Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 212, the Year of the Korean War Veteran resolution, and I commend its sponsor, my colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas.

The resolution marks the final year of the United States' 50th anniversary of the Korean War Commemoration and the 50th year of the Armistice.

We celebrate the Armistice which ended the War, but we do so with the knowledge that no formal peace treaty was ever signed, and that only a fragile peace has endured across the tense demilitarized zone dividing North and South. The conflict, so aptly called ``the Forgotten War, took 54,000 American lives. Another 103,000 Americans were wounded, 5,000 were missing in action, and 7,000 were held as prisoners of war. The sacrifices of America's fighting men and women transformed Korea into a thriving economic partner of the U.S. and a powerful front-line democracy against the tyranny of communism.

Fifty years after the end of hostilities, the guns across the border are still silent, but the region and the world are increasingly fearful of the possibility of a new war on the peninsula. With the announcement of its nuclear capability by the government in the North, not only the U.S., but our friends in the region--Japan, China, Russia, and particularly South Korea, are now searching for ways to diffuse an impending crisis.

North Korea's intentions are not entirely understood, but the country's militancy are clearly worsened by its poverty and isolation. The situation requires a skillful hand in dealing with a government that sometimes seems motivated by desperation.

I encourage President Bush to work with our allies in the region in pursuing negotiations and a peaceful resolution of a growing crisis. Threats and intimidation will not succeed in our dealings with North Korea.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Even though they are small in terms of the overall trade that our great Nation will be involved in, it is the first time that we are recognizing the ability to trade with our South American neighbors and to coordinate this with Mexico and the Caribbean and, indeed, to move forward so that we can end up with a free trade agreement for the Americas.

It is oftentimes said that peace is not just the absence of war, but it is the ability for nations to work with each other to trade with each other to improve the quality of life and to create jobs. And to a large extent, the work that has been done on the Chile and Singapore agreements will serve as a model for agreements that have to follow.

But I must say that, as we trade, we must remember that we have to, as a great Nation, have to have minimum standards that we expect that our trading partners will have. We have to make certain that we try to protect not just intellectual property rights, but environmental rights and workers' rights. We have to recognize that if we are going to become members of international organizations that have international standards, we must abide by those standards; and certainly all Americans should want to have core international work standards so that we do not drive to the minimum what we pay our workers and health standards that we try to improve.

In the Chile and Singapore agreements, you will see documents that these countries are to enforce their domestic labor laws. Many of us support the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreement not only because they have decent labor laws, but they have the ability and willingness to enforce them. We are not certain that this is going to happen with other trade agreements that may be coming before this body, but we want to make it abundantly clear that the mere fact that we accept this language in Chile and Singapore does not mean that we will have to accept this language where we do not see it is abundantly clear that other nations have labor laws that follow the core international labor organization laws and the fact that they have a willingness to enforce these laws.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for purposes of control. The gentleman is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues in celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the American Political Science Association's Congressional Fellowship, the first and oldest program of its kind on Capitol Hill.

Since 1953, APSA has allowed rising leaders within government agencies, as well as those in fields like medicine, journalism and academia to get an inside view of what, when, why and how we do things here in the people's House and the other chamber.

I have had the pleasure of having several fellows since I arrived here in Congress, all of whom have distinguished themselves in their ability to jump right in and perform as any veteran of my team. They do so by checking their egos at the door but not their skills and experiences, providing a different perspective on both potential legislation and daily procedures.

Success in any arena depends on participants getting to know the language, procedures and customs of important institutions of power. To be effective communicators or creators of sound public policy, individuals and groups must know how the game is played, even if the rules appear to sometimes be rigged. APSA fellows leave their assignments with that type of knowledge and view of Congress that is built on practical experience and not solely on media or partisan spin.

Washington does not operate in a vacuum--the things that we do echo past these great halls into the homes, schools and office buildings that dot this great land. While technology has allowed Americans to connect with each other quicker, more often and over greater distances, it has not increased the public's understanding of what gets done in Washington and the impact that debates on and off the floor have on their lives.

The APSA Congressional Fellowship program is helping to bridge this gap in the public consciousness by demystifying the political process. Their alumni provide clear evidence that everyone, no matter what their profession or expertise, has a role to play in and an opportunity to impact, their government.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I first want to thank the chairman of my committee for what had to be a very difficult task for him in coming before this august body and expressing regret for poor judgment. All of us at some time or the other have had poor judgment, and it is always difficult for us, especially as politicians, to say publicly that we made a mistake.

The reason I asked to respond is because I know that each and every one of us love this body and recognize that we are privileged, if not blessed, to have the opportunity to represent the people of the United States of America. But whether or not it is a Thomas-Rangel dispute, a Republican-Democrat dispute, the only question that we have is that we leave this place in no worse shape than we inherited it. Each Congress tries to improve the quality of civility, the partnership, the working together, the mutual respect and saying, as my chairman said, that we all want a better America, indeed a better world.

