector serves an important role in providing assistance to those in need. Again I thank Mr. Coles for his release, it clearly reminds us that we all can help Africa, we need only take the first simple step.

[From Africare, Feb. 25, 2005]

10 Ways You Can Help Africa

(By Julius E. Coles)

Washington, DC.--I have worked with Africa for nearly 40

years; and as a result, I am often approached by people here

in the United States who want to help the people of Africa

but who also feel overwhelmed. It may be the continent's

vastsize that intimidates, or the depth of some of its

challenges, or the media reports that highlight Africa's

problems but minimize the progress that has been made. ``Can

I really make a difference?'' people ask. ``Yes,'' I always

tell them, ``you can.''

As I write these words, Black History Month is nearing its

end. We have celebrated the achievements of our African-

American community and honored our hereditary roots in

Africa. Now, I propose that we Americans continue the

celebration by committing ourselves to help Africa year-

round. What follows are 10 ways in which you--an individual,

a family, a member of a social or civic group, a small

business, a church, a school--can do just that.

Read. The more you know about Africa, the better you can

motivate others to help. Read a survey of African history

since the dawn of humankind more than 200,000 years ago. Read

a book about black African leaders, from the Kushite pharaohs

of ancient Egypt to the giants of 20th century independence

(Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Leopold Senghor of Senegal,

Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Haile

Selassie of Ethiopia and more). Follow African current events

on Web sites like AllAfrica (allafrica.com), BBC News

(newsbbc.co.uk/2/hi/afiica) and CNN (www.cnn.com/WORLD/ africa/archive).

Teach, learn. If you're a teacher, plan a lesson or special

project about Africa. If you're a parent, look for a fun

``African experience'' your family can share. If you're a

student, do a research paper on Africa or start an Africa

Club with your friends. If your school has African students,

have a special assembly and ask them to speak.

Write. Voice your views and perspectives on Africa-related

issues. Write a letter to your senator, member of congress,

or state or local government official. Share your concerns

with companies engaged in Africa. Author a guest editorial

for your community or school newspaper, or a posting to your

favorite Internet message board.

Speak. If you've traveled or worked in Africa, give a talk

to a group you belong to. If you've never been to Africa,

arrange for an African immigrant who lives in your community

to speak.

Travel. If you have the means, visit Africa. Consider a

group trip: traveling in groups can add to the fun as well as

reduce the costs (group discounts are often substantial); As

much as possible, do business with African vendors for

transport, lodging and tours. While in Africa, absorb the

beautiful scenery and cultural sites--but also take the time

to meet local people, learn about their lives and

understand the development challenges that they face.

Finally, stay connected, and committed, once you return

home. For example, if you visited a drought-prone country,

involve your friends in raising funds for water wells.

See, hear, eat . . . enjoy! African culture is accessible

in most American cities. You can see an African film

(Afrique-sur-Seine, The Gods Must Be Crazy) or a film about

Africa (Hotel Rwanda, The Lost Boys of the Sudan, Cry

Freedom). Attend a performance of African music or dance.

Visit an African art museum. Eat at an African restaurant.

Enjoy and appreciate the incredible variety of cultures that

are ``African'' and share those enthusiasms with others.

Meet. Almost every city and many smaller communities in the

United States are home to first-generation Africans. Find

opportunities to meet your African neighbors, to learn from

them and to invite their participation in local

organizations. Reach out especially to new arrivals, who

might welcome your help finding housing and jobs and

generally adjusting to American life.

Invest. You may be in a position to invest in an African

business or to join a group of investors with African

interests (there are growing numbers of African investment

funds you might want to explore). On the other hand, even the

simple act of buying African art in an American store helps

to support the artists and their families in Africa.

Depending on where you work, you might also engage your

employer in African investment or trade.

Donate. Make a charitable donation to one of the many

reputable organizations assisting Africa. Your gift may be

large or small. Usually you can give online. You can support

special projects or offer to help ``where needed most'' in

Africa. You can give individually; you can organize a fund

raiser; you can give in your workplace.

Share. Send this article to 10 people, and ask each to send

it on to 10 more--and encourage all recipients to help Africa

this year in one of the nine other ways presented above.

Mr. Speaker, March 1st marked a solemn anniversary for the people of Haiti. It was the first anniversary of the forced removal of the President Jean Bertrand Aristide, the nation's democratically elected leader. In many ways, conditions are worse since Aristide's removal because of the widespread destabilization and human-rights violations perpetrated by the lawless elements which overthrew the Aristide government.

There is presently increased violence in Haiti as Aristide supporters have intensified protests demanding his return from exile in South Africa. The protests have resulted in armed conflicts involving street gangs, police, U.N. peacekeepers, and protesters, killing more than 250 people.

A telling statistic is that since Aristide fell, more people have been killed in one year than were killed in the three years of Aristide's government. To add to the political crisis, Haiti has suffered natural disasters which have created economic devastation in the country. Flooding devastated Haiti in May and September, killing thousands. Instability has hampered the delivery of humanitarian aid, which is critical to a country where 80 percent of the population lives below the absolute poverty line of $150 per year.

As we mark this anniversary of the overthrow of President Aristide, it is helpful to look at how it occurred. After months of increasing tension and instability, the Haitian conflict came to a head in March of 2004. With rebel forces moving toward the capital of Port-au-Prince, and no support from the United States, or France, the country's President Jean Bertrand Aristide was forced to leave the country.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre was sworn in as President on February 29 in accordance with a constitutionally mandated succession plan. Regardless, the events surrounding Aristide's departure precipitated an upsurge in violence and instability in the country.

It should be pointed out that the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had sought to mediate the situation before Aristide's removal. It had called for a tripartite commission, consisting of one representative each from Aristide's Lavalas party, the civil opposition, and the international community. The proposal was accepted by Aristide, but rejected by the opposition. Interestingly, after Aristide's removal, the opposition accepted a similar proposal.

This was not taken lightly by CARICOM, which viewed the opposition's initial rejection of the proposal as proof that they were solely interested in ousting Aristide. As a result, CARICOM has refused to recognize the current government and still views Aristide as the legitimate leader of Haiti. They have additionally called for a U.N. investigation into Aristide's removal.

In addition, several Congressmen, including myself and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, have criticized the Bush Administration for President Aristide's forced departure from Haiti. As we see it, the Bush Administration refused to provide any assistance to stop the escalating violence in Haiti until Aristide resigned. This has damaged our global reputation as guardians of democratically elected governments.

