Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shulamith Koenig's outstanding contributions in the field of human rights. Ms. Koenig is the founder and executive director of PDHRE-People's Movement for Human Rights Education, an organization dedicated to promoting human rights and democracy worldwide through workshops, lectures, articles and

books. Ms. Koenig has conducted workshops with educators, human rights advocates and community leaders in Asia, Africa, Central Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

For the last 14 years, Ms. Koenig has dedicated her life to educating people in the field of human rights as well as economic and social development around the world. Her efforts were recognized when the United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights award was presented to her on December 10, 2003. The United Nations Prize is given to individuals and organizations every 5 years in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. I am proud to say that Ms. Koenig is a resident of my congressional district and I commend her receipt of this prestigious honor. She now joins the list of prominent persons who have received the prize, including Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, former South African President Nelson Mandela, and President Jimmy Carter.

Supported by the United Nations Development Program, Ms. Koenig spearheads the Human Rights Cities project, which has trained 500 young community leaders as human rights educators in 30 cities around the world. Founded by Ms. Koenig in 1989, the People's Movement for Human Rights Education is a nonprofit international organization, designed to improve the lives of people in more than 60 countries around the world. The organization has offices in New York, Argentina, India, Philippines, Mali, and Austria. There are schools and libraries bearing Ms. Koenig's name in Mumbai, India; Chenai, India; and Bamaco, Mali; and the library Kensington Rights Welfare Union in Philadelphia, PA.

Ms. Koenig was born in Jerusalem and majored in Industrial Engineering and Management at Columbia University. She has edited and published articles in numerous books and journals and is a lecturer and an award-winning sculptor. Ms. Koenig and her husband Jerome have three children and four grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most difficult periods of time that I have had, because I do not get angry when the majority drafts bills in order to embarrass Democrats. I think that goes with the job. But I think it is really insulting and embarrassing when they use the troops as a vehicle to embarrass us.

There is nobody on either side of the aisle that will challenge the deep respect that we have for the men and women in our Armed Forces. But when the majority drafts a bill and says this is a Republican bill, you know that there is something crummy about it. You just have to look and find out what it is.

So they start saying all of these things that we agree to; but then they say, and it is a safer world as a result of Saddam Hussein being captured. It would seem to me that the lives of Americans that are on the line, their safety, that if there is anything that we as Democrats and politicians could find as sacred, if we just wanted to commend them and their families and their loved ones, that we would go out of our way to make certain that we do not put anything in there that could be described by political pundits as a poison pill. We should run it by Democrats and Republicans and say, Is there anything at all offensive in this because we do not want this to be controversial?

I am so glad I was not a fly on the wall when the Republican leadership put this together because in my heart I do not truly believe that they wanted to find some way to laud the troops, but they wanted some way to try to find to embarrass Democrats. To use our military is one of the cheapest things that I think you can do.

Let us talk about who these military people are that we are lauding. This is one of those things I learned on Lennox Avenue when I was a hoodlum. There are always some people talking about, Let's go to fight. Let's settle this. Bring them on and we're not going to tolerate anything except total victory. But when it comes time to get involved in that fight, they are the same ones saying, ``You go ahead in the fight, I'll hold your coat.''

There is a lot of talk about shared sacrifice, but I hope we take a look and see who are the people who are volunteers, that is, volunteering putting their lives on the line each and every day. I remember in June of 1950 I was in Fort Lewis, Washington, and we were alerted that the Second Infantry Division was going to go to Korea to fight the North Koreans. Not one of us ever said, ``What is the fight about? What is the war about?'' We only knew that we were warriors, we were military people; and when that flag went up, we saluted it.

I go off and see the Reservists. I go off and see the National Guard going to Iraq. Not one of them has asked the political question as to why are we going over there. Yet I think that we have the political responsibility when we endorse the wars to find out not only why are we doing it but we have a political responsibility to be satisfied that it is the right thing. If we differ about that, that is what America is all about. That is what the Congress is all about. But you do not put that controversy in a bill when these military people do not have the options to discuss whether the war is right or wrong. They have the responsibility to obey the Commander in Chief.

I have taken a little survey along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) about who is fighting this war and these people that we are commending. Believe me, they did not sign up to get rid of Saddam Hussein. As evil as this guy may be, one day some of us may be asked the question, Was it worth 550 American lives or 3,000 people that are in our heart, some with and some without Purple Hearts? One day someone would ask, where did they come from? Did they enlist to fight terrorism, or did they enlist because there were no jobs available? Are these minorities from the inner cities that are looking for a better way of life but accept their responsibility as to why they enlisted? Do they come from districts such as the gentleman from Missouri's district, the rural areas where unemployment is rampant? And why do we find there are more blacks, almost twice as many as the population, in the Army and how does that compare where in my city 50 percent of the African American men are unemployed?

Do the Members not think that had something to do with the enlistments? Do the Members not think they wanted to send a check home to their mom because they could not get a job? Do the Members not think they want the educational benefits to improve themselves, as I did as a high school dropout?

And why do we have to commend them when we find out just today that 12 percent of the Nation's population is black but they represent 20 percent of those that were killed. Black deaths in the Iraq war exceeds the rate of Vietnam. Go to Hispanics, we see the same thing. Go to white Americans and we see the same thing.

