Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an opinion editorial published in the CaribNews newspaper the week ending July 31, 2007 titled ``St. Vincent & the Grenadines: Launches Poverty Assessment Survey'' and an article entitled ``Poverty Picture in the Caribbean: Barbados to Undertake Assessment.'' Both examine the initiatives these countries have taken to address poverty. As CARICOM nations look to move to a single market economy, they should be encouraged to take a proactive approach to assess poverty in their individual nations. Poverty assessments serve as the key instrument of poverty reduction strategy. They are designed to assess the extent and causes of poverty in a given country and to propose a strategy to ameliorate its effects. Understanding the causes and characteristics of poverty in the Caribbean is particularly important at this time as there are indications that living conditions in some countries have declined in recent years. The data gathered from these assessments will be used to evaluate the quality of life and living conditions being experienced at the community, family and individual levels, with particular interest and emphasis placed on vulnerable groups like women, and children. The increases in competition stemming from global economic changes in trade and capital markets, the erosion of preferential market access, the vulnerability of the tourist industry and competition from other destinations, and decline in official capital flows from bilateral sources all present a particularly difficult challenge for the Caribbean. Given this environment, there is an urgent need for countries to pursue policies that will stimulate and sustain economic growth and prioritize investments aimed at reducing poverty and developing human resources. So I commend the leadership of the governments of Barbados and St. Vincent & the Grenadines for the steps they are taking to assess poverty in their countries. [From CaribNews, July 17, 2007] St. Vincent Launches Poverty Assessment Survey Kingstown, St. Vincent, CMC--St. Vincent and the Grenadines has launched an EC$2 million-dollar (US $749,000) poverty assessment programme that Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves said would be welcomed regardless of the outcome. ``Only on the foundation of truth we can build efficacious policies,'' Gonsalves said as he addressed the launching of the project on Tuesday. The poverty assessment project will seek to create a profile of poverty on the island and is being funded by the European Union and the United Nations Development Programme. The last poverty assessment survey was undertaken in 1996 and it found that 37.5 per cent of the population was poor, while 20.4 per cent of the households and 25.7 per cent of the population was indigent, or living below the poverty line. Gonsalves, who said that poverty reduction is one of the central pillars of his government's programme, said he was prepared to accept the results of the new survey. He noted that in the event that the assessment showed there had not been a significant enough reduction in poverty, more would have to be done in addition to what is already in place. ``History is replete with failed leaders who want to hear what they want to, they don't last long,'' he said, blaming the then New Democratic Party (NDP) government of not properly preparing the nation for the quickly changing economy. He said they were too concerned with keeping spending down, maintaining a surplus on the current account and other things that amounted to simply keeping their heads above water. The Prime Minister suggested that more concrete policies needed to be enacted to deal with the crippling challenges that globalisation and trade liberalisation was going present to the region. ``There was no preparation on the most critical resource before us, people, to address the changing nature of the colonial political economy,'' Gonsalves said. The poverty assessment will be conducted by the Trinidad and Tobago based firm KAIRI Consultants Limited, the same group that did the 1996 assessment. [From CaribNews, July 23, 2007] Poverty Picture in the Caribbean, Barbados To Undertake Assessment Soon To Find Out How Many Living Below Poverty Line, Assessment To Begin in August (By Tony Best) With poverty levels running the gamut from about nine per cent in the Bahamas and 18 per cent in Jamaica to 21 per cent in Trinidad and Tobago and almost 60 per cent in Haiti, according to the United Nations, Caribbean governments are extremely sensitive to figures which indicate that poverty was either on the rise or was far too high. That explains why the Arthur Administration in Barbados is gearing up to undertake a comprehensive national poverty assessment, beginning possibly in about a month's time and using a broadened definition of poverty. Trevor Prescod, Minister of Social Transformation, told the CaribNews that it was important for the government to have a firm idea about the full extent of poverty so that it could target more of its programmes, projects and resources to the task of meeting the needs of people living in dire circumstances. ``We haven't had any recent scientific analysis of it (poverty) and we are now into, probably within a month or so, we are going to have a wide assessment of poverty,'' the Minister said in New York after he signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, the first human rights treaty of the 21st century. ``We are now putting together the kinds of operational management structures to ensure that that assessment is carried out in a very scientific manner,'' he explained. ``We have just established a planning unit within the Ministry of Social Transformation. We are working with the Statistical Department, the Caribbean Development Bank and we are going to have other agencies coming in as well.'' For instance, the University of the West Indies may be invited to carry out the actual research for the country's human development report, according to Prescod. ``When we get that report we would be in a better position to tell you if there has been any fundamental changes, if we have been able to reduce the numbers'' of people living in poverty,'' he said. The Inter-American Development Bank carried out the last assessment of poverty in Barbados a decade ago and it showed that about 35,