But we have diversity in this country. It is our biggest strength, and to respect the American people, we have to respect each other. It is not a question of personality. We cannot afford to be personal about it. There has to be respect. Yes, the majority has the responsibility to lead and to get their legislation through, but the minority has the right to be respected, to be heard, and to know, in a timely fashion when that legislation is coming up, to know what is in the bill, to have time and to be able to use not the rules that we make up as we go along but the rules of civility that allowed this body to exist for over 200 years. These were not Republican rules. They were not Democratic rules. They were rules to say, notwithstanding your emotion, this will guide you for a better Congress and a better America.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that out of this, because our parents have always told us that out of the worst day of the worst situation, if you commit to it, you can find some good to come out of it. So do not look at it as being a Thomas-Rangel, Committee on Ways and Means issue. Let us look at this as being a House of Representatives issue. Let us see whether every committee and every Member can say that in this House we have got to respect each other no matter how much we differ. We should try to believe that the best of us is to do the best job for our country.

Chairman Thomas, I thank you for coming forward and giving us the opportunity to say can we not take this House to a higher level? Can we not go back home and make the people proud of us? And whether we win or lose in terms of legislation, whether we respect each other is what I think those that we leave this Congress to would respect us for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share an editorial written by C. Payne Lucas, president emeritus of Africare, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that operates development programs in 26 African countries. ``Bush Should Listen Closely in Africa'' was published in Newsday earlier this month.

As President George W. Bush leaves on his first trip to Africa Monday, I am reminded of a trip I made to the continent in 1985 with his father, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush. Massive drought and famine were raging in the Sahel region of West Africa at the time. Thousands of people and farm animals were dying, and most men, women and children were spending their waking moments desperately searching for food and water.

Africans were calling for help, and then-President Ronald Reagan sent Bush on a factfinding mission to West Africa. I was one of a number of development specialists who accompanied him. On this visit, the vice president did not just rely on briefings from U.S. diplomats and highly placed local officials. He went out of his way to engage with--and learn from--people from all walks of life. He spoke with the people at the local level in an effort to get a firsthand account of the enormous odds they faced. Bush listened, and inspired hope. Eventually the U.S. government brought substantive emergency and development assistance to the Sahel nations.

Today, Africa still faces many challenges. Some of these are as familiar as the famine we saw in the Sahel nearly 20 years ago. Others are problems that were barely on anyone's radar screen in 1985, such as the AIDS crisis. But, as it was in 1985, so it is today: In helping Africa's people cope with the problems they face, the United States and the rest of the world need to seek ideas from the people on the ground. On his trip to Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Botswana and South Africa, President George W. Bush will seek to build a better partnership, not just with the people of these five countries, but with the continent as a whole. He will be aiming to counter the long-standing complaint that the United States pays little attention to African countries beyond the desire for access to natural resources such as oil.

As someone who has lived and worked in Africa, and focused nearly four decades of work on the continent, my suggestion to the president is very simple: Listen closely and learn a lot. Often, we Americans tend to think of how different sub-Saharan African countries are from ours. But those differences are minor. Africa's people want the same things we want: peace and security, a decent education for their children, health care--a better future. But, unlike those of us in the United States, Africans have far fewer means to achieve these everyday goals.

This is where the United States can make a big difference. People in Africa have faith in America because they realize that we have plenty of experience in managing diversity, getting people from different racial, religious and ethnic backgrounds to work for the common good. Although we don't always realize it, Africans need these same skills in dealing with the challenges of nation-building. An active engagement by the United States can help make this happen in such countries as Sudan, Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone. For decades, we have remained committed to helping bring peace in the Mideast.

We have engaged in ending bloodshed in Bosnia and Northern Ireland. Africans deserve no less. And, in this present reality, that means the United States should put troops on the ground in Liberia to prevent the continuation of bloodshed. But this issue should not overshadow other aspects of Bush's trip.

In recent years, there have been signs that helping Africans in their struggle against poverty is not just a moral issue but enlightened self-interest. A case in point is the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which has increased access to the U.S. market for African businesses that manufacture textiles and other basic products. The Commerce Department reports that this measure is already having a positive impact in several African countries, creating job opportunities. The $15-billion aid package proposed by the Bush administration--and enacted by Congress--to help fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean is a very good demonstration of American leadership. We can take similar measures to help Africans find solutions to the civil wars that have plagued the continent for years, destroyed millions of lives, and drained resources that should be devoted to education and health care.