We have also displayed a willingness to allow democratically elected governments to be dismantled if they fall out of favor with our Administration. Many Congressmen have called for independent investigations into what amounted to a coup d'etat, and the extent, if any, of U.S. involvement. This is vital, as the suspicious nature of Aristide's removal will no doubt continue to erode the credibility of the current Haitian government.

Concerns have also been raised about the civil opposition, collectedly known as the Democratic Platform in Haiti. Many question the right of the civil opposition to participate in an interim government, given their rejection of political solutions that did not involve Aristide's resignation, including the one proposed by CARICOM and supported by the United States.

Many also question the degree of cooperation between the formal opposition and the armed rebels who forced President Aristide from power, though the opposition denies any link to the rebels. Observers have warned that if there is a link, the rebels will soon demand recompense for their assistance--mainly reconstitution of the Haitian military, which was disbanded under Aristide's tenure. Reluctance on the part of the current leadership to acquiesce could result in conflict.

In response to the crisis, the U.N. authorized a Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). Haitian Prime Minister Gerard Latortue requested more troops from the U.S., to help the U.N. contingent in establishing security. With the exception of a 200 soldier humanitarian mission arriving throughout the month of February, the Administration has no plans to increase its military presence in the country, beyond its current contingent of six.

An agreement between the interim government, the U.N., and the OAS was entered into on August 23, 2004 to hold presidential, parliamentary, and local elections in late 2005. Members of former President Aristide's Lavalas party have threatened to boycott the

elections in response to what they view as sustained and systematic persecution at the hands of the current government.

All this begs the question why did we allow this to happen? While the answer to that question remains a mystery, the crisis currently facing Haiti as a result of the decision to remove President Aristide from office will continue without any prospect of peace until a legitimate government is established.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an excellent op-ed article written in today's New York Times by Nicolas D. Kristof titled ``The American Witness.'' I ask that this article be inserted into the record. The op-ed article highlights the atrocities that are now occurring in Darfur, Sudan and the continuing level of indifference that the West has towards the people of Africa. In light of all of the rhetoric we hear from the United States regarding its strong commitment to liberate people from tyrant dictators, spread democracy around the world, and fight terrorism, I am left to wonder if these same principles do not apply to the people of Africa.

Without a doubt, genocide is occurring in Darfur, Sudan, and its government bears responsibility for the mass killings. Last summer, Congress declared the atrocities occurring in Darfur to be genocide, and the Bush Administration reached the same conclusion in September 2004. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration has done little, beyond acknowledging the crime, to engage the international community in stopping the slaughters of tens of thousands of innocent people. While there are no reliable estimates on the number of people killed as a result of the humanitarian crisis, observers estimate that 300,000 people have been killed since the beginning of the recent conflict in 2003. Meanwhile, an estimated 1.6 million people have been displaced from their homes and more than 213,000 people have been forced to seek refuge in neighboring Chad.

Last month, the United Nations released the Report of the International Commission on Inquiry on Darfur which stated that, ``[g]overnment forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement throughout Darfur'' and that such acts ``were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to crimes against humanity.''

Now that the United Nations have substantiated what many of us have known for awhile, it is time that the West to take deliberative action to force the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur to end the slaughter of innocent civilians. At the behest of the United States, the United Nations Security Council must pass a resolution condemning the crimes against humanity that are occurring in Darfur and impose sanctions against the Government of Sudan if they do not stop the killings. The Security Council should also act to freeze the assets of and deny entry visas to perpetrators of genocide, and extend the arms embargo to the Government of Sudan.

In addition to these actions, the Bush Administration should work with its NATO allies to provide the African Union forces with concrete assistance and peace keeping troops on the ground in Darfur. I encourage the Bush Administration to continue to provide critical logistical and equipment support to the African Union forces. Finally, I also encourage that Administration to reappoint a Special Envoy to Sudan as quickly as possible to ensure that the United States has a visible role in resolving this horrific crisis.

The plight of the people of Darfur should garner great sympathy from the Bush Administration. Now that we know Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction and no connection to the 9-11 attacks, the President claims a mandate to engage in war to liberate oppressed people from tyrannical governments. Should not his so-called God-given mandate compel him to take the lead in getting our friends on the United Nation's Security Council to impose sanctions on the government of Sudan and, if necessary, institute other deliberative measures to stop the killing? After all, if the Bush Administration can send young men and women from poor communities and National Guard and reservists into Iraq to liberate its people from the tyrant forces of Saddam Hussein, then surely we can take steps to get the international community to stop the killing in Sudan and bring the perpetrators to justice.

If we can learn any lessons from history, we should commit ourselves to ensuring that we do not fail the people of Sudan in the manner in which we failed the people of Rwanda where an estimated one million people who were slaughtered in the early 1990's while the world community sat on the sidelines. Only now are Americans learning through the movie Hotel Rwanda how we as a Nation failed a people. The crisis that is occurring in Darfur presents the Bush Administration with an opportunity to resuscitate its reputation in the international community.

[From the New York Times, March 2, 2005.]

The American Witness

(By Nicholas D. Kristof)

American soldiers are trained to shoot at the enemy.

They're prepared to be shot at. But what young men like Brian

Steidle are

not equipped for is witnessing a genocide but being unable to

protect the civilians pleading for help.

If President Bush wants to figure out whether the U.S.

should stand more firmly against the genocide in Darfur, I

suggest that he invite Mr. Steidle to the White House to give

a briefing. Mr. Steidle, a 28-year-old former Marine captain,

was one of just three American military advisers for the

African Union monitoring team in Darfur--and he is bursting

with frustration.

``Every single day you go out to see another burned

village, and more dead bodies,'' he said. ``And the

children--you see 6-month-old babies that have been shot, and

3-year-old kids with their faces smashed in with rifle butts.

And you just have to stand there and write your reports.''

While journalists and aid workers are sharply limited in

their movements in Darfur, Mr. Steidle and the monitors

traveled around by truck and helicopter to investigate

massacres by the Sudanese government and the janjaweed

militia it sponsors. They have sometimes been shot at, and

once his group was held hostage, but they have persisted and

become witnesses to systematic crimes against humanity.

So is it really genocide?

``I have no doubt about that,'' Mr. Steidle said. ``It's a

systematic cleansing of peoples by the Arab chiefs there. And

when you talk to them, that's what they tell you. They're

very blunt about it. One day we met a janjaweed leader and he

said, `Unless you get back four camels that were stolen in

2003, then we're going to go to these four villages and burn

the villages, rape the women, kill everyone.' And they did.''

The African Union doesn't have the troops, firepower or

mandate to actually stop the slaughter, just to monitor it.

