Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. For those people on our farms that want to get rid of their surplus and sell it, for those people who really believe that we've got a long way to go to get the hopes of Americans up and to have our U.S. trade Representative, our multinationals to understand that it's not just a good agreement for the shareholders, but it is a good agreement for America, for those that believe in the Speaker and the minorities, that we're doing what's best, not for labor and not just for fund raising, but we're doing what we think is best, don't challenge our integrity. Vote your conscience. But this is a heck of a time to make certain that we're not known to be against trade. We're for trade. We're for trade that makes sense in terms of honesty, job creation, and what's good for each and every American. Do we have a long way to go? Yes. Is this a beginning? You bet your life. Anytime we're taking down trade barriers and countries are open to buy what we make in the U.S.A., it's almost unpatriotic not to let them do what we do best. But don't you challenge my integrity, and don't do it for the Speaker, because I won't challenge your ``no'' because you're doing what you think is the right thing.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who is not only one of the best informed members on the Ways and Means Committee on trade, but he has done a heck of a job around this country explaining why this particular free trade agreement is good for America and good for our trading partners, for 3\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic, indeed, piece of legislation, and soon I would ask unanimous consent that you allow me to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin, who may not be able to be here the remainder of the night, and then I will come back to manage the rest of the time. But I really want to thank Speaker Pelosi for having the broad understanding that this great Nation of ours cannot afford the luxury of having a Republican or Democratic trade policy. What makes this Nation great is that people perceive us as being a country that will speak when we have any trade agreement, and that when the Democrats took the majority, we certainly did not want a Democratic trade bill. It was so embarrassing to have foreign trade ministers talk to Republicans and talk with the Democrats and saw we're a divided Nation. She authorized those of us to work with the administration to see whether or not we can bring something that sounded as though it was the United States Congress speaking and being directed to allow them to be the delegations and negotiators. I can tell you that Jim McCrery played such an important role, along with Wally Herger, and of course, I can't say enough about Sandy Levin being able to work with me and the staffs for the first time in over a decade. And on this issue, as so many other issues, you could not find a difference as we found the Republican staff and the Democratic staff in working not just during the day but working at night, working with the Peruvians and even going over there with some of us, with Mr. Levin and Ms. Schwartz, went to talk with President Garcia and to see the respect and admiration they had with this great country, that they wanted to show their friendship and to have exchanges and to have us a stronger country. I know that, politically speaking, there are some people that find it very difficult to talk about supporting trade. They made commitments to a lot of people. Therefore, they have to do what they think is best. It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade. If we just are able to consume everything we manufacture, all the food that we grow, and not be able to have markets abroad, then this is not the great Nation that she is or hopes ever to be. So what we are talking about now is what's good for the country. We have to admit that we have done a terrible job in not recognizing the needs of people who have lost their jobs, lost their families, lost their industry, lost their community, lost their pride. Mr. McCrery and I, we think that we have been able to convince the administration, as we go before the Business Roundtable and say our multinationals can't do just what's good for their shareholders, they have to do what's good for America. And if globalization and technology have hurt some of these communities and destroyed their will to want to be able to say that in this great country they have opportunities for themselves or their children, well, treat us just as good as you treat the developing countries. Bring your ideas, bring the technology and the Ways and Means Committee will provide the incentives to make certain that we can get back, and these communities may not be doing the same thing, but God knows they would be able to do something. Here we have a bill that you don't have to be a trade specialist to know that if people are manufacturing and growing in the United States, and we are dealing with a developing country, and they are not only our friends, but they want to work with us, then we have an opportunity to tear down the trade barriers and to be able to get into their markets as they are able to get into our markets so easily. And so there are those people that cannot vote for it, but I think that because our great Speaker and the Republican leadership allowed Mr. McCrery and I and Sandy and Wally Herger to negotiate something, it doesn't mean that every trade agreement is going to be one that everyone can agree to. What it does mean is that in every trade agreement, America's trade policy is going to be a part of it. How do you treat human beings? How do you treat child labor? How do you treat American investors? And how do you treat the environment? That's a great step forward. I would hope, as the Speaker said, that as people are listening to who is calling in, remember the world is calling in. The world is watching how we treat friends, and people all over this country would not want us to believe that we are anti-fair trade and trade that creates jobs. Some