Of course, the United States does not have a magic solution to all the problems that African nations face. But we can--and should--be a key part of the solution. In an increasingly interdependent world, such action will yield dividends, not just for Africans but for Americans as well. President Bush, like his father before, must listen to the people, inspire hope and provide relevant help to the Africans at the grassroots.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege under rule IX, and the form of the resolution is as follows:

Whereas, during a meeting of the Committee on Ways and

Means on July 18, 2003, for the consideration of the bill

H.R. 1776, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means

offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute;

Whereas during the reading of that amendment, the chairman

of the Committee on Ways and Means directed majority staff of

the committee to ask the United States Capitol Police to

remove minority party members of the committee from a room of

the committee during the meeting, causing the United States

Capitol Police thereupon to confront the minority party

members of the committee;

Whereas pending a unanimous consent request to dispense

with the reading of that amendment, the chairman deliberately

and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely

objection by a member of the committee;

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of

Representatives disapproves the manner in which

Representative Thomas summoned the United States Capitol

Police to evict minority party members of the Committee on

Ways and Means from using the library of the Committee on

Ways and Means, as well as the manner in which he conducted

the markup in the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18,

2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was

not validly ordered reported to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legendary Celia Cruz, who passed away of cancer on July 16, 2003, at the age of 78.

I join with the people of my district and other citizens of the global community in mourning the loss of the woman who was rightly called ``La Reina de la Salsa.'' I recall fondly her solo and group performances with many musical greats, but in particular the ones with my late dear friend, Tito Puente. I recall most notably her performances at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. during the Americanos Festival and the Hispanic Heritage Awards.

Ms. Cruz changed the world through her voice, helping not only to establish modern salsa music but also set a bar of excellence for all performers, male and female. She rose from humble roots in Cuba to become a global citizen who's gift of song and dance extended beyond language through more than 70 albums that incorporated everything from mambo, to son, to modern reggae and hip-hop. Ms. Cruz's unique vocal abilities earned her hundreds of awards and honors, including a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and three honorary doctorates. Her talent earned her fans all over the world, serving to proudly uplift Latinos worldwide and helping to break down racial and gender barriers in unprecedented ways in music, politics and culture. Her grace and hard work kept her producing Grammy-winning albums until the very end of her life, challenging the perception that life, success and beauty stop at the certain age.

Our condolences naturally go out to her husband Pedro, who more than anyone knew the rare and precious jewel that we had among us. However, while she has departed this earthly plane, her legacy will live forever in the hearts and minds of those who cherished her work in present and the generations of those fans yet to be born.

I leave with my colleagues two articles written respectively by the New York Times' Jon Pareles and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. The article details Ms. Cruz's accomplishments and why life was always better with a little bit of ``Azucar!''

[From the New York Times, July 17, 2003]

Celia Cruz, Petite Powerhouse of Latin Music, Dies at 77

(By Jon Pareles)

Celia Cruz, the Cuban singer who became the queen of Latin

music, died yesterday at her home in Fort Lee, N.J. She was

77.

The cause was complications after surgery for a brain

tumor, said a spokeswoman, Blanca Lasalle.

Onstage, Ms. Cruz was a petite woman who wore tight,

glittering dresses and towering wigs, dancing in high heels

and belting songs that she punctuated with shouts of

``Azucar!'' (``Sugar!''). She was a vocal powerhouse, with a

tough, raspy voice that could ride the percussive attack of a

rumba or bring hard-won emotion to a lovelorn Cuban son.

``When people hear me sing,'' she said in an interview with

The New York Times, ``I want them to be happy, happy, happy.

I don't want them thinking about when there's not any money,

or when there's fighting at home. My message is always

felicidad--happiness.''

In a career that began in the 1940's, Ms. Cruz sang with

every major Latin bandleader and recorded more than 70

albums. She sang a full spectrum of Afro-Cuban music, from

the religious chants of santeria to mambos and cha-chas to

modern salsa. Yet unlike many of the Latin musicians in her

wake, she didn't court a crossover audience. She recorded in

Spanish, modestly saying that her English was not good

enough.

Ms. Cruz was born in Havana to a poor family, and she

regularly sang her brothers and sisters to sleep. She won a

radio talent contest after a cousin took her to the radio

station Garcia Serra; first prize was a cake. She went on to

study at the Havana Conservatory and to sing on radio

programs. In 1950, she joined La Sonora Matancera, Cuba's

most popular band. ``I wanted to be a mother, a teacher and a

housewife,'' she told The New York Times. ``But when I began

to sing with La Sonora Matancera, I thought, `This is my

chance, and I'm going to do it.'''

She toured with the group constantly, sometimes singing

five sets a day; they were also headliners at Havana's most

celebrated nightclub, the Tropicana, and performed on radio

and television. But in 1960, a year after Fidel Castro took

power in Cuba, she was touring Mexico with La Sonora

Matancera and decided not to return to Cuba. Years later,

Cuba refused permission for her to attend her father's

funeral.

Ms. Cruz moved to New York in 1961, and later to Fort Lee.

In 1962, she married Pedro Knight, a trumpeter from La Sonora

Matancera who became her musical director and manager. He

survives her, along with two sisters, Gladys Becquer and

Dolores Cruz.