Mr. Steidle said his single most frustrating moment came in

December when the Sudanese government and the janjaweed

attacked the village of Labado, which had 25,000 inhabitants.

Mr. Steidle and his unit flew to the area in helicopters, but

a Sudanese general refused to let them enter the village--and

also refused to stop the attack.

``It was extremely frustrating--seeing the village burn,

hearing gunshots, not being able to do anything,'' Mr.

Steidle said. ``The entire village is now gone. It's a big

black spot on the earth.''

When Sudan's government is preparing to send bombers or

helicopter gunships to attack an African village, it shuts

down the cellphone system so no one can send out warnings.

Thus the international monitors know when a massacre is about

to unfold. But there's usually nothing they can do.

The West, led by the Bush administration, is providing food

and medical care that is keeping hundreds of thousands of

people alive. But we're managing the genocide, not halting

it.

``The world is failing Darfur,'' said Jan Egeland, the U.N.

under secretary general for humanitarian affairs. ``We're

only playing the humanitarian card, and we're just witnessing

the massacres.''

President Bush is pushing for sanctions, but European

countries like France are disgracefully cool to the idea--and

China is downright hostile, playing the same supportive role

for the Darfur genocide that it did for the Khmer Rouge

genocide.

Mr. Steidle has just quit his job with the African Union,

but he plans to continue working in Darfur to do his part to

stand up to the killers. Most of us don't have to go to that

extreme of risking our lives in Darfur--we just need to get

off the fence and push our government off, too.

At one level, I blame President Bush--and, even more, the

leaders of European, Arab and African nations--for their

passivity. But if our leaders are acquiescing in genocide,

that's because we citizens are passive, too. If American

voters cared about Darfur's genocide as much as about, say,

the Michael Jackson trial, then our political system would

respond. One useful step would be the passage of the Darfur

Accountability Act, to be introduced today by Senators Jon

Corzine and Sam Brownback. The legislation calls for such

desperately needed actions as expanding the African Union

force and establishing a military no-fly zone to stop Sudan

from bombing civilians.

As Martin Luther King Jr. put it: ``Man's inhumanity to man

is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who

are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of

those who are good.''

Mr. Speaker, I am here because the President has challenged this body and the other to deal with the problem of Social Security. And while the President no longer considers it a crisis, obviously when it reaches the point that you are spending more money than you are taking in, you do have a problem and you do have a challenge and we do have a responsibility.

So I think the President has changed the crisis which would occur according to the Congressional Budget Office out to 2052 and even then it remains a challenge and not really a crisis.

But we do not have a bill so we do not know specifically what the President would want to do. We do know that these types of problems you either have to cut the benefits, extend the age or raise the taxes; but the President has taken all of these things off the table and said we should deal with the question of privatization. I guess the more people in the district that looked at privatization and the more economists that studied it have caused the President to admit that privatization and private accounts and personal accounts has little or nothing to do with the question of solvency, which is basically what we are talking about.

We Democrats know how good this program has been for America. We know that it has been an insurance policy that most working people cannot afford. We know that in addition to the benefits that you get when you retire that we have survivor benefits, we have disability benefits, and we are prepared to take a look at anything as long as these benefits are not cut.

Now, the President would have us to believe that if you are over 55 your benefits would not be cut. To me, a guy from Harlem, it means that if you are under 55 you can depend on your benefits being cut. But still since we do not have a bill we really do not know exactly what we are fighting, but we do know what we want to protect.

It is too unfortunate that many minorities and women because of the inequities of the system, which we hope will be corrected, find themselves more dependent than the rest of the population. This is especially so when we do have a disparity between the life expectancies of men and women which means that for 3 or 4 years women sometimes have to go it alone and many sometimes their working spouses did not have pensions. And so it is abundantly clear that if you take a look at the women that sometimes have to totally survive with their families, Social Security gave them the base, gave them the independence, and gave them the will to move forward.

It is so hard for me who is so proud of having gone to school as a disabled veteran to talk about the G.I. Bill. What has been amazing is that even I had no idea how many people even in this body went to school under the Social Security Disability Act or under the benefits of Social Security. And it is something that you do not say, guess how I went to school, because it was unfortunate financial circumstances.

But now that they see that this program may be in jeopardy because just by changing the formula from a wage formula to a cost-of-living formula, Republicans and Democrats and impartial economists say that the benefits, and that is all of benefits, survivor, retirement, their disability, would be cut by at least 40 percent.

The President has attempted to polarize sometimes the young against the old by saying they are getting a bad deal, or the black males against the white males saying that we have a disparity. But one thing is clear: we cannot openly discuss this until the President fulfills his responsibility and at least brings to us what the heck he is talking about so we are not fighting against things that may never happen.

We know that Republicans are having a difficult time in defining how they would want to assist the President. But I am just saying until the day comes where minorities and women are really equal, this has been a cushion to provide some type of independence.

I close by saying that my beloved mother, who I lost several years ago, worked in a factory and received a small retirement pension check from the International Labor Garment Workers Union, but she also received her Social Security check.

And she would be there every month waiting for the mailman, who knew her, for her Social Security check. She felt so proud that she was independent; that she did not have to ask her children for anything.

Seeing that pride in her, I can see it in so many older women. And I hope that before the President makes this a crises, that he brings us a bill so we can work together on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to join with many of my colleagues in recognizing the fifth anniversary of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.

African Americans have been disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS since the epidemic's very beginning, and there's no evidence to show that trend is changing. National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day not only calls attention to how HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects the Black community, but the extreme disparities in healthcare access for African Americans.

Although African Americans represent only 13 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 40 percent of the 929,985 AIDS cases diagnosed since the start of the epidemic and approximately half of the 43,171 cases diagnosed in 2003 alone. The epidemic has also had a disproportionate impact on subgroups of African Americans including women and youth.

African American women accounted for a greater proportion of new AIDS cases among African Americans overall than their white counterparts. And although African American teens (ages 13-19) represent only 15 percent of U.S. teenagers, they accounted for 65 percent of new AIDS cases reported.

Although treatment advances, along with prevention efforts, have led to the decline in new AIDS diagnoses and deaths, these declines were not as sharp for African Americans and appear to have ended.

We must continue to push for a comprehensive prevention policy that highlights the ABCs--Abstain, Be Faithful, and use Condoms. We must strongly encourage de-stigmatization of the disease among African Americans, and increase funding that will allow for extensive outreach not only in our communities, but to our international neighbors as well.