So we do not need a political resolution to try to polarize this Congress. We know we love and respect those people who salute that flag. And to put in a political controversial clause to attempt to embarrass us is just not going to work.

How low can you get when you use the military as a way to attempt to embarrass your colleagues?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for edification since he is bewildered?

Mr. Speaker, the chairman may be fascinated by my war experiences. I did not talk about it. When he has time, I will give him more time than he will ever want to hear about it.

What I am saying is this: We have an opportunity to laud our service people. You know there is one issue on this floor, and that is whether or not we were misled in getting involved in this. I do not care which side one is on. We want to laud the servicemen. Why would you put Saddam Hussein in this resolution? Why did you not leave him out so that we could have unanimous consent that we laud the military? You deliberately put Saddam Hussein in there to divide us and not to bring us together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Dominican concert pianist and piano teacher Floralba Del Monte, the ``First Lady of Dominican Classical Music,'' who has just celebrated her 75th birthday, and who this year also celebrates several professional anniversaries: The 55th anniversary of her debut in the United States at Carnegie Hall; the 50th anniversary of her graduation from the Paris Conservatoire; the 45th anniversary of her appointment to the Piano Faculty at the Santo Domingo National Conservatoire of Music; the 53rd anniversary of her U.S. network television debut on CBS; and the 52nd anniversary of her debut in Washington, DC, at the Dominican Embassy.

Floralba Del Monte was the first Dominican concert pianist who performed in North America, and the first Dominican performer who appeared at world-famous Carnegie Hall in New York, making her professional and U.S. debuts there on June 14th, 1949, performing on this recital the U.S. premiere of the ``Sambumbia'' or Dominican Rhapsody for Piano by Dominican composer Juan Francisco Garcia, ``Father of Dominican Music.'' In the late 1940s and the early 1950s, she was the first Dominican classical musician who professionally appeared at several of the most prestigious concert halls in New York City, including Carnegie Hall, Town Hall, Steinway Hall, Kauffmann Auditorium and Labor Temple Concert Hall; at important venues such as the International School of Arts, American Women's Union, Fun & Fine Arts Club and the Women's Club of New York; on radio stations and television networks such as NBC, CBS, The Voice of America, WNYC, and WLIB; and at distinguished residences in New York City, performances in which several Dominican piano works were performed for the first time in the U.S. These acclaimed performances established Floralba Del Monte on New York's classical music scene and social circles of the 1950s, the first Dominican performer to make a name for herself in New York.

Floralba Del Monte was the first Dominican performer to appear on U.S. network television, making her debut on CBS on October 1, 1951 as one of the selected artists invited to appear on the Arthur Godfrey Show special that inaugurated coast-to-coast television broadcasting in the United States. During this broadcast, she performed the world premiere of her own arrangement for three pianos of the popular ``Malaguena'' by Ernesto Lecuona, starring as the First Piano of the Pan-American Piano Trio. This piano trio was founded by Floralba Del Monte in New York, and made its world debut on that historic night, with Del Monte, Peruvian pianist Elvira Roman and U.S. pianist Dolores Layko representing the three Americas--Central, South, and North.

Floralba Del Monte was the first Dominican performer who performed in the Nation's Capital, making her debut there on May 16, 1952, in a gala recital at the Dominican Embassy, and giving another recital at the Pan-American Union, in which she offered the Washington, DC, premieres of several Dominican piano works.

Floralba Del Monte is recognized as a pianist of exceptional interpretative force, holding a unique place in the Dominican Republic that consecrates her as one of the most revered Dominican artistic figures in Dominican history. In the Dominican Republic, as the concert pianist of most important legacy, and as the music educator of most influential pedagogical work, her artistic legacy that spans five decades of unprecedented achievements, includes: Performing the Dominican, North American, and European premieres of the most important and difficult piano works of Dominican music literature, distinguishing herself for her fervent patriotism, including Dominican piano works on her appearances in her country and abroad; being the first performer invited by the Dominican Government to give a concert tour in the country; being the mentor of the most important school of piano ever created in the Dominican Republic, a school comprising several generations of accomplished pianists, including winners of international music competitions, whom she taught during a distinguished tenure of more than 40 years as a Piano Faculty member at the Santo Domingo Conservatoire; and being director of the Santo Domingo Conservatoire, whose recently completed tenure of more than a decade is already regarded as the Golden Age of that preeminent Dominican institution. This legacy, deservingly consecrates Floralba Del Monte as the unrivaled ``First Lady of Dominican Classical Music.''

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in support of the Miller amendment, but I am a little surprised that my Republican friends believe that we do this for political reasons and that this is not the place to have political goals in terms of protecting our constituents.

I would be the last one to say that the President of the United States wants to go to war for political reasons. I think it is an interest in steroids when he made this a priority in the State of the Union and was not political, and the fact that he wants to make permanent tax decreases for the rich. All we are trying to do is say that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. And we are concerned and will do everything that we can to try to bring some comfort to those people, the 9 million people who are without jobs. It means that they lose self-esteem, they lose the ability to take care of their families, some have lost their homes.

And I think that whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, this should

be a priority. It is okay to talk about how the stock market is going, but it gives small comfort to people that have not been able to have respect and dignity and be able to work.