In New York, she held on to her Cuban roots while adding

some of the city's Puerto Rican and later Dominican elements

to her music. She sang with Tito Puente's orchestra in the

1960's, a collaboration she periodically renewed through the

next decades, and in the 1970's she also sang with

bandleaders like Johnny Pacheco, Willie Colon and Ray

Barretto. She performed with the Fania All-Stars at Yankee

Stadium in 1975.

``Women are afraid to sing salsa,'' she once said. ``I

don't know why. Maybe they think it's for men.'' She added,

``But I think everybody can sing everything.''

She continued to modernize her music, working with Miami-

based producers like Willy Chirino and Emilio Estefan and

with Sergio George in New York, who produced her most recent

albums. She also collaborated with many of the musicians who

admired her, among them Luciano Pavarotti, Gloria Estefan,

David Byrne of Talking Heads and the Brazilian songwriter

Caetano Veloso.

In 1989, Ms. Cruz won a Grammy award for best tropical

Latin performance for an album in collaboration with Mr.

Barretto, ``Ritmo en el Corazon.'' In 1989, Yale University

awarded Ms. Cruz an honorary doctorate (alongside Stephen

Hawking), and in 1990 the main street of Little Havana in

Miami, Calle Ocho, added the name Celia Cruz Way. In 1994,

President Clinton gave her the National Medal of Arts. She

won the first Latin Grammy Award for best tropical album in

2000. Until last year, Ms. Cruz continued to perform and

record constantly on an international circuit that included

jazz festivals and arena concerts along with Latin clubs.

She had surgery for a brain tumor in December 2002, but in

February she returned to the studio to record an album,

``Regalo de Alma,'' that is due for release Aug. 5 on Sony

Discos. That same month, her 2002 album, ``La Negra Tiene

Tumbao,'' won the Grammy Award for best salsa album. In

March, the Telemundo network broadcast a live concert tribute

to Ms. Cruz, in which she performed alongside other Latin

stars, including Marc Anthony, to raise money for the Celia

Cruz Foundation for Hispanic students to study music. It will

give its first five grants on her birthday this year, Oct.

21.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this discussion at the end of the day would tend to bring more civility to the relationship between the minority and the majority Members. We can continue the animosity. We can continue the ill feelings. But this would not serve our Nation well, and it certainly should not make Democrats or Republicans more proud to be a Member of this august body. We should be proud when we differ when we debate; but once we start eroding and abusing the powers of the majority, we do not do it for this Congress, but we do it for the Congress that follows. We do not have that right. No one person has the right to take away the rights that have been given to us by the Constitution in this great Nation.

Last night, just before midnight, a substitute pension bill was filed. After midnight, its description was filed. The underlying bill was a $230 billion bill of 207 pages. The substitute was a $50 billion bill and 90 pages. Members of our committee, Democratic members and I would suspect Republicans as well, had no clue as to the fact that this was coming up on a Friday; and when it did come up, we did not have time to read to see what were the major differences between the substitute and the underlying bill.

When the chairman of the committee asked for unanimous consent to waive the reading of the substitute, I objected and there was some discussion, but I maintained the objection because the Chair really had made up his mind that he was going to move forward with that legislation.

After talking with some of the senior members of the minority, we decided that we had go to the library. This library has been used historically since I have been on that committee for discussions with majority, minority, collectively. It has been used by the Trade Caucus, Republicans and Democrats. It is a beautiful place right behind our beautiful hearing room.

We went back there just to discuss what was in the substitute and how we would handle it. We were not there, I want to emphasize that all of these things are recorded because the time factor is so essential. I was not in that room 2 minutes when I was approached by the chairman's chief of staff who asked me and the Democrats to leave the library. I asked why. She told me because the chairman wanted to use the library for the Republican members. I asked her to advise the Chair that we were not leaving.

It was less than 3 minutes that a House Capitol policeman came and said that a disturbance has been reported. All of the Democrats were in the library at this time with the exception of the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who was outside to make certain that if there was an attempt to waive the rules, the reading of the substitute, that he could object.

The police officer asked us to leave because he was reported that there was a disturbance. I asked what did he intend to do because we were not leaving. He said he would report to his superior.

In less than 3 minutes a lieutenant came of the Capitol policemen. I asked him why was he there, and he stated because the patrolman had received this message, and he had received notice that he was to remove us. I told him what I told the police officer, that we had decided collectively that we would not be moved, and I asked what they intended to do. He said that he had to get a better reading of this from the Sergeant of Arms.

The Sergeant of Arms came and said he was advised by the Capitol Police that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked that we be removed from the room. I said we would not be removed, and the Sergeant of Arms said that he thought that was an issue to be resolved by Members of Congress and members of the committee.

I suggest to you that once we start taking away the privacy of Members, the privacy of members of the committee the privilege to use space that is there for the sole purpose of us to deliberate, then it is a situation that effects not me, not the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, not the Democrats and Republicans in this House of Representatives, but it effects this institution.