We must support the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day and ``Get Educated, Get Involved, and Get Tested.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate one of the most enduring figures of our time. Today marks the 60th anniversary of the birth of musical icon Bob Marley. The past week has seen a global celebration of Marley's life and works, and rightly so.

Bob Marley is one of the most transcendent and iconic figures in modem music history. In the course of his life he would become the greatest cultural Ambassador that Jamaica, and arguably the Caribbean, has ever known. He introduced Rastafarianism to the world, and established his music, Reggae, once a little known Jamaican art form, as one of the world's most recognizable musical genres.

His music gave voice to the daily struggles of not only Jamaican people, but of all people struggling with oppression and poverty. He vividly captured not only their struggles to survive, but also the deep spiritual core that collectively sustained them.

In so doing, his songs would become anthems for oppressed people around the world, and inspire millions to unite in the quest for universal justice and freedom. So powerful was his persona and message that he was able to bridge the divide between the warring political parties in Jamaica, subsequently decreasing political violence in the country. Because of his power to move people, Marley would at times be viewed as a potential political threat at home and abroad.

The story of this great life would begin very humbly. He was born in the rural Jamaican village of St. Ann's Parish in 1945. He would leave his home for the capital city of Kingston at the age of 14, in hopes of becoming a musician. There he would begin his career as local singer. He was also introduced to Rastafarianism--whose philosophy and approach to life greatly influenced him and his music--and to a reggae genre still in its infancy.

In 1963 he would form a band with Peter Tosh and Bunny Livingston that would become known as The Wailers. The Wailers would spend the next few years developing their sound, and gaining a local following. In 1966, Bob would marry Rita Anderson, a women who would have a profound effect on his life and music. As a means of supporting his new family, he temporarily emigrated to Newark, Delaware, where he worked in a factory.

Upon his return to Jamaica, he reformed The Wailers, dedicating himself to his music. This period would see The Wailers produce a wealth of new material, eventually signing to the Island Records label. This relationship would produce the first Bob Marley album to be released outside Jamaica, Catch a Fire. Soon he and his band were receiving worldwide acclaim.

The Wailers would eventually disband however, and Marley would embark on a solo career. He would see his success and notoriety grow over the next few years. In 1976, his album Rastaman Vibration, hit the Top Ten in the United States. He had officially brought Reggae into the mainstream.

While his fame grew internationally, he was viewed as almost a mystical figure in his native Jamaica. His popularity and radical message of empowerment and unity was perceived as a threat to the established order, both in Jamaica and beyond. On December 3, 1976, he was wounded in an assassination attempt, an event that forced him to leave Jamaica for over a year.

However, violence could not temper his musical voice or soaring popularity. In 1977, he had his biggest selling record to date, Exodus. This period would also see him tour the world, including an independent Zimbabwe, whose struggle for freedom and racial justice was immortalized in one of his songs. Tragically, at the height of his career, he was diagnosed with cancer--a virulent form which rapidly took his life.

Since his death in 1981, his legend has only grown. His message of freedom, unity, and justice has echoed with each passing decade. One of his biggest hits was a song entitled One Love, which was judged in an international poll to have been the most influential song of the 20th century. The world has not yet achieved the universal love for which he advocated, but it is, and will remain, united in its love for him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 26, honoring the Tuskegee Airmen, a courageous and pioneering group of Americans who are appropriately being remembered, and their contribution celebrated, today by the House of Representatives.

Before 1940, African-Americans were barred from flying for the U.S. military. However, the great threat posed by the Nazi's, and the demands of Black Americans for full citizenship, including the right to fight for their country as patriots, persuaded the American Government to provide an opportunity for African-Americans to serve, even though in segregated units.

Soon, hundreds of young men from around the country were signing up to become Airmen in the 332nd, the Black-only air wing created for them. Barred from restaurants, theaters, and libraries in their hometowns, these young men found in the skies the freedom that eluded them on land.

The Tuskegee Airmen overcame segregation and prejudice to become one of the most highly respected fighter groups of World War II. In so doing, they brought the racist conceptions of their time crashing to the ground.

Under the able command of COL Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., who himself became the first African-American Air Force General, the Airmen of the 332nd established themselves over the skies of Sicily, the Mediterranean, and North Africa, fighting and dying for freedom just as their white brethren.

The Germans feared and respected the 332nd, referring to them as the Black Birdmen. Their respect was warranted. The Airmen completed 15,500 missions, destroyed 260 enemy aircraft, sank one enemy destroyer, and demolished numerous enemy installations.

They were also known as the ``Red Tail Angels'' by American bomber crews because of the red paint on their planes' tails, and the outstanding aerial protection they provided to these crews. Indeed, the Tuskegee Airmen would have the WWII distinction of never losing a bomber under their escort, despite flying in some of the enemies' most heavily defended areas.

Through their World War II service, the Airmen would earn 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 744 Air Medals, 8 Purple Hearts, and 14 Bronze Stars. At the war's end they had not only helped to defeat the Germans, they helped to set in motion the eventual desegregation of the Armed Services a few years later--the first real victory of the civil rights movement.

The Tuskegee Airmen belong to a group of African-American military heroes whose belief in themselves, and in their country, gave them the strength to overcome incredible obstacles and reach unprecedented heights. In so doing they have given hope and pride to the generations that have followed them. They also gave hope to a young kid from Harlem, as he set out to fight in Korea. The example they left served me well in that war, and in life.

I would personally like to honor three individuals from the 15th district of New York: Percy Sutton, Roscoe Brown, and Lee Archer. They all served their country as Tuskegee Airmen, and they have all gone on to make tremendous contributions to the community of Harlem.

I sincerely thank Congressman Rogers for this resolution because the Tuskegee Airmen are a group especially deserving of our praise. John F. Kennedy once said that, ``A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, but also the men it honors, the men it remembers.'' The Tuskegee Airmen are products of America. We honor them to today, and we will remember them forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of an extraordinary, artist, activist, and American, Ossie Davis. Just two months ago I made remarks to the House about Ossie and his wife Ruby Dee, on the occasion of their acceptance of Kennedy Center Honors. It is with great sorrow that I know make remarks on his passing.

I am consoled only by the fact that Ossie leaves behind a life of great achievement. Along the way he established himself as one Black America's greatest ambassadors to the arts, and one of this country's major contributors to human and civil rights. Born and raised in Georgia, he would lived the cruelties of the Jim Crow South. He also saw how his parents endured the struggles of that period. It aspired in him a desire to write. As he once said, ``I decided to become a writer so that I could tell their stories.''