people thought I was being personal when I said don't say this trade agreement loses jobs, this is the only place that people are doing anything, growing anything, can work with people who want to do business with us. It's a great, historic opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that people would want to be a part of this changing thing, where once again people would know that when you do business with the people of the United States, you're not doing business with Democrats because we control the House and Senate, and you're not doing business with Republicans, you're doing business with Americans who want to do the best for them, the best for this great country, to improve our quality of life. We can't do it by party, but we can do it by principle. I thank you for this opportunity and I would ask consent to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin to be able to control until such time as he has to leave.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 801, I call up the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Becerra, an outstanding member of the House leadership as well as an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I thank him for all the fine work he has done.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have six speakers and it just seems to me that if other people are reserving their time, then I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who not only served well on the committee but was a part of the team that went to Peru with Congressman Levin to make certain that we were able to convince the President, the corporate leaders and the Congress that America was their friend and wanted to do the right things. It is with great pride that I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Crowley who makes our New York State proud and makes the Ways and Means Committee proud and is a great Member of this great Congress.

Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank my friend Mr. Herger for the great work that he has done. Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up this debate, I think that we have had tremendous success in what we have done because, regardless of which way the votes have come, isn't it wonderful, Mr. Herger, that we do have a bill on the floor, that Republicans and Democrats are discussing it, and we broke this barrier that because of party label, people could decide how we felt about something? And I have decided that we have a bigger job to do really than just talk about trade. I really think if the multinationals and the trade ambassadors and the Congress spent more time in feeling the pain of those people who were not the beneficiaries of trade, where people who worked hard for generations and life was always better for their kids and their grandkids, and how depressing it is to see all of that lost and the multinationals not bringing that technology and that innovation to our communities and our towns so that people could get their dignity restored. We have got to do a better job. And whether it's related to trade or whether it's not, when you're out of work and you've lost your dignity, what difference does it make? And when you hear people say that they campaigned against trade, they campaigned against the indifference of our government to care about working people. They were campaigning against the spear because how could you possibly campaign against trade? You can't campaign against trade. You can't say everything we grow and everything that we manufacture, that we don't want someone to buy it. And you can't say that America can be as stable as it is. Somebody's working. Someone's doing well. But the people who campaign against trade are communities of people who are not doing well, and this country has not done well by them. So we have got to make an appeal to the multinationals and to our government that they have to not sell trade where it's working; they have to sell trade where it is not working. Because, realistically, no one could have campaigned against the Peruvian agreement. It hadn't been decided. And if you campaign against trade, it's not realistic. But if you campaigned against making America strong and making certain that when you stamp an agreement, you see dignity in that agreement, you see a care for the environment, a care for workers, and you see a concern for those people who are going to be disadvantaged by that agreement. And if they are disadvantaged by anything even other than the agreement, which, as Mr. McCrery said, when we were told by the United States Trade Representative and she said, Mr. Chairman, you know, a lot of people are complaining about loss of jobs. It has nothing to do with trade. And Mr. McCrery said, What difference does it make? As long as they think it is, it's going to be very difficult to sell the question of trade. So we've got a big job to do. This is only the beginning. And after you have said no, no, no to trade, we have to make certain that those towns come back. And I am not that good at projecting what's going on, but I was telling my dear friend Joe Crowley, I bet you that those who feel the strongest against the Peruvian agreement come from communities who have had a lot of economic pain, and those people who even think it was a bad trade agreement if they were doing good, they would allow a Member to make up their mind what they want to do. And so it means that we have got a long way to go but this is truly a beginning. We now have people expressing themselves and asking more from their government to help Americans that deserve better treatment than they have been getting. The only thing that bothered me in the debate is the whole idea that the Speaker of this House and the members, Republican and Democrats, on this committee would bring forth a bill that they thought that Americans would suffer. It's one thing to differ with the contents of the bill; it's another thing to think that we are trying to sell CAFTA or NAFTA or bills that the Speaker has constantly been against. And speaker after speaker after speaker said that realistically if you take a look at Peru, how can it do anything except help us? How can it do anything that we're going to sell to them now, notwithstanding the tariff? Imagine how much more we can sell without the tariff? And when they sell, doesn't it mean that we're making it? If they're buying food, doesn't it mean we're growing it? And doesn't it mean in the communities that have it, we'll be doing well? So let me thank the minority and let me thank the majority. It's been a great debate. Let's get on and say that this Peruvian bill is just the beginning of the cooperation we should expect. Thank you, Mr. Herger. And thank you, the majority.