We should not allow the abuse of power or personalities to interfere with the responsibilities we have. We have a responsibility to pass this Congress, certainly, if not in better shape, than in no worse shape than the great institution that we inherit it.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have much of a dispute here. First of all, we were not saying that the majority violated any rules by giving us the substitute 2 minutes before midnight and the description right after midnight. That is your prerogative to do. We think it is wrong. We are not charging you with violating rules. And the time fact as to when we got up to leave, yes, we did. We had to decide what we were going to do, and we did get up and leave the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) behind.

The question is, did the chief of staff come as soon as we got up and say that the Chair told us to leave the room? And even though you may not know who directed the sergeant, the police to take us out of the room, the record will show they received a call and they know who they received it from. It was from the chief of staff from the Committee on Ways and Means or someone saying they were speaking for the chief, and it was after that that the police came.

I do not know whether the chairman rescinded the direction to kick us out of the room, but what we are saying today is that that never should have happened. That room belongs to us just as much as it belongs to the Republicans. So we are not arguing with you about violating the rules, but when we objected, that is the only thing that we have. We used the tools that we have. We did not give you unanimous consent to have the substitute to be considered. You may call it a waste of time. We have call it our constitutional prerogative.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere belief that at the end of the day we will all be reading from the same page.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and I have brought this amendment to this piece of legislation which would expand the coverage of the $15 billion emergency plan for AIDS relief to include 14 additional countries in the Caribbean.

Recently, the President had a very successful trip to Africa where, in support of the African Growth and Opportunity Bill, he made it abundantly clear that in order to be healthy trading partners with the United States of America you had to be healthy, and the $15 billion was an attempt to prevent and to provide cure for the ravaging epidemic that has swept sub-Saharan Africa.

In addition to Africa, Haiti and Guyana were named. What we are saying is that we have spent a lot of time and effort in trying to build a better Caribbean basin initiative program where our friends in the Caribbean can share in trade with the United States of America. The leaders of the countries in this area believe that in order to get a handle on this disease, which is the largest region second only to sub- Saharan Africa, that you have to go beyond Guyana, you have to go beyond Haiti; you have to have a comprehensive approach to this disease in education, in prevention and in cure.

And so it makes a lot of sense, we think, that as we approach this serious disease, that we give the leaders, especially the medical leaders in this area, an opportunity to put their program to work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has spent most of her legislative career trying to correct this disease, and I thank her for her effort, and I ask unanimous consent that she be entitled to yield to whomever the time would allow her to yield to.

Mr. Speaker, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has been in effect for over 2\1/2\ years. It was implemented on October 2, 2000.

At present, 38 sub-Saharan African countries are designated as eligible under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); however, implementation of trade benefits for two of these countries, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Gambia, is not final. Two other countries achieved eligibility on January 1, 2003, Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone. (The attachment lists the eligible 38 countries.)

To date, small countries near South Africa have been the most successful users of the program so far--Lesotho and Swaziland have tripled exports to the United States since 1999. Lesotho's exports to the United States, for example, are up from $110 million to $321 million in 2002. In practical terms, these sales have created 15,000 jobs. Farther north, export growth has been strong in Kenya--whose government believes AGOA has created 150,000 local jobs. South Africa is now an auto exporter, shipping 17,000 cars to the United States in the first 10 months of 2002.

Additionally, 19 AGOA countries have met the additional requirements to receive duty-free and quota-free treatment for exports of their apparel and textiles products. Seventeen of the 19 countries have qualified for the provisions for less-developed countries, which allows the use of non-U.S. and non-AGOA fabric through September 30, 2004 (only Mauritius and South Africa are not eligible).

AGOA's sectoral effects to date have been most evident in the textiles and apparel sector. In 3 years, AGOA textile and apparel exports to the United States have doubled, rising from $570 million in 1999 to $1.1 billion for 2002. This total comprises 9 percent of all AGOA exports. AGOA exports now comprise approximately 2 percent of all U.S. textile and apparel imports--a 100 percent increase from 2000, when AGOA took effect. Africa's 92 percent export growth rate in textile and apparel products is 10 times that for China, Latin America, Europe and other major textile and apparel exporters.

Energy-related exports from AGOA countries continue to predominate; however, their overall share is declining, e.g., down to 76 percent of AGOA imports in 2002, from 83 percent in 2001. Additionally, the reason for the decline is not because energy exports from AGOA countries have dropped, but rather other imports have increased. For example, AGOA imports of transportation equipment were 4 percent of all AGOA imports in 2001, but those imports grew by 81 percent and are now 6 percent of all imports under AGOA.

Not all African countries have participated fully and equally in AGOA's remarkable early record of success. Progress has been less evident for Tanzania, Ethiopia and much of West Africa. Moreover, despite the success in textiles and apparel, overall U.S. imports from Africa dropped by $3.4 billion, or about 25 percent, last year. This is because most African countries still rely on natural resources (especially oil, diamonds and precious metals) whose prices are volatile. Higher light-manufactured exports were thus offset by lower prices for oil and natural gas early in 2002, which cut Africa's energy export revenue by about $4 billion, while South Africa saw a $400 million decline in exports of platinum, palladium and rhodium.