In 1935 he would hitchhike to Washington DC, to study at Howard University. There he would study drama, with the intent of being a playwright. During his time in Washington he would witness the great African America opera singer Marian Anderson perform on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, after she barred from performing at Constitution Hall. The beautiful and inspiring performance solidified his decision to purse a career in the arts so that he would be able to share is culture with the world.

In 1939 he came to Harlem--at that time the culture center of Black America. There he would begin to hone his craft as a member of the Rose McClendon Players, an African American acting company. He would also meet and be influenced by some of the great Black figures of the time, such as, W.E.B DuBois, A. Philip Randolph, and Langston Hughes.

World War II would soon interrupt Ossie's stay in Harlem. In the war, he served as an Army surgical technician in an all African American unit. Shocked by the Nazis' treatment of Jews and frustrated by the inequities he saw in the Army, he returned to America in 1945 determine to bring about change through his work.

In 1946, Davis made his Broadway debut in the play Jeb, winning rave reviews. It was on the set of that play that he would meet his wife and life partner Ruby Dee. He went on to perform in many Broadway productions, including Anna Lucasta, The Wisteria Trees, Green Pastures, Jamaica, Ballad for Bimshire, The Zulu and the Zayda, and the stage version of I'm Not Rappaport. He is probably best known on stage for his role in A Raisin in the Sun (1959), a role he would reprise again in the play's film version.

He starred in numerous film and TV roles throughout his career. Though a veteran of the movie biz, he continued to star in some of the most cutting-edge films of the last few years. He has been a staple in almost all of director Spike Lee's films including, Jungle Fever, Get on the Bus, School Daze and the classic Do the Right Thing.

Ossie also distinguished himself as writer and director. He wrote or directed many numerous films and plays, the most well known being the 1970 film Cotton Comes to Harlem. In particular he wrote frequently about the civil rights struggle of African Americans. One of the plays Davis wrote and directed was The People of Clarendon County, about one of the cases that led to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting school segregation. He also wrote dramas about the brutal 1955 killing of the black teenager Emmett Till, the Montgomery bus boycott, and Martin Luther King.

He was a two-time Tony Award nominee, first nominated in 1958 for Best Featured Actor in a Musical for his performance in Jamaica. He was again nominated in 1970 for the musical Purlie, based on his 1961 play Purlie Victorious. Ossie would go on to receive many honors and citations, including the Hall of Fame Award for Outstanding Artistic Achievement in 1989; the Theater Hall of Fame in 1994; the U.S. National Medal for the Arts in 1995; and the Kennedy Center Honor in 2004.

Outside of the stage and screen, Ossie spoke out on some of the most controversial issues on the day--moves that were extremely risky to his career. With wife Ruby by his side, he would stand up for victims of the McCarthy-era witch-hunts, including the famous Black entertainer and activist Paul Robson. He also openly embraced the great leader Malcolm X, at a time when many prominent African Americans feared doing so. Whether through his participation in the March on Washington, to his suit in federal court to guarantee Black voting rights, to his arrest for protesting the wrongful killing of African immigrant Amadou Diallo, he remained an activist. A February 9, 2005 op-ed in the New York Post attests to this fact.

It is said that on the day that Ossie passed, the Broadway stages dimmed their lights in his honor. There is a sweet irony to this, because the impact that he had on this country will never dim. Through his work and deeds, the legacy of Ossie Davis will shine bright forever.

[From the New York Post, Feb. 9, 2005]

Being Ossie

he never feared a righteous fight

(By Leonard Greene)

The irony in the death of actor Ossie Davis, of course, is

that the person most qualified to deliver his eulogy is sadly

unavailable.

If you ever led a people's movement, or spoke out against

war, or empowered the underclass, or fought for freedom, or

made men stand up straight or took a bullet while speaking

for voiceless garbagemen, there was no better man to speak at

your memorial than the man who married Ruby Dee.

Just ask anyone who crowed into Harlem's Faith Temple

Church on that cold day in February, in 1965, when the masses

said goodbye to one of their many martyrs.

Malcolm X had died in a hail of angry bullets, and those

who were also wounded needed to hear just the right words.

``Malcolm was our manhood, our living, black manhood,''

Davis said to the sad assembled crowd. ``This was his meaning

to his people. And, in honoring him, we honor the best in

ourselves.''

Three years later, after another bullet rang out, and

another strong black leader was silenced, Davis again

searched within, and found more words to soothe. Martin

Luther King Jr. had been assassinated the day before in

Memphis, and tensions in New York were running high

``How much, America, do you expect us to bear?'' Davis said

at a memorial rally in Central Park. ``There is not time

left. For every Martin they cut down, there must be a hundred

Martins to step into his shoes.''

Davis never did find his hundred. He never even found five

or 10. There could only ever be one Martin. So Davis did the

next best thing.

He continued being Ossie.

Often, being Ossie meant lending his name, voice and body

to a cause when others were silent or invisible.

Whether he was organizing the historic 1963 March on

Washington--where King gave his ``I Have a Dream'' speech--or

trying to save the famed Apollo Theater, Davis was as

dedicated to a righteous outcome as he was to getting his

lines right.

``I've known Ossie since I was a teenager, and he has

supported my efforts, sometimes alone, in the struggle for

civil and human rights,'' said the Rev. Al Sharpton, an

activist in his own right. ``Ossie was always gentle,

committed and supportive.''

Sharpton recalls the months after Amadou Diallo, an unarmed

immigrant, was shot to death by police on the Bronx street

six years ago.

Many prominent rappers, who had decried police brutality in

the lyrics they spat out over sampled beats, wouldn't step

outside their studios to actually protest against it.

But when Davis, 81 at the time, and his wife were asked to

participate, they wasted no time getting arrested.

For Davis, ``action'' meant something more than a word from

a director.

In the end, the Rev. James Forbes and the Rev. Calvin

Butts, two community icons, will share officiating duties at

Davis' funeral Saturday.

Despite the challenge, their task will be somewhat easier

because their subject--unlike Malcolm and Martin--lived to

see 40 years. Twice.

And therein lies the answer to the hypothetical that has

intrigued us for a generation: What would have become of

Malcolm and Martin if they had been allowed to grow old?

Chances are they would have gotten gray, and moved a little

slower--two fires that still burned, but would not go out.

They would have been dismissed by some as past their prime.

Yet they would have kept on walking, and kept on talking, and

kept on fighting for justice and good schools until the very

last breath escaped from their dying lips.

Just like Ossie.