Now, some of my colleagues are saying that the people that we are giving unemployment assistance to, that these people will not be seeking employment. They know that is untrue, and they know they say that, too, for political reasons. But do not make politics such a dirty word.

We had an election where a President received less than the popular vote. There is a reason for it, and we want to make it clear in this House of Representatives, where we are elected, the difference between you and us.

So do not be offended by it because we will be talking about education, about health care, about veterans benefits, about the deficits that you have driven this country into, and we will be talking about a war that we should not be involved in too. So when you say politics, be very kind and put sugar on the words because sometimes your next speaker may have to swallow the very same words that they spoke on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for giving some of us an opportunity to show what patriots we really are and how much we love this country, which has given us one of the highest opportunities, and that is to serve in this House of Representatives.

On November 30, 1950, I found myself shot by the Communist Chinese on the northern border of North Korea. When it was all over, I thanked God I had my life with the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star and came home and felt I was a patriot. That fighting was to give all Americans the opportunity, some that had been denied my forefathers, to participate fully, to support our government when we thought she was right and to be patriotic enough to be able to criticize our government when we thought she was wrong.

I think we in the Congressional Black Caucus have even a higher responsibility than a lot of Members of Congress because our constituents believe in us so much that they give us the latitude to express their concerns and to talk about their aspirations as well as their fears. That is one of the reasons why we do not have to take polls, we do not have to get on the phone and ask them what do you think about the war. But we know that as great as this country is, that one of our responsibilities is to make certain that she is all that she can be; and it is our responsibility, as our forefathers before us, to take it to that higher level, and we cannot do that if the resources of this country are depleted or we find our youth are not there to pick up the baton and take it to a higher level.

If this country can decide because we do not like somebody or we think that person is a threat or because they have demonized their own people or they have talked in a way that we do not like against the United States, that we can have a preemptive strike and remove that person, and then we find out

later as we find every day that the information we relied on was faulty, what happens if next time the information is reliable but just no one believes us? What happens when the President says that there is an imminent threat against the United States of America, and then we find that Americans and the Congress say, yes, we have heard that before.

It just seems to me that those people who voted to give the President this authority felt in their hearts that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America. But I listened carefully to the President changing all of the reasons that he had given for why he asked this Nation to send its young people to Iraq in a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. There used to be a time when he would talk about the relationship to al Qaeda. There used to be a time when he talked about weapons of mass destruction. There used to be a time that he talked about an imminent threat to the United States of America.

But if I hear him correctly now, he is saying, what difference does it make, we got rid of Saddam Hussein. What difference does it make? It makes the difference if the President had come here to the House of Representatives and said, do you want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We probably would have had a unanimous vote, yes, we do. But what if the next question was: Are you prepared to give us 532 lives of young people in order to do it?

Suppose he said the price to get rid of this international terrorist was to have 2,000 men and women maimed and crippled and in our hospitals. Suppose he said in this war the Secretary of Defense would report to the American people, albeit by a leak, that he did not know if we were winning this war or not even after these losses. Suppose, further, Mr. Rumsfeld would say he had no clue whether or not we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. Suppose he said that he was just thinking out of the box, but in his opinion the whole thing was a slog.

Suppose he said that in addition to having our young men and women who love this country and salute the flag every time it goes up, that enlisted into the Army coming from our inner cities and rural areas in order to get a better education and better handle on life, or like some of us who volunteered, that we could not make it economically and this was an opportunity to get better training. Suppose he said even though they had 3-, 6-, and 9-year enlistments, that they would give them additional time to serve because it was a national emergency, suppose the President had told us when he asked the Congress to take out Saddam Hussein that 20 percent of the soldiers over there would be men and women from the Reservists and the National Guard.

Suppose he said they would not be all young people, they would be 30, 40, 50, even 60 years old. They would have to give up their civilian jobs, and some have already served the military. Suppose he said they would have a drop in their income from their civilian pay, and these people who go away for weekends and 2 weeks to train would now have to be separated from their wives and families for over a year. Suppose he had said that they would have to go to Iraq two and three times and that soon these civilian soldiers will be 40 percent of the occupation of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, suppose he had said that we are running out of people and that we would have to consider a draft, that we are talking about our Nation will have to make a sacrifice in order to remove terrorism from this region of the world, and everybody had to share in the sacrifice. Members of Congress, their children and grandchildren would be drafted, members of the cabinet would be drafted. Suppose he said in order to get rid of this demon, all of these things would be necessary, I wonder whether or not the President would have gotten the vote if we knew all of these facts.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am saying it is so important for us to be able to alert America that this whole idea of removing Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the terrible strike that the terrorists had in my beloved City and State of New York. The President, by the admission of Secretary O'Neill and other competent writings, had already planned to remove Saddam Hussein, that the whole concept of a preemptive strike was a part of our foreign policy, and it was the tragic event of 9/11 that allowed him to connect an idea that they already decided to do, taking advantage of the emotion of the Members of Congress who thought they were reflecting the emotion of the people in the United States.

If we just allow this to go by, if we do not have competent outside investigations and if our Secretary of State said he did not know if he would have gone to the U.N. and supported this invasion if that information had been there, then what happens if we do have another crisis and that is the situation that is before us?