More serious in the long term is that AGOA benefits are limited in agriculture. Here, largely due to lower coffee and cocoa prices, Africa's exports are down by 4.5 percent (or $25 million) since 1999. EU and American subsidies also probably hamper African farmers trying to diversify out of tropical commodities. However, AGOA does seem to be helping Africa export value-added agricultural products; while preserved fruits, vegetables and juices are still a small percentage of Africa's total farm exports, they are up from $22 million to $39 million since 1999, with South Africa the leading supplier.

To ensure that AGOA's early successes continue, it needs to be updated, extended and expanded to meet the current and future challenges in the U.S.-Africa trading relationship. Key issues that need to be addressed include the following:

The more liberal apparel benefits for least-developed AGOA countries are set to expire in 2004, just as worldwide quotas will be eliminated. (Currently, least-developed AGOA beneficiaries can use third country fabric in qualifying apparel. This flexibility was necessary because few of these countries have fabric-making capacity.)

I propose to extend LDC benefits for a short period of time, while creating incentives for LDC countries to develop fabric-making capacity. All AGOA benefits (apparel and otherwise) expire in 2008. The President has already indicated he will support an extension of the overall program beyond 2008. I propose to make AGOA benefits permanent. Sub-Saharan Africa has a tremendous amount of opportunity to export agricultural products. Unfortunately, many of the products do not meet U.S. sanitary/phytosanitary requirements. Currently, there are only about three USDA personnel (APHIS workers) providing technical assistance to the Africans to meet U.S. standards. Include a provision providing substantially more technical assistance for development of the agricultural sector.

The AGOA apparel rules of origin (yarn forward requirements, very specific rules on findings, trimmings, etc.) are fairly onerous, and in many cases, make little commercial sense. Streamline the rules of origin.

The United States is currently a party to dozens of international tax treaties with other countries. These treaties prevent double taxation for U.S. firms operating abroad, and include transparency requirements for other countries' systems of taxation.

Include a provision encouraging the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate tax treaties with appropriate AGOA countries.

HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis epidemics continue to plague the continent. Include a provision to provide tax credits to U.S. firms with operations in AGOA countries when they make cash contributions to the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

The main deterrent to African investment is the lack of infrastructure in AGOA countries. Find a way to increase development in this area--perhaps through OPIC or the World Bank/IMF. There are several areas where Congress can clarify its intent. An AGOA III bill would be a natural venue to address these issues.

Imports under AGOA have been a significant share of all U.S. imports from sub-Saharan Africa. In 2001, AGOA imports were $8.2 billion, or 39 percent of the total U.S. imports from sub-Saharan Africa of $21 billion. In 2002, AGOA imports rose to $9 billion, or 49 percent of the total U.S. imports of $18.2 billion from the region.

Since petroleum imports are by far the major imports under AGOA, Nigeria, a leading oil producer, is the major import supplier under AGOA. Nigeria supplied 60 percent of AGOA imports in 2002, and together with South Africa (15 percent) and Gabon (13 percent), accounted for 88 percent of all AGOA imports last year. In comparison, 14 AGOA-eligible countries accounted for less than 1 percent of AGOA imports, and of those, 5 did not ship anything.

In 2002, the 107th Congress approved several amendments to the AGOA in the Trade Act of 2002. These amendments are commonly called AGOA II. They include doubling the cap for apparel assembled in an AGOA country from fabric made in an AGOA country to 7 percent of overall imports over an 8-year period (by 2008). However, the cap under the special rule for lesser-developed countries was left unchanged. They allowed Namibia and Botswana to qualify for the special rule for less-developed countries, even though their per capita incomes exceed the limit set under AGOA. They clarified that AGOA benefits be given to ``knit-to- shape'' articles, garments cut in both the United States and an AGOA beneficiary country (``hybrid cutting''), and merino wool sweaters knit in AGOA beneficiary countries. They authorized $9.5 million to the Customs Service for textile transhipment enforcement, and broadened trade adjustment assistance to cover production shifts to an AGOA beneficiary country.

The United States and five southern African countries (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland) are scheduled to begin free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations in late May. Preliminary discussions have focused on the negotiation's timetable and framework. Once begun, FTA negotiating rounds are expected to occur every 7 weeks with the target completion date set for the end of 2004. USTR notified Congress of its intent

to enter into these negotiations in November 2002. Since this will be the United States' first FTA in sub-Saharan Africa, other AGOA countries will be watching the process closely to determine how they might take advantage of such an opportunity in the future.