Mr. Speaker, I rise due to my continuing concern about the measure H.R. 54, which was passed by the Republican majority last week. In its present form the measure seeks to restrict the number of Congressional Gold Medals that can be awarded in a given year to two. It forbids the medal from being awarded concurrently to a group, as well as from being awarded posthumously--except during the 20-year period beginning 5 years after the death of the individual. This latter requirement regarding posthumous medals is perplexing and arbitrary at best, but it also exemplifies the faults of a most peculiar piece of legislation.

The first question that this proposed measure elicits is ``Why''. Since the American Revolution, Congress has awarded the Congressional Gold Medal as its highest expression of national appreciation to those who lived a life of great achievement. Why now does the majority see fit to restrict how the Congress honors the country's most deserving citizens? With a U.S. population that grows daily in number and diversity, reducing the amount of honors that Congress can award to that population is simply perplexing.

In the long history of the U.S. Congress, rarely has the Congressional Gold Medal been awarded to more than 2 people in a year. This is not due to a mandated limit, such as what the majority is now proposing, but rather due to the longstanding requirement that at least two-thirds of the House and Senate co-sponsor the resolution. This requirement has created a ``natural'' ceiling, as it necessitates that the potential recipient have the support of an overwhelming majority of Congress. As such, it renders the forced limit that H.R. 54 proposes, needless.

In the rare instances that awardees for the Congressional Gold Medal have exceeded more than two in a year, the cohort included some of the most deserving individuals of which I can think. Presidents Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, and Mother Teresa all received their medals in years when more than two were awarded. Competition in those years was particularly keen. If H.R. 54 had been in effect, some of these recipients may have been prevented from receiving the medal when they did.

Additionally, some of the most deserving individuals from America's minority communities would not have received medals at all under H.R. 54. The `Little Rock Nine' and the Navajo Code Talkers would have both been precluded due to the measure's restriction on group medals. Interestingly, all three of the medal recipients from 2004--who all happened to be African American and major contributors to the civil rights movement--would have been precluded under H.R. 54 because their medals were awarded posthumously. The mere possibility of the aforementioned examples reveals the immense shortcomings of H.R. 54. Unfortunately, the measure passed in the House along partisan lines, and now resides in the Senate for consideration.

The great writer Thomas Carlyle once wrote, ``Show me the man you honor, and I will know what kind of man you are.'' The Congressional Gold Medal is not a token gesture offered liberally. Rather, it is awarded to those whose life and deeds embody the ideals our Nation holds sacred. It is in effect an annual affirmation of our national values. H.R. 54 seeks to limit this process. As such, it is a measure I cannot support, and one this Congress can ill-afford to enact.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the country's annual celebration of Black History Month, I find it appropriate to reflect on the lives of Shirley Chisholm and James Forman, who both passed away in the last month. Both of them were critical figures in the ongoing endeavor to ensure equal rights and opportunity for all Americans. On a personal level, their life stories are case studies in the power of courage to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

In recollecting the life of Shirley Chisholm, the words fighter and pioneer come to mind. The child of Caribbean immigrants, she would challenge the Democratic machine in Brooklyn, and an all-male field of candidates, to become the first African American woman elected to Congress. Along the way, she used the slogan ``unbought and unbossed'' to affirm her determination to steer clear of party and gender nonns, and fight for what she believed.

During her seven terms in Congress, she would champion the rights and interests of

women, minorities, children, and the poor. Initially relegated to the Agriculture Committee, which had almost no relevance to her urban New York district, she would fight to get relevant committee assignments for both her and her Black Congressional colleagues. On the Education and Labor Committee she would support improved employment and education programs, expansion of day care, income support, and other programs to improve America's inner cities.

In 1972 she would challenge the status quo again, when she launched a bid to become the Democratic nominee for President. Though the party initially marginalized her, she persevered to the end, constantly reiterating her message of government's accountability to all Americans.

Her underdog effort inspired both Blacks and Whites around the country, and earned her the respect of her early critics. Shirley would go on to outlast better-known and better-funded primary contenders. At the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami, she would receive 151 delegate votes--far more than anyone could have imagined.

Though a fighter, even her opponents where astounded by her innate compassion and empathy. During her presidential bid, Chisholm went to the hospital to visit George Wallace, a political rival and ardent racial segregationist, after he had been shot in a failed assignation attempt.

Wallace was shocked by the Chisholm's gesture--one that was politically risky at best. It is said that Chisholm told Wallace, ``'I know what they're going to say. But I wouldn't want what happened to you to happen to anyone''. Her words moved him to tears. Two years later when she needed support on legislation to extend the minimum wage to domestic workers, George Wallace would gather the Southern support it required.

In addition to Shirley Chisholm, the recent passing of James Forman represents a great loss to our country. Forman joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1961, and was elected its executive secretary one week later. He would soon play a central role in developing SNCC from a loose coalition of student protest groups, to one of the most prominent and effective organizations of the Civil Rights Movement.

Utilizing the discipline and organizational skills he acquired as an Air Force and Korean War veteran, James Forman managed and directed the legions of brave SNCC volunteers, who in the 1960's, descended upon the southern United States to combat the racial injustice that had long festered there.

Today, thousands get academic degrees in public administration and management. I wonder how they might have benefited from talking to James. As a manager and organizer he may have been the best that the civil rights movement ever had. While the movement had many great orators and diplomats, James was a master of the nuts and bolts that make organizations run.

He was also known as something of a field general, willing to endure the same that he asked of his subordinates. James was often harassed, beaten and jailed during his many trips to register voters and organize protests in areas where violence and intimidation ruled. He would see many of his brethren pay the ultimate sacrifice for liberty and justice. This only strengthened his resolve to press on.

Though he left the SNCC in 1966, he would remain a prominent figure throughout the Civil Rights Movement. In subsequent years he would be an outspoken advocate for the socio-economic empowerment of African Americans in the post civil rights era, founding the Unemployment and Poverty Action Committee.

He would also be one of the first African Americans to explicitly call for reparations for the oppressive treatment inflicted on African Americans during their history in this country. Many institutions responded by setting up programs aimed at improving Black communities.

Indeed America has lost much by the passing of Shirley Chisholm and James Forman. But we have gained much by the fact that they lived. They now enter the Pantheon of American patriots whose fearless and unrelenting quest for justice and liberty irrevocably changed this nation for the better.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, ``What lies behind us, and what lies before us, are tiny matters compared to what lies within us''. Shirley Chisholm and James Forman showed the world what lay within them, and now their memories will lie within us forever.

Mr. Speaker, a November 30, 2004 report by the BBC shed light on a disturbing issue regarding an often-overlooked population. The report detailed what it argued was the excessive, and potentially illegal, use of experimental drugs on HIV positive orphans and foster children under the supervision of New York City's Administration of Children's Services.