So I ask the Congress to do this, please do not forget our true fallen heroes. It is not the ones that just return home; it is those that come home in the darkness of night. We do not even know whether we have a flag over their coffin because the press are forbidden to be there. We ask that those of us in the Congress form a caucus for these fallen heroes to be there for their families and kids and to make certain that we are treating them not like we are treating the veterans in the budget today, but that we make a commitment that even though they are not our kids in terms of being our biological kids or grandkids, they are the children of our Nation and we have made a commitment that we are going to protect them.

And we are going to raise the standard before we go to war to make certain that our Nation is being threatened. Going over there and having people being killed by land mines, just standing up as sitting ducks or falling helicopters, that is not what you call fighting for America. That is being put in a no-win position and we are losing the life of one American a day.

I am asking Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, be patriotic, be patriots. Sometimes it takes a little courage and we have to explain to our voters and our constituents what we are talking about. But we do not have a draft. Some Members do not know the pain the families are going through, and the President says that some Americans do not even know we are at war. Mr. President, the families of those that have been struck in Iraq, they know we are at war. We in the Congressional Black Caucus would like to educate the American people that war is hell and we should never, never, never go to war if we can negotiate a peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of this nation's most distinguished talents in commemoration of his birthday. As a renowned photographer, poet, author, filmmaker and composer, Gordon Parks has secured his place in American society as a true Renaissance man of the arts. Born on November 30, 1912 in Kansas, Mr. Parks grew up the youngest of fifteen children in an environment stricken by poverty and racism. With the guidance of his loving, inspiring parents, he persevered despite his circumstances.

Gordon Parks began his photographic journey at the age of 25, when he bought his first camera, affectionately referred to as his ``weapon against poverty and racism.'' This simple instrument did just that, allowing him to break the constraints of discrimination and rise to greatness as an artist. In 1941, Mr. Parks became the first photographer to receive a fellowship from the Julius Rosenwald Foundation and the following year, he was commissioned by the Farm Security Administration to create a visual record of the lives of America's poor in urban and rural communities. During this project, he captured one of his most popular, compelling photographs, American Gothic, the image of Ella Watson standing in front of the American flag, holding a broom.

He moved on to become the first Black photographer to work at both Life and Vogue Magazines where he coined his unique style of focusing a series on one person to convey a story of humanity. Aside from chronicling the intense emotions of America's poorest, the civil rights movement and the surge of Black Nationalism, Mr. Parks' photographic repertoire also featured images of leading societal figures such as Langston Hughes, Duke Ellington, Ingrid Bergman, Barbara Streisand, Mohammed Ali, and Marcel Duchamp.

Gordon Parks tried his hand in cinema, making eleven films, including ``The Learning Tree'', based on his autobiographical novel, and the 1971 film, ``Shaft''. Mr. Parks has also published twelve books, three about his life, and several are collections of poetry and photography. Musically inclined, Gordon Parks also composed a number of sonatas, concertos, a symphony and a ballet, all of which have been performed internationally.

Mr. Parks has also received a number of awards for his outstanding contributions, including: Photographer of the Year from the American Society of Magazine Photographers (1960 and 1985), induction into The Black Film Makers Hall of Fame (1973), induction into the NAACP Hall of Fame (1984), Governor's Medal of Honor from the State of Kansas (1985), and honorary degrees from thirteen separate academic institutions.

Gordon Parks now resides in New York City and continues to enjoy the recognition earned

by his rich legacy as the premier photojournalist and creative mind of his time.

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the 1963 March on Washington, the life of one of the 20th century's most brilliant individuals came to an end. W.E.B. DuBois--scholar, Pan-Africanist, political leader, champion of the struggle against white supremacy in the United States-- died in Ghana on August 27, 1963. This year marks the 40th anniversary of DuBois' death.

DuBois was born on February 23, 1868 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. At that time Great Barrington had perhaps 25, but not more than 50, Black people out of a population of about 5,000.

While in high school DuBois showed a keen concern for the development of his race. At age fifteen he became the local correspondent for the New York Globe. While in this position he conceived it his duty to push his race forward by lectures and editorials reflecting the need for Black people to politicize themselves.

Upon graduating high school DuBois desired to attend Harvard. Although he lacked the financial resources, the aid of family and friends, along with a scholarship he received to Fisk College (now University), allowed him to head to Nashville, Tennessee to further his education.

In his three years at Fisk (1885-1888), DuBois' first trip to the south, his knowledge of the race problem manifested. After seeing discrimination in unimaginable ways, he developed a determination to expedite the emancipation of his people. As a result, he became a writer, editor, and a passionate orator. Simultaneously, he acquired a belligerent attitude toward the color bar.

After graduation from Fisk, DuBois entered Harvard through scholarships. He received his bachelor's degree in 1890 and immediately began working toward his master's and doctor's degrees. After studying at the University of Berlin for some time, DuBois obtained his doctor's degree from Harvard. Indeed, his doctoral thesis, The Suppression of the African Slave Trade in America, remains the authoritative work on that subject, and is the first volume in Harvard's Historical Series.