USTR appears to understand that a more ``developmental'' approach needs to be taken with the SACU FTA. Specifically, USTR has told Congressional staff that they: (1) recognize the need for asymmetrical treatment, i.e., treating Botswana, Swaziland, Nambia and, particularly, Lesotho (an LLDC country) differently than South Africa; and (2) will strive to provide sufficient technical assistance to help these countries eventually become full FTA trading partners. An initial $2 million in U.S. funds has already been set aside for new trade capacity building initiatives related to the FTA. USTR believes they can attain these goals even while addressing U.S. industries' interests.

SACU is the largest U.S. export market in sub-Saharan Africa. U.S. exports to SACU totaled more than $3.1 billion in 2001--most to South Africa ($3 billion). Leading U.S. sales to the region include machinery, vehicles, aircraft, medical instruments, plastics, chemicals, cereals, pharmaceuticals and wood and paper products. U.S. foreign direct investment in the SACU countries totaled $2.8 billion in 2000, largely in manufacturing, wholesaling and services.

The five SACU countries are leading beneficiaries of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The SACU countries were the top U.S. supplier of non-fuel goods under AGOA in 2001, accounting for more than a quarter of U.S. non-fuel imports from eligible sub-Saharan African countries. (Since oil exports boost the export numbers for many African countries, one needs to look at non-fuel exports to assess the benefit of AGOA.) Between 2000 and 2001, total U.S. non-fuel AGOA goods from South Africa grew by more than 30 percent, from Lesotho by 53 percent, and from Swaziland by 50 percent. Increases were seen in the textile and apparel, transportation equipment and agriculture sectors. As a result of AGOA, Namibia received a multimillion investment in an integrated textile and clothing production complex, and negotiations are under way for two additional factories.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, for its work on behalf of the people of New York. In particular, I applaud the members for their continuing efforts to rebuild the City's infrastructure after the destruction caused by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York City.

The 6,800 member local, headed by President Claude Fort, has been a New York City mainstay for decades, building and maintaining vital components of the city's infrastructure. Since its inception in 1937, the local's engineers, architects, scientists, chemists, planners and other technical specialists have designed, constructed, and maintained the City's infrastructure of bridges, highways, subways, sewer and water systems, schools and libraries; they also enforce air, water, fire, and building codes.

Hundreds of members are currently at work on a massive project to add a third water tunnel in the New York City area. The ``Third Water Tunnel Project'' is a system of sixty miles of underground aqueducts running through Westchester, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn. When completed, the tunnel will increase water delivery for the

City's eastern and southern areas, allow drainage and treatment of the two existing tunnels, and provide an alternate delivery water system in the event service is disrupted in either of the two existing tunnels.

Since the September 11 attack, Local 375 members have worked on every aspect of restoring the City's vital systems to full service. They helped restore the Cortlandt Street Subway Station and lines that had been buried by debris and flooded by broken water mains after the collapse of the Twin Towers. Hundreds of tons of debris were removed from the tunnels while engineers ensured that the rescue and recovery work could proceed safely.

Local 375 members worked arduously from the time they were dispatched to Ground Zero immediately following the September 11, 2001, attack. Dedicated professional and technical workers performed flawlessly in cleaning up the site in dangerous demolition operations. In addition to strategic planning for the job, they monitored air quality and tested for anthrax. They even assisted in recovery and rescue efforts, and conducted DNA testing for victim identification. Members inspected adjacent buildings to ensure that all fire protection systems were working.

Few people outside of New York City know who is responsible for the life sustaining work that they do, but the fact is that without Local 375, New York could not exist as a City. I commend the union's leaders and the entire membership, many of whom reside in my Congressional District, for their contributions to our City and for performing their difficult jobs in a manner above and beyond the call of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I am announcing the introduction of H. Con. Res. 210 honoring Army Spc. Shoshana Nyree Johnson, former POW in Iraq, and the first African-American woman POW.

Specialist Johnson was deployed to the Persian Gulf region as a member of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company. On March 23, 2003, Iraqi Troops ambushed her unit in Nsiriyah, Iraq, and Specialist Johnson and five other members of her unit were captured and held as prisoners of war. Specialist Johnson, four other members of her unit, and two helicopter pilots were rescued by United States Marines on April 13, 2003.

Specialist Johnson, who suffered gunshot wounds in both ankles, displayed extraordinary courage and valor during her 21-day ordeal, and outstanding dignity since her release.

She was honored on Capitol Hill on June 12, 2003, at an event hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus. Specialist Johnson described her experience as ``just doing her job,'' and asked for prayers for those still fighting in Iraq. She also remembered fellow POW Private First Class Jessica Lynch, a member of her unit who was also captured and released. The humility of her remarks reflected the hero that she is.

H. Con. Res. 210 honors Specialist Shoshana Johnson for her sacrifice and for representing the highest ideals of service in the United States Armed Forces. To cosponsor this Resolution, please call Jean Mathis of my staff on extension 54365.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to provide tax incentives to encourage greater diversity of ownership in telecommunications businesses. My bill is a response to the increasing ownership of television and radio properties by large media companies.