The report argues that these children, the majority of whom come from minority backgrounds, were forced to take experimental HIV medications, which caused painful and debilitating side effects. It further alleges that the drugs were given without the consent of the children's relatives or guardians. Those guardians who became aware of the drug regime were forced to consent, or risk losing the children to child welfare authorities.

Standards for the administration of drug trials on children should be followed at all times. The fact that these children are wards of the state does not preclude accepted standards and regulations from being followed.

The accusations in the BBC report are indeed troubling, and necessitate a fuller examination by governmental authorities. As such, I find it appropriate for the Congress to look into the excessive use of experimental drug therapies on children, especially the most vulnerable. It is my hope that such an examination would commence as soon as possible after the start of the 109th Congress.

The greatest blessing afforded to a nation is the health and well being of its children. We must ensure that these blessing extend to all children, especially those without homes and families of their own. On this point I know my colleagues are in agreement, so I am confident that action will be taken on this important issue.

[From the BBC NEWS, Nov. 30, 2005]

New York's HIV Experiment

(By Jamie Doran)

HIV positive children and their loved ones have few rights

if they choose to battle with social work authorities in New

York City.

Jacklyn Hoerger's job was to treat children with HIV at a

New York children's home.

But nobody had told her that the drugs she was

administering were experimental and highly toxic.

``We were told that if they were vomiting, if they lost

their ability to walk, if they were having diarrhea, if they

were dying, then all of this was because of their HIV

infection.''

In fact it was the drugs that were making the children ill

and the children had been enrolled on the secret trials

without their relatives' or guardians' knowledge.

As Jacklyn would later discover, those who tried to take

the children off the drugs risked losing them into care.

The BBC asked the Alliance for Human Research Protection

about their view on the drug trials.

Spokesperson Vera Sherav said: ``They tested these highly

experimental drugs. Why didn't they provide the children with

the current best treatment? That's the question we have.

``Why did they expose them to risk and pain, when they were

helpless?

``Would they have done those experiments with their own

children? I doubt it.''

Power and authority

When I first heard the story of the ``guinea pig kids'', I

instinctively refused to believe that it could be happening

in any civilised country, particularly the United States,

where the propensity for legal action normally ensures a high

level of protection.

But that, as I was to discover, was central to the choice

of location and subjects, because to be free in New York

City, you need money.

Over 23,000 of the city's children are either in foster

care or independent homes run mostly by religious

organisations on behalf of the local authorities and almost

99% are black or hispanic.

Some of these kids come from ``crack'' mothers and have

been infected with the HIV virus. For over a decade, this

became the target group for experimentation involving

cocktails of toxic drugs.

Central to this story is the city's child welfare

department, the Administration for Children's Services (ACS).

The ACS, as it is known, was granted far-reaching powers in

the 1990s by then-Republican Mayor Rudi Giuliani, after a

particularly horrific child killing.

Within the shortest of periods, literally thousands of

children were being rounded up and placed in foster care.

``They're essentially out of control,'' said family lawyer

David Lansner. ``I've had many ACS case workers tell me:

`We're ACS, we can do whatever we want' and they usually get

away with it.''

Having taken children into care, the ACS was now,

effectively, their parent and could do just about anything it

wished with them.

`serious side-effects'

One of the homes to which HIV positive children were taken

was the Incarnation Children's Center, a large, expensively

refurbished red-bricked building set back from the sidewalk

in a busy Harlem street.

It is owned by the Catholic church and when we attempted to

talk to officials at Incarnation we were referred to an

equally expensive Manhattan public relations company, which

then refused to comment on activities within the home.

Hardly surprising, when we already knew that highly

controversial and secretive drug experiments had been

conducted on orphans and foster children as young as three

months old.

We asked Dr. David Rasnick, visiting scholar at the

University of Berkeley, for his opinion on some of the

experiments.

He said: ``We're talking about serious, serious side-

effects. These children are going to be absolutely miserable.

They're going to have cramps, diarrhea and their joints are

going to swell up. They're, going to roll around the ground

and you can't touch them.''

He went on to describe some of the drugs--supplied by major

drug manufacturers including Glaxo SmithKline--as ``lethal''.

When approached by the BBC, Glaxo SmithKline said such

trials must have stringent standards and be conducted

strictly in accordance with local regulations.

battle of wills

At Incarnation, if a child refused to take the medicines

offered, he or she was force-fed through a peg-tube inserted

into the stomach.

Critics of the trials say children should have been

volunteered to test drugs by their parents.

When Jacklyn Hoerger later fostered two children from the

home where she used to work with a view to adopting them, she

discovered just how powerful the ACS was.

``It was a Saturday morning and they had come a few times

unannounced,'' she said. ``So when I opened the door I

invited them in and they said that this wasn't a happy visit.

At that point they told me that they were taking the children

away. I was in shock.''

Jacklyn, a trained paediatric nurse, had taken the fatal

step of taking the children off the drugs, which had resulted

in an immediate boost to their health and happiness.

As a result she was branded a child abuser in court. She

has not been allowed to see the children since.

In the film Guinea Pig Kids, we follow Jacklyn's story and

that of other parents or guardians who fear for the lives of

their loved ones.

We talk to a child who spent years on drugs programmes

which made them and their friends ill, and we discover that

Incarnation is not an isolated case. The experiments continue

to be carried out on the poor children of New York City.

Mr. Speaker, today I'm filled with great sadness that on the eve of the 109th Congress we mourn the passing of my longtime friend and colleague, Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman elected to Congress and the first of her race to seek a major party nomination for the Presidency. She died at her Ormond Beach, FL home on New Year's Day at the age of 80.

I commend to my colleagues the following article describing a time in the life of Shirley Chisholm written by Wil Haygood in the Washington Post on January 4, 2005.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2005]

A Woman of the People

Shirley Chisholm took a back seat to no one

(By Wil Haygood)

There was something so plain and yet so defiant about her.

Studious and yet a little jazzy, especially in front of those

Brooklyn church ladies.

Shirley Chisholm, the former congresswoman who died New

Year's Day in Florida at age 80, came along at a moment in

the 1960s when there was a bubbling symmetry between the

women's liberation movement and the civil rights movement.

She was holding two candles in the wind.

At church podiums in Brooklyn, she'd talk about babies

eating paint they had peeled from the walls, and she'd talk

about malnourished schoolchildren, and she'd raise her fist,

and her big mound of cloudlike hair would bob, and she would

start to crying, tears rolling from beneath those beatnik-era

glasses. She would turn her back to the audience--as if she

couldn't stand her own tears--and then turn around to face

the folk in the pews, and they'd be stomping.