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee and thank him for the support that he's given to us on all of our issues.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. RANGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. RANGEL. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. RANGEL. Well, I am the last speaker, so whatever they want to do they can do. I may have to ask my friend on the other side for a minute or two to close, but I may not. So why don't I reserve and see what happens.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise to seek my colleagues' help with the humanitarian crisis in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, and the Bahamas, whose devastation many have compared to Hurricane Katrina. Last week, Tropical Storm Noel became the deadliest storm of the 2007 hurricane season, responsible for at least 140 deaths throughout the Caribbean. Flooding and mudslides caused by the heavy rainfall led to the displacement of more than 80,000 people and isolated small towns and villages in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, and the Bahamas. The track of this deadly storm brought back those poignant reflections of how helpless we felt when Katrina hit, how frustrated we were at not being able to help, and the lessons we learned from that storm. Yet now a new storm has come with the same intensity and devastation and we have a chance to do something about it. Our Government is beginning to respond. This past weekend, three U.S. Coast Guard helicopters began conducting search and rescue operations and assisted with aerial assessments of affected areas to determine needs. The Defense Department has sent helicopters and personnel to the Dominican Republic and Peace Corps volunteers in the country have been dispatched to affected areas to help. In all, the United States Government has contributed over $350,000 directly to the Dominican Government, $200,000 to the Pan American Health Organization and $100,000 to Catholic Relief Services, CRS, and World Vision for the local water, shelter materials, and other emergency relief supplies. Our Government has also provided, through U.S. Agency for International Development and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, an additional $500,000 for emergency relief supplies, water, sanitation, and hygiene support, and other emergency relief activities. Yet more help is needed. The U.N. reports that 40 percent of the water distribution system and 60 percent of the country's 122 aqueducts have been damaged. Public shelters and medical facilities are reaching their maximum capacity, while sanitation conditions are deteriorating and relief supplies are quickly running out. It's true that we can't fly the helicopters and we can't distribute the water. But there are a lot of other ways in which we can help. We here in Congress can make sure that our Government does not stray from these initial commitments and that bureaucratic red tape does not impede the transportation of supplies to the areas hardest hit. We can also appeal to constituents in our own home districts to give to the local charities that are involved in this effort, like the Red Cross or Catholic Charities. We must not forget that our country's strength lies not just in size of our military, but also in the depth of our compassion. Whatever people can give--from hard cash to canned goods to clothes--will help lift and restore the lives of the victims of this terrible tragedy. Any effort will go a long way to relieving the suffering that continues to be felt by our friends and neighbors.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Norma Anderson Loften, who passed away on November 1, 2007, in her hometown, Beaumont, Texas, at the age of 76. Ms. Loften was a dear friend who personified all the values that we cherish as Americans: a deep and abiding religious faith, devotion to her family, compassion for those in need, and a commitment to education and hard work. I first met Norma and her late twin sister Erma when I was a teenager growing up on Lenox Avenue in Harlem, New York City. They had moved there from Texas to attend the St. Aloysius Catholic boarding school for girls. The religious nuns who ran the ``school considered me a ne'er do well, but the twin sisters accepted me and I became a ``lifelong friend of theirs and their family. Norma studied hard and went on to a long career as a dental hygienist in New York, retiring from Mt. Sinai Hospital in 1995. Her avocation was music, which she studied for many years, to became a talented pianist. With her husband Maurice Loften, she had three accomplished sons, the late Dwight, who had been an accountant in Washington, DC; Rodney, a school superintendent in New Jersey; and Kevin, chairman of the American Hospital Association. She is also survived by her beloved mother, Cora Anderson, wife of the late Rodney Anderson, who remains in Beaumont, Texas at the wonderful age of 98. Her loving brother, Charles Anderson, retired from the U.S. Air Force, also resides in Beaumont. His children, the late Vanessa; Francesca; Charles, Jr.; Gina; and Robert were all devoted to their loving aunt, Norma. God has given the Anderson family an extraordinary faith and unchallenged belief in his wisdom. Therefore I pray that at this painful time when their beloved Norma has been called home, they will take comfort in the belief that this is God's will. I hope that in the midst of their sadness and helplessness, they will be encouraged by the beautiful memories of her great love and caring spirit. Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing this wonderful American family and biding farewell to Norma Anderson Loften.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be extremely brief because I expect to be speaking at a later time on the bill. But I could not resist coming to the floor to protect the integrity of the Speaker and the members of the Ways and Means Committee, both Republican and Democrat. There may be, as a matter of conscience, that people feel that they have to oppose this bill or oppose trade or commitments they have made to other people. But to suggest that the leader of this House and those Republicans and Democrats who worked on the Ways and Means Committee and passed this out with a recorded vote without a vote against it were trying to have Americans lose their jobs here is not only unfounded, but it's unfair. And if anyone really just wants to count the numbers, then ask our farmers, ask our machine people, ask our television or electronic people how much they are going to export to Peru because of the removal of tariffs and how much is coming into this country. So you can be against trade. You can be against the agreement. It may not go far enough. It may not be everything you want. But I think it is wrong and unfair to suggest that we are deliberately trying to have people here, hardworking people, many who have suffered because of loss of jobs, and perhaps it has been because of trade or the indifference of people to invest in these families or in these communities, but this bill does not cause Americans to lose jobs. It's abundantly clear that the balance is on America's side in terms of removal of the tariffs. And for those of you who come from agricultural communities, ask your farmers. For those of you who come from machines that remove communities and mining materials, ask those manufacturers. And ask the people that would create the jobs whether or not it's good for them and good for the community. So you can be against trade. You can be against South America. You can be against anything. But to suggest that those that do support this bill will cause Americans to lose their jobs is untrue and unfair.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman yield on this?

Mr. RANGEL. You know, the committee's put a lot of time on this bill, but after considerable thought, I just thought it would be fair to tell the majority leader that I agree with you 100 percent.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of resolutions H. Res. 573, H. Res. 726, and H. Res. 740, which are all related to the situation in Darfur. The continuing genocide in Darfur is an attack on humanity and I would like to take this moment to urge my colleagues in Congress and in the International Community to support ending this genocide. I am in support of H. Res. 573. This resolution calls for recognizing and commending the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur, Sudan. If it were not for the U.S. public and advocacy groups that have brought awareness of the violence and displacement that has occurred in Darfur, this horrific conflict might have gone unnoticed. Experts estimate some 400,000 people have died and over 2.5 million people within the Darfur region have been made homeless since this conflict began in 2003. Too many people of Darfur are in extreme poverty and they rely heavily on international aid for survival. Refugee camps have experienced atrocities, rape, and physical violence, which is making these supposedly safe havens unsafe. Even humanitarian groups are suffering from deteriorating conditions and attacks, which has caused several NGOs to leave. I agree with H. Res. 726, which calls on the President of the United States and the international community to take immediate steps to respond to and prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan, eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. During war women are too often the victims of rape and sexual violence, which is often used systematically as a weapon of intimidation, humiliation, terror and ethnic cleansing. Being a victim of rape or sexual violence is one of the worst human rights violations there is. Women in these areas can hopefully be protected if the President of the United States develops within the United States Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development a Women and Girls of Darfur Initiative to improve assistance to victims and potential victims of rape and sexual violence in the areas called for by the resolution. I fully support H. Res. 740. This resolution condemns in the strongest terms the attacks on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan on September 29, 2007. This ambush by Darfur rebels killed ten peacekeepers; seven Nigerian peacekeepers and three other soldiers from Mali, Senegal and Botswana. Several other soldiers were wounded and fifty soldiers are still missing. This attack is considered the worst on AMIS peacekeepers since the deployment in July 2004. It is time to hold the perpetrators of these hateful acts accountable for their inhumane actions. Madam Speaker, I support these bills because the people of Darfur need help. Too many lives have been taken; too many women have been sexually violated. These bills help send a clear message to the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebel groups that we will not continue to allow these crimes to happen on our watch. It is time to end this genocide.