I strongly believe that promoting a diversity of views on the airwaves is an important public policy goal. The only way to accomplish that goal is to broaden the ownership of broadcast stations. The television and radio spectrum is a limited resource. The trend in recent years has been a greater concentration of ownership of that resource by the large media companies. We need to reverse that trend.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses that wish to enter telecommunications businesses face significant barriers. To enter a broadcast business, a small business must purchase an existing property. Owners of those properties find it much easier to sell to large businesses than to small businesses. Therefore, small businesses quite often do not have a seat at the table when there are negotiations over the sale of broadcast properties.

My bill would attempt to reduce those barriers by providing limited deferral of capital gain taxation when a telecommunications property is sold to a small business. It would provide the sellers of those properties a positive incentive to consider a small business purchaser.

Large segments of our society historically have been underrepresented in the ownership of radio and television properties. I believe that it is vital that those groups have access to the television and radio spectrum so that their views may be represented on our airwaves. Therefore, my bill would provide a larger deferral of capital gain taxation when the sale is to a small business owned and controlled by individuals from these historically underrepresented groups.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some may attack my bill as being the re-enactment of a flawed prior program. The provisions in my bill are quite similar to the tax certificate program that was repealed by the Congress in 1995. I do not quarrel with those who assert that there were abuses in that program. However, it is unfortunate that the Congress chose repeal and not reform because that program had been effective in accomplishing its goal of expanding ownership of radio and television businesses. In 1978, before the implementation of that program, only .05 percent of all broadcast stations in this country were owned by minority groups. By 1994, the year before the program was repealed, the program had succeeded in increasing minority ownership sixty-fold to 3 percent. Since that program was repealed, the number of minority-owned broadcast properties has declined.

The bill that I am introducing today contains provisions specifically designed to address the abuses in the prior program. It is limited to small business purchasers, it contains restrictions on the number of purchases that can be made by any one business, it contains recapture provisions to prevent the use of the small business as a front for another party, and it contains provisions designed to prevent avoidance of the ownership requirements through options or other sophisticated transactions.

I am hopeful that we can avoid the emotionally charged rhetoric that occurred in 1995 when this issue was last considered. All small businesses, regardless of their ownership, would be eligible for the benefits of my bill. It is true that the bill provides a slightly larger incentive when the small business purchaser is owned and controlled by individuals who are from segments in our society historically underrepresented in ownership of broadcast businesses. I believe this incentive is appropriate so that the views of those groups are heard on our Nation's airwaves. The bill simply attempts to ensure that small businesses, including minority owned small businesses, have a seat at the table when a broadcast property is being sold.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will be able to deal with this issue on a bipartisan basis. We should all support the goal of expanding diversity in ownership of broadcast properties. I am pleased that in the past Senator McCain introduced a similar proposal in the Senate. I am hopeful that we can find bipartisan support in the House. Following is a brief description of the provisions of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we consider a resolution recognizing the work of our late colleague in the alleviation of hunger, I would like to honor George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland for his contributions to this country and the world. He may have been the greatest advocate for the hungry that the House of Representatives has ever known. Mickey was born on November 27, 1944, in Lubbock, Texas. From 1972, when he was first elected into public office, until his death in 1989, Mickey Leland fought on behalf of the hungry, poor and less fortunate around the world. Neither partisanship nor race nor political boundaries prevented Mickey from reaching those who needed him. Republicans and Democrats alike respected Mickey for his determination and moral rectitude. I urge my friends and colleagues in this chamber to honor Mickey's memory by rededicating ourselves to eradicating world hunger and the poverty which is its cause.

In 1984, Leland co-authored legislation creating the House Select Committee on Hunger. It was the Committee's responsibility to focus solely on the widespread problems of hunger and malnutrition. Mickey chaired the Committee from its inception until his death. The Committee's efficacy stemmed from his unwavering moral leadership. He legislated on infant mortality, fresh food for at-risk women and children, and comprehensive services for the homeless. Mickey Leland refused to narrow the scope of his energy and dedication to his own country. Following reports of famine in sub-Saharan Africa, Speaker ``Tip'' O'Neil appointed Leland to lead a bipartisan Congressional delegation created to assess the magnitude of Africa's needs. The findings of that delegation resulted in $800 million in humanitarian relief.

In his pursuit to help the needy, Mickey traveled around the world. He met with Fidel Castro to reunite Cuban families and traveled to Moscow as part of joint U.S.-Soviet food initiative to Mozambique following the Cold War. He met privately with Pope John Paul II in 1987 and 1989 to garner support for his efforts in Africa. Mickey did everything he could. Those of us who were privileged to serve with him in this Congress were always inspired and challenged by Mickey to do more to alleviate the suffering of the people whom Jesus called ``the least of these.''

Mickey died just as he lived, trying to help. He never passed leadership to others when he could infuse a project with his warmth and energy. Mickey was leading a mission to a refugee camp in Ethiopia when his plane crashed, killing him and 15 others. Mickey died on August 7, 1989, near Gambela, Ethiopia.