At the age of twenty-six, DuBois accepted a teaching job at Wilberforce in Ohio. After two years at Wilberforce, DuBois accepted a special fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania to conduct a research project in Philadelphia's seventh ward slums. This gave him the opportunity to study Blacks as a social system. The result of this endeavor was The Philadelphia Negro. This was the first time such a scientific approach to studying social phenomena was undertaken. Consequently, DuBois is known as the father of Social Science. After completing the study, DuBois accepted a position at Atlanta University to further his teachings in sociology.

Originally, DuBois believed that social science could provide the knowledge to solve the race problem. However, he gradually concluded that in a climate of violent racism, social change could only be accomplished through protest. In this view, he clashed with Booker T. Washington, the most influential black leader of the period. Washington preached a philosophy of accommodation, urging blacks to accept discrimination for the time being and elevate themselves through hard work and economic gain, thus winning the respect of whites. DuBois believed that Washington's strategy, rather than freeing the black man from oppression, would serve only to perpetuate it.

Two years later, in 1905, DuBois led the founding of the Niagara Movement; a small organization chiefly dedicated to attacking the platform of Booker T. Washington. The organization, which met annually until 1909, served as the ideological backbone and direct inspiration for the NAACP, founded in 1909. DuBois played a prominent part in the creation of the NAACP and became the association's director of research and editor of its magazine, The Crisis.

Indeed, DuBois' Black Nationalism had several forms. The most influential of which was his advocacy of Pan-Africanism; the belief that all people of African descent had common interests and should work together in the struggle for their freedom. As the editor of The Crisis, DuBois encouraged the development of Black literature and art. DuBois urged his readers and the world to see ``Beauty in Black.''

Due to disagreements with the organization, DuBois resigned from the editorship of The Crisis and the NAACP in 1934 and returned to Atlanta University. He would devote the next 10 years of his life to teaching and scholarship. He completed two major works after resuming his duties at Atlanta University. His book, Black Reconstruction, dealt with the socio-economic development of the nation after the Civil War and portrayed the contributions of the Black people to this period. Before, Blacks were always portrayed as disorganized and chaotic. His second book of this period, Dusk of Dawn, was completed in 1940 and expounded his concepts and views on both the African's and African American's quest for freedom.

In 1945, he served as an associate consultant to the American delegation at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco. Here, he charged the world organization with planning to be dominated by imperialist nations and not intending to intervene on the behalf of colonized countries. He announced that the fifth Pan-African Congress would convene to determine what pressure to apply to the world powers. This all-star cast included Kwame Nkrumah, a dedicated revolutionary, father of Ghanaian independence, and first president of Ghana; George Padmore, an international revolutionary, often called the ``Father of African Emancipation,'' who later became Nkrumah's advisor on African Affairs; and Jomo Kenyatta, called the ``Burning Spear,'' reputed leader of the Mau Mau uprising, and first president of independent Kenya. The Congress elected DuBois International President and cast him the ``Father of Pan-Africanism.''

This same year he published Color and Democracy: Colonies and Peace, and in 1947 produced The World and Africa. DuBois's outspoken criticism of American foreign policy and his involvement with the 1948 presidential campaign of Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace led to his dismissal from the NAACP in the fall of 1948.

During the 1950's DuBois's continuing work with the international peace movement and open expressions of sympathy for the USSR drew the attention of the United States government and further isolated DuBois from the civil rights mainstream. In 1951, at the height of the Cold War, he was indicted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Although he was acquitted of the charge, the Department of State refused to issue DuBois a passport in 1952, barring him from foreign travel until 1958. Once the passport ban was lifted, DuBois and his wife traveled extensively, visiting England, France, Belgium, Holland, China, the USSR, and much of the Eastern bloc. On May 1, 1959, he was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in Moscow. In 1960, DuBois attended the inauguration of his friend Kwame Nkrumah as the first president of Ghana. The following year DuBois accepted Nkrumah's invitation to move there and work on the Encyclopedia Africana, a project that was never completed.

On August 27, 1963, on the eve of the March on Washington, DuBois died in Accra, Ghana at the age of 94. Historians consider DuBois one of the most influential African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Born only six years after emancipation, he was active well into his 90's. Throughout his long life, DuBois remained Black America's leading public intellectual. He was a spokesman for the Negro's rights at a time when few were listening. By the time he

died, he had written 17 books, edited four journals and played a leading role in reshaping black-white relations in America.

My colleagues, I do not know why the majority is reserving their time. Some pretty rough accusations have been made against them as a party. It would just seem to me that there should be enough sensitivity if not to respond to us then at least to respond to those 9 million people who are without work and without hope for the future.

I can understand the majority in trying to eliminate all taxes for corporations and the rich. I can understand them trying to dismantle the Social Security System and the Medicare system. These are things they have dedicated themselves to doing and can be described as being Republican and Democratic positions. But how can someone out of work be the victim of partisanship? How can they determine whether they are Republican or Democrat? How can they benefit when a kid has to be withdrawn from school because of their parents' failure to pay their tuition, or their mortgage is forced to be foreclosed on?

It seems to me that at this time of the year we can at least join ranks to take care of those people who want to work each and every day. If we can spend $1 billion a week rebuilding Baghdad, we should at least give some token of appreciation for those people who have worked hard to build this Nation, to make her as strong as she is by giving to them out of their own trust funds that this Congress established to protect them; that we have the compassion, no, not the compassion, we have the responsibility to respond to their needs.