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 781, I call up the bill (H.R. 3920) to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, to extend trade adjustment assistance to service workers and firms, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to our distinguished subcommittee chairman for Trade, Mr. Levin, I first want to thank Mr. McCrery for helping to set the stage for at least the Ways and Means Committee to vote unanimously for the free trade agreement with Peru. This was a record vote, this was a historic vote, and we had every vote on the committee. I raise that at this time not to curry favor with the Republicans to support this historic piece of legislation before us, but because I know from Mr. McCrery's input and contribution, he recognizes that trade no longer has to be seen as something that is negative to American workers. Good trade agreements that create jobs should be allowed a vote and not be hurried so that Members are not impeded from the policy and really have an opportunity to study the substance. Without his cooperation and that of the United States Trade Representative and Secretary Treasurer, we would not even have the opportunity to look forward to the bipartisan victory we had in the committee and look forward to on the floor. A part of that agreement, however, was he and I sharing that when people are without work, without jobs, without hope, when communities are adversely affected because of trade, that our government and our multinationals have a responsibility not just to their shareholders, but to do all that they can to ease the pain, to encourage investment, and to have a climate, whether it is globalization or technology, to know that trade is not always the villain. And to the extent we are able to improve on many of the things that we have in this bill before us, we do hope that the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act will be just the beginning. That whether it is trade or not, we have a responsibility to the dignity of American workers and their children so that in this great country they can aspire to be working and to have the respect that all Americans would want in terms of being producers. So to the extent that we had the cooperation of Mr. McCrery in creating the climate, and fully appreciating that we had input from Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee, even though we didn't ask for their votes and accept their amendments, it is this climate that makes our country so great, that makes this Congress so great, and makes me proud to be the Chair and a member of the Ways and Means Committee. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3920, the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007. We come here today at a crossroads of sorts. In recent years, trade policy has been a dividing force, used as a political tool to advance ideologies, rather than a shared sense of purpose that our trade agreements and programs could reflect the broader goals of the American worker. The legislation before us today offers an opportunity to change that. In the early months of this Congress, I joined with the Speaker and the House leadership to remind the Administration that the Constitution specifically designates Congress as the branch of government responsible for international commerce. We agreed that we took that responsibility seriously and we would use our majority to improve American trade policy to better reflect the needs and concerns of our workers, not just our large, multi-national corporations. The legislation before us today is the next step in developing a new trade policy that more adequately addresses the growing perception that trade is not working for American workers. The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007 would expand training and benefits for workers while also helping to encourage investment in communities that have lost jobs to increased trade-- particularly in our manufacturing sector. The growing perception that prior American trade policy ignored the needs of workers here and abroad is a large contributing factor to the declining public support for trade. For years we have had a program in place--trade adjustment assistance, or TAA--that was supposed to tackle some of the issues and problems workers face as it relates to trade. Despite the best of intentions, this program did not meet expectations or promises and has failed to keep pace with globalization. We are here to change that today with the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007. The bill before us today is a comprehensive policy expanding opportunities for American workers, industries, and communities to prepare for and overcome the challenges created by expanded trade. First, the bill significantly expands existing TAA for Workers by: 1) covering service workers and additional manufacturing workers; 2) increasing TAA benefits; 3) making the TAA wage insurance program permanent; 4) improving the TAA health care benefit; and 5) increasing TAA program funding. Second, the bill includes a package of tax incentives to encourage investment in distressed communities that have lost manufacturing jobs. Third, recognizing that unemployment insurance (UI) is the gateway to TAA, the bill reforms the unemployment insurance system by creating incentives for States to cover part-time, low-wage, and other workers under State UI laws. America's ability to compete and win in a global economy is too critical for our trade policy to continue being a partisan issue. I noticed with great displeasure yesterday's veto threat from the Administration on this bill. To that statement, I would say that the bill before us today passed the Ways and Means Committee with Democratic and Republican support--and I expect it will receive the same from the full House. The issues contained in this bill are central to the ongoing debate over the Administration's trade policy and if this Administration wishes to address the growing public concern over the direction of its trade policy, it will reconsider this veto threat. Globalization is here to stay--and we must band together as Democrats and Republicans to shape its benefits for all Americans. I look forward to today's discussion and I urge you to support H.R. 3920, the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007. At this time I would like unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, who has played such an important role in creating that climate and working with the staff and the members on the other side.