``I used to say to her, `You should go into drama,'

``recalls Edolphus Towns, a Democratic congressman from

Brooklyn. ``She could drop tears at any time.''

Chisholm began her working life in 1950s Brooklyn. She was

the director of a day-care center and worked as an

educational consultant for the city. The tots had parents and

she befriended them and got herself elected to the New York

State Assembly in 1964. She was headed to Albany, the same

place that launched the national political careers of

Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Dewey, Franklin D. Roosevelt and

many others.

In the '60s, the talk in New York of black political

figures focused on names such as Basil Patterson, Percy

Sutton, Charlie Rangel. They were young lions who belonged to

Harlem political clubs. (There was also Adam Clayton Powell,

the once-powerful congressman who had crawled back to

Congress in 1969 after an expulsion and scandalous headlines.

But his day was now gone.)

But Patterson and Sutton and Rangel suddenly had to yank

their heads and look across the bridge, to Brooklyn.

Shirley who?

``Shirley came out of Brooklyn, and that was one of the

roughest political arenas you can come out of--even today,''

says Rep. Rangel (D), who knew Chisholm for decades. ``For

her to succeed, she had to be a little strange--and certainly

extraordinary.''

In addition to being a woman and from Brooklyn, Chisholm

was also--unlike Powell, Sutton, Rangel and Patterson--dark-

skinned. Given the history of skin color, she had an extra

ladder to climb, and did so with relish, carrying herself

with the insouciance of the world's most attractive woman.

So there she'd be, needing a ride to Albany and getting

herself over to Harlem so that Sutton, who was also in the

assembly, could pick her up.

``Shirley would meet us on the corner of 125th and

Seventh--now Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard--and ride with us

to Albany,'' says Sutton. ``We did that for two years.''

Sutton noted something about Chisholm on those rides. She

was hungry for debate: ``Even if she agreed with you, she'd

want to debate you!''

With the '60s drawing to a close, Chisholm was swimming in

the waters of history. ``She had the imagination,'' says

Rangel, ``of being first--and tenacious.''

So she announced in 1968 that she was running for Congress.

There were howls of laughter, though not from the church

ladies, who saw themselves in the reflection of her beatnik

eyeglasses.

In 1968, she became the first black woman elected to

Congress. She grinned and gave the peace sign. It wasn't

black power. It was Shirley power. She wound up serving seven

terms.

She pushed for antipoverty legislation and became a star.

Ebony magazine wanted her, and so did Ms. magazine. She

appeared with Reps. Barbara Jordan and Bella Abzug. She was

known as honest and honorable. ``Chisholm would not set up

any kind of a side deal for her mother, brother, or cousin,''

says William Howard, who served as her financial adviser.

When Chisholm announced a run for the presidency in 1972,

it seemed a little strange. She was the first black to

conduct a large-scale presidential campaign within one of the

major parties. The Congressional Black Caucus hardly had the

numbers then that it has now, but she rolled her eyes when

its members asked why she hadn't discussed her presidential

plans with them. ``Shirley had a lot of self-confidence,''

says Rangel.

``I Am Woman'' by Helen Reddy was humming on the jukebox

that year.

``Black people needed somebody,'' says Sutton. ``We had

lost Martin and Malcolm.'' He raised the first $25,000 for

her presidential campaign.

At the Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach, she

was smiling from the podium--those glasses, that hair, the

dark skin. Simply getting there was a huge victory.

``The next time a woman runs,'' she wrote in her 1973

autobiography, ``The Good Fight,'' ``or a black, a Jew or

anyone from a group that the country is `not ready' to elect

to its highest office, I believe he or she will be taken

seriously from the start. The door is not open yet, but it is

ajar.''

And, in time, they came: Geraldine Ferraro, Jesse Jackson,

Joseph Lieberman.

The last time William Howard saw Chisholm was a year and a

half ago in Manhattan. She had wanted to go dancing. She was

peering at him, through those beatnik glasses, out on the

dance floor, imploring him to tell the band to play something

jazzy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all Members for participating in this tribute to someone whom we all believe was our best friend. This is so very unusual in a Congress that does not allow us to meet often or travel very much together that each one of us treasures so much those special personal relationships that we have.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of lives are being lost in Asia and in the Middle East, God has a way of reducing all of this and making it a lot more personal when it appears in the middle of the night. He just snatches away someone that you may have just taken for granted. Certainly the loss of Bob had everyone startled. How could a person with such fierce commitment to legislation and to the Congress who was so involved, and appeared to be looking so hard toward the next challenge, how could God have just snatched him away without any warning? But I have found over the years that it eases the pain, it does not remove it, but it eases the pain if during times like this you can think of how fortunate you were that in your lifetime you came across a person like Bob Matsui.

It also helps if you can thank God that you do not have to say I wish I had spent more time with him or I wish I had gotten to know him better or I wish I had told him how fond I was of him, or how much I appreciated his dedication to the committee, to the Congress, to the causes that he so truly believed in. And then it makes you feel a little better that you had a chance to say Bob Matsui, we love you.

It is hard for me to think of anyone that felt so strongly about his beliefs, and at the same time we hear over and over tonight that he was indeed a gentle man, how we can hear Members from both sides of the aisle saying we are human beings, we are dedicated, we do have different beliefs, but here was a guy who was able to take all of this and still manage to have friends on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is so correct, because we always felt that we had two Members as being friends, because Doris was a partner, she was a friend, she was a supporter and, of course, Brian and Amy, they all had an opportunity to share their love and dedication to their father, to her husband, before he left. He did not just walk away from our lives but in his classy way he said good-bye to the family and left us here in the Congress and especially us in the Democratic Caucus with such a sense of pride and feeling how proud we were to be able to have a person of his caliber not only politically being our leader but on the Committee on Ways

and Means where so often we hear that he was an expert in Social Security legislation, but those of us who were privileged to serve on the committee knew that he was an expert in anything that came before the committee. He was an expert in trade, he was an expert in pensions, he was an expert in welfare issues. And not because he was just a good lawyer and a good lawmaker but because he was compassionate and understood where he came from and his commitment was trying to improve the quality of life of Americans and human beings all over. He never forgot the struggles that he and his family had gone through and he always led us to believe that we could achieve even things beyond our expectations in working with him.

And so with all of this loss and in searching for something to thank God for doing, I can say I thank Him for sharing Bob with us and I thank Him for giving me the opportunity of having told Bob Matsui how much I loved him.