Sometimes I am so proud to be a Member of this body, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to go to town hall meetings and to not ask why we tolerate the Republicans doing these things. Why does this institution, this great institution that we inherited, allow such pain and suffering to go to the least among us? It is wrong.

We should vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I hope we hear sometime this morning from the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the eloquent chairman of the Committee on Rules with all of the power of words and influence he has, that after a seething attack on the majority, that he would come into the well and say, but it is all in the rules.

What our leader is talking about is more important than the Medicare bill. She is talking about the civility in this House of Representatives. Every one of us here today are not here just because we are so bright and so intelligent. We are here because some group of Americans have thought that we would represent their interests. They were not

talking about blacks and whites or Jews or gentiles or Asian Americans or Hispanics. They were talking about Representatives in the House of Representatives. And they invested in us the right to make judgments as to what would be in their best interest.

How in the world can you come to this floor and take this privilege which has been given to us to protect, not for ourselves but for the next group that will inherit the seats that we are privileged to serve in, and to say when the Speaker of this great House of Representatives, here where we truly represent the people, it is not based on every district being entitled to something because it is a State, it means that they come together. They fight. They argue. And they elect.

And then the Speaker decides who would be appointed to serve on the conference committee so that our voices would be heard with that of the other body. And when you have the votes, you have the votes; and that is the way it goes. If you do not like it, wait until November and then change it. But the audacity of the majority to say that when the Speaker appoints you to the conference it makes no difference what rank you are, it makes no difference if you are the dean of the House, it makes no difference if you are the senior member of the committee of jurisdiction, it makes no difference if the minority leader appoints you to represent, who, us? No, to represent the millions of people that we have been sent here to represent.

And to have the conference committee, to call it a bipartisan conference when they from time to time will let a staff person come in, is not only arrogance but it offends the very office of the Constitution to be able to say it. Now, I have the utmost respect for the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) because she has said it right; she thought this precious bill was so important that the rules did not matter. It had to go through the middle of the night, whether there was a conference or not. We had to get this thing through.

Sure, my colleagues had to get it through because there was a goal beyond prescription drugs. And if that is what you want to do with Social Security, if that is what you want to do with health care, I can understand that; and that is why I am not a Republican. But for God's sake, do not disrupt the system. Do not tear away what was left to us. When you got the votes, by golly, use those votes and do what you want to do to your own Members; that does not offend me. But it does offend me if newer Members of Congress believe that is the way this House is supposed to operate.

Sometimes when I go on the other side and I sit with a friend that came here many, many years ago when I did, young Democratic Members say, what are you talking to them for? And I suspect that some of the Republicans that have been here a little while, when they come over here, some of the younger Republican Members would say, why are you talking to a Democrat? And what we would say is, we are talking about our kids or we are talking about our grandkids. We will fight in the committee and we will fight on the floor, but we respect each other.

It is a lack of respect not to me, you can look at me and know how many doors have been closed to me; it does not even bother me. Because in this great country, in this Republic, I can fight and I can win. But when you stack the rules against those who follow me and those who respect this institution; when you start saying it makes no difference who the Speaker assigns to a conference, because we decided that it is too important for us to let Democrats in, well, take a look and see who the Democrats are. Take a look at the diversity on this side. We did not make it this way. Democrats did.

Do you think there is a Republican way for solid health care? Do you think there is a Republican way for Social Security? A Republican way for a better America? Of course not. It is for us together to be working together to try to do it. Would Democrats have contaminated the precious bill, I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)? Would we have diverted so much attention for what you were doing, this brilliant piece of work that you did in the darkness of night, brought here early in the morning to have us out here waiting until you could scrub up enough votes?

It was wrong for this Congress, and it would be wrong for any Congress.

Mr. Speaker, Today, I am proud to join with Congressman McDermott, Chairman Royce, Congressman Jefferson, Congressman Payne and Congressman Neal in the House, and Senator Lugar in the Senate, in introducing legislation to begin the third phase of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

It has been almost ten years since a bipartisan group of Members came together to help create a trade and investment framework between our great country and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

It has been more than three years since the first phase of that effort became law.

In that short time, the results have been impressive:

In three years, AGOA textile and apparel exports to the United States have doubled, rising from $570 million in 1999 to $1.1 billion for 2002. This total comprises 9 percent of all AGOA exports.

AGOA exports now comprise approximately two percent of all U.S. textile and apparel imports--a 100 percent increase from 2000, when AGOA took effect.

Africa's 92 percent export growth rate in textile and apparel products is 10 times that for China, Latin America, Europe and other major textile and apparel exporters.

However, we cannot afford to sit back and admire what we have done. So much remains to be done to fulfill the promise of this important legislation and this important trade program--to fill in the gaps that still exist.

So, today, I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to call upon the House, the Senate and the President to take the next important step to broaden and deepen the commercial and bilateral relationships between the United States and African countries.

We need to ensure that the benefits of AGOA

We need to do this for so many reasons--bringing Africa more and more into the mainstream of the world trading system, strengthening the bilateral ties between the United States and African countries, giving women and men in the poorest countries in the world the chance to earn a fair and decent living so that the seeds of growth and a better life and a middle class society are sewn, rather than the seeds of discontent that we see in some other regions of the world.

To do this, we need to push forward. Specifically, we need to extend the effective date of AGOA, extend the ability of AGOA least developed countries to use fabrics from third countries, and bring under the AGOA framework the important agricultural products that many countries in the region seek to produce and export.

In the agriculture area, Africa's exports have actually decreased by 4.5 percent (or $25 million) since 1999. While duty free treatment will not completely solve the problem caused in part by large domestic support programs in the EU and elsewhere, this step will certainly help.

In other areas, the bill encourages both responsible conservation and responsible development through a provision in support of eco-tourism, an area where many African countries have an important natural and comparative advantage that they are seeking to use in a sustainable and responsible way.

I look forward to working with many others on both sides of the aisle who have been so supportive of AGOA I and AGOA II, particularly Chairman Bill Thomas and Chairman Phil Crane of the Trade Subcommittee, Congressman Amo Houghton in the House, and Senator Bill Frist and others in the Senate, along with the distinguished African Diplomatic Corps, and so many in the business community to realize our goal.

Finally, we intend this bill to be a starting point, and that as we move forward, we can work with Ambassador Zoellick and his staff, and Secretary Evans and his staff, to improve the legislation to reflect best the development needs of sub-Saharan Africa.

Also hope we can work together on other initiatives to ensure that the poorest countries of the world--such as Haiti and Bangladesh and Cambodia--are not left behind after 2005.

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for the splendid job he has done in explaining, as he sees it, a 1,000-page bill to this House, and why we should shove this down the throats of the Members of the House of Representatives without being privy to what he is privy to.

I do not know how in the world anybody can get to this well and say we are talking about a bipartisan bill when they had the Sergeant of Arms blocking out Democrats from the House from getting anywhere near the preparation of this bill.

Some people claim that they know what is in it. The eloquence of the chairman of the Committee on Rules was overwhelming. Why will he not allow the rest of the House to take a look at this 1,000-page bill so that they can be just as eloquent as he.

Let me tell the Members one thing. There are people in this House today that believe that in that 1,000-page bill is a plan to eliminate completely the Medicare system as we know it.

I know that you know better.

There are people here that really believe this is a payoff to the pharmaceuticals, to the HMOs, and even some of the folks that run around saying they represent old folks.

I know you know better.

There are people who truly believe that employees and retirees are going to lose out in this bill.

Republicans know better, but they want to keep it a secret. It is a Republican thing. Democrats not invited.

All we are saying is you put this bill together yourselves. You think you know what is the best for the Nation. You believe that Democrats have no contribution to make, whether they belong to the Congressional Black Caucus, you do not have one; the Hispanic Caucus; you do not have one; the nonexistent Jewish caucus, you have got one. No matter what you have got, you really believe that we have to be excluded until you decide what is best for us.

You know something, you just may be right. All we are asking for is let us have a day to take a look at it. Let us see what makes you right. Let us see why all of these people are calling us every day say that you are wrong, and you are trying to kill the system. Tell us why would you not let into the conference the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the son of the author of the Medicare bill, the dean of the House of Representatives? Why is it that you believe that he would have nothing to offer to this bill? All I am saying is that you know what is in the bill. Give the House of Representatives, not the Republicans, not the Democrats, but the people's House, give us a chance to see what we truly believe is going to be good for the American people and our seniors. If you do that, maybe you are right. If you are afraid, you will not give us any more time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This must be a very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is 10 minutes to 12. When else would the majority bring out an important piece of legislation but in the middle of the night?

But more importantly than that, tomorrow for many of us is a date that many of us will never, never forget, at least those of us that were old enough to know of and to love the late John F. Kennedy. Most all of us will remember where we were or what we were doing on November 22. And I suggest to the Members that history will record what we do this evening and what we do tomorrow. The arrogance that has been displayed on this landmark piece of legislation defies description tonight, but history will record it. The audacity for people to talk about bipartisan here where for hundreds of years we inherited a House of Representatives that whether one was a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we could say in this House the people rule, and we have enjoyed saying that. Where do the Republicans get the audacity to say that when there is a conference, they would select the willing coalition, that they could look at a person and because they are a Democrat, appointed by the Speaker of this great House of Representatives, they exclude them? And let me tell the Members something else I am proud of, not just being a Member of this House, but sitting on this side of the aisle and taking a look at the faces and the backgrounds of the Members and where they come from, from the rural areas, from the inner cities, from America. We do not have senior citizens? We do not have a contribution to make? We can be excluded? And then to have the audacity to come to this floor, even if it is in the middle of the night, and call it bipartisan because you borrowed two Democrats from the other side. That is shameful.

No, our citizens really will recall what we do tonight, what you have done for AARP, what you have done for the pharmaceuticals, what you have done for the private sector whom you have subsidized. The bill is only 1,100 pages, but seniors know that they asked for some help for prescription drugs. No, they did not ask for competition. They did not ask for you to set up paper outfits. They did not ask for, at the end of the day, that you try to run them out of business. And I am suggesting to you, how would you know what you are going to hear on this side when just common decency prevented you from allowing you to follow the mandate that the Speaker set when he said that the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, please go to conference, and you locked the door? One thing is clear. Seniors understand it better than a whole lot of Members do because it may in the middle of the night, but tomorrow they will be reading what we have done tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who has worked hard for decades on this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to administer the remainder of the time that has been allotted to me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for the fine work he has done over the years on this subject, and as we close one-half of this debate on this historic subject, I would just like to remind those who are recording this event that when you excluded the Democrats from participating in the conference, you excluded 20 Members who are members of the Hispanic Caucus, 39 Members that are members of the Black Caucus.

You excluded the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus. And you had the arrogance to believe that you had to be Republican to be concerned about our senior citizens. But the three that were selected by the Speaker, the Republican Speaker, was the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who knows the problems of our seniors out there. It was me, who served for decades on the Committee on Ways and Means and has worked hard to participate to make this a better bill and a better Congress. But it also was the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a person who fashioned a program for the aged who are poor. He too was excluded.

So it is a great honor for me to invite up to manage the other half of the time here the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). He is the dean of this Congress, and we should feel proud that we are able to serve with him. His father is the author of the Medicare bill, and we should feel ashamed that he was excluded from the conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. We are talking a lot about a reconstruction of Iraq, our commitment to bring democracy in this area; and all I can see is war, war, war and read about the numbers of Americans that are in harm's way that are losing their lives. All we are saying is that we have the responsibility to share with our constituents why we are making this second down payment on a war which we have no idea as to when, if ever, it is going to conclude, how many lives are going to be lost, where is it going to be spread. Most of us accept the fact that the decision to unilaterally attack Iraq was made before 9-11, but how many other countries are on the list? Where do we go from here?

It just seems to me that somewhere along the line we were looking for Osama bin Laden and then we were looking for Saddam Hussein. God knows how long the President's list is. We should be able to ask these questions. We should not leave here until every Member of this House feels satisfied that they have explored the direction in which our country is going.

It bothers me that what we are talking about today is rebuilding a country that we started bombing. I do not remember coming here to rebuild Iraq, Baghdad, or any other place in the Middle East, and yet we are supposed to feel guilty if we do not fulfill this obligation, as though our mail is coming in from the GIs and the Marines that are overseas saying, for God's sakes, send some money to rebuild Iraq if you love me, because the quicker you rebuild Iraq, the quicker I will be able to get home. That is not my mail. My mail is, I want to come home because, guess what? They started the draft. No, not the draft that I advocated. But if you volunteer to serve this country, either in the active service or in the Reserves or in the National Guard, you are being drafted. Your time is being extended. They are taking you away from your home and your family. And these families are not talking about rebuilding Iraq; they want their lives rebuilt.

So give us some time to better understand the President's position, and we might find out where he is going to take us from Baghdad.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to join my colleagues in wishing the Republic of China a happy National Day.

Despite Taiwan's small size and lack of natural resources, in recent years Taiwan has emerged as an economic powerhouse. It is the world's 17th largest economy, with the world's 15th largest trade volume. This economic performance has contributed to both regional and global prosperity. At a time of economic interdependence among nations, Taiwan has a lot to offer to the world.

On Taiwan's National Day, I would like to see Taiwan continue to play a major economic role in the world and further strengthen its economic ties to the United States. Indeed, bilateral trade between Taiwan and the United States topped $66 billion last year and will continue to grow--to the benefit of both nations.

Congratulations, President Chen. We wish you and your people the best of luck as you seek readmission to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. You deserve a prominent place on the world stage.

I also wish to add that President Chen has pledged Taiwan's resources in helping us fight worldwide terrorism. President Chen believes any attack on America is tantamount to an attack on Taiwan and all the other peace-loving

countries in the world. Terrorism must be stopped and Taiwan has done its best to help eliminate terrorism worldwide. We appreciate Taiwan's support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those of my colleagues who will vote today in support of my resolution honoring the great Ambassador Ralph Bunche. I also give my special commendation to the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, Congressman Tom Davis, as well as Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the aforementioned committee, who made a special effort to expedite getting H. Con. Res. 71 to the House floor.

Ralph Bunche, who I am proud to say, lived a great portion of his life in New York, was truly a pioneer. He defied the odds of the times, achieving in a number of areas, from diplomacy to education, while standing as a quiet yet effective warrior in the struggle to breakdown the negative perceptions of inferiority then held about African- Americans.

Ralph Bunche graduated valedictorian, summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1927. In 1934, he became the first African-American to receive a doctoral degree in Government and International Relations at Harvard University. Mr. Bunche continued his passion for education by establishing and chairing the Political Science Department at Howard University from 1928-1941. In 1950, Mr. Bunche became the first African-American and person of color to receive a Nobel Prize.

Mr. Bunche is one of this Nation's most distinguished diplomats, and his commitment to international relations and the attainment of human rights internationally has not only benefited the United States, but has had lasting effects on the entire world. He was a founder of the United Nations, the preeminent world body, and he carried on his global mission by selflessly devoting himself to the cause of independence for many African countries, which until the 1960s, were shackled under the yoke of European colonialism.

During his centennial year, I am extremely pleased that the 108th Congress has elected to recognize one of the great architects of the United Nations, which, in the wake of the unilateral invasion of Iraq, is facing its greatest challenge as the embodiment of peacekeeping and international cooperation. This resolution is especially appropriate at this time, for in recognizing Ralph Bunche, we also acknowledge the value of the United Nations to the world and especially, to the United States.