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of a true patriot and committed public servant, the late Joseph Crapa. He boasted a litany of high posts and honors to his name, but it was as Chief of Staff to Senator Charles Schumer that he so ably served my native New York. Staffers like Mr. Crapa are the backbone of Capitol Hill, the too-often unsung movers and shakers who work feverishly on behalf of the American people. Known as a fast-talking guy from Brooklyn, Mr. Crapa's magnetism drew a series of glowing compliments--solid, wise, shrewd. He loved politics and government, but remained loyal to his unwavering moral core. He was an intellectual powerhouse, relentless in his defense of the little guy, but with the practical political know-how to get things done. As the executive director of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, his last post, he agitated for a cause near and dear to his heart: the battle for religious freedom worldwide. He is today--and always--remembered and appreciated as a man of conviction and a wealth of knowledge. ``Salt-of-the-Earth'' Staffer Crapa Mourned on Hill Joseph Crapa, the executive director of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, died Thursday from cancer at the age of 63. Crapa, who had led the commission since 2002, previously worked for 25 years in various Capitol Hill-related jobs, including House committee offices, Member offices and in the Congressional relations shops of several executive branch agencies. Immediately before coming to the commission, Crapa worked as chief of staff to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). ``Joe was a pure salt-of-the-earth human being,'' Schumer wrote in an e-mail. ``To know him was to love him.'' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) noted in a statement that she knew Crapa during his service in the Senate and the Clinton administration. She lauded Crapa's ``indomitable spirit and determination'' during the fight to secure funding for New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Crapa also served as counsel and staff director in the office of Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) for 10 years, before leaving in 1997 to become associate administrator for congressional and intergovernmental affairs at the Environmental Protection Agency. Obey said he was dubious when he first interviewed Crapa for a job in 1987. ``I thought, `There's no way in God's green earth I can work with this fast-talking guy from Brooklyn,'' Obey said. ``He was about three times as intense as I was. But his solidity, wisdom, and shrewdness came through, and we ended up not only working together for 10 years, but becoming close friends.'' Obey said Crapa was a ``superb example'' of the importance of the role staffers play on the Hill. ``There are a lot of people who never serve in elected office--staffers and people in various agencies--who love this country, are dedicated to doing things right and to advancing the cause of regular people,'' Obey said. He said Crapa ``loved politics, he loved government, he had a moral core to everything he did. He was an intellectual and, at the same time, a hard-nosed practicing pol in the best sense of the word.'' In a statement released by USCIRF on Thursday, Chairman Michael Cromartie said Crapa ``had an unwavering, principled commitment to . . . protecting religious freedom worldwide.'' He and Vice Chairwoman Preeta Bansal both commented on Crapa's ``sharp political instincts,'' which Barisal said were ``crucial to him in this sensitive area.'' Over the course of his career, Crapa worked as the top congressional relations official at the EPA, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and in the No. 2 spot in the Department of Commerce's congressional relations office. He also spent time at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, where he was the executive director of the Speaker's Club, and as vice president at lobby shop Dutko and Associates. For 6 years during his time in Obey's office and at the EPA, Crapa taught part-time as adjunct professor of government at Georgetown University. He was a John C. Stennis Congressional fellow in 1995-1996. Crapa was born Dec. 16, 1943, in Brooklyn, N.Y. He received his bachelor's degree from St. John's University in New York City and went on to receive a master's degree from Duke and a Ph.D. from the University of Arizona; all three degrees were in British and American literature. He married Barbara Vaskis in 1967; the couple had one son, Judd, and two grandsons, Sebastian and Baird. A memorial service for Crapa is scheduled for 1 p.m. today at St. Peter's Church on Capitol Hill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to throw my endorsement behind a resolution of great import--one that highlights the struggle of Jewish freedom in the former Soviet Union and pays tribute to one of the great civil rights movements of the last century. The will and forbearance of man and woman is best evinced when they are faced with adversity. Victims to a repressive anti-Zionist state that stripped its Jewish citizens of their rights to emigrate, be autonomous, and engage in religious prerogatives, Soviet Jewry channeled the strength of its community into one, harmonious dissenting voice. That takes awe- inspiring courage, and it more than merits our recognition today. Only two decades have passed since a full quarter of a million of our frustrated brothers and sisters marched on Washington, demonstrating remarkable solidarity in numbers and unmatched political resolve. Only two decades before that, the seeds of focused defiance were being sown, a movement young in age but ripe at heart. And now, four decades later, the legacy of that effort has come to brilliant fruition. A renaissance of Jewish culture has cemented itself in the modern-day consciousness of the Russian people--and that is an exceptionally good thing. Let us echo that spirit of unity, camaraderie, fraternity, and in one voice, honor their memories that inspire and move us to this day. Mazel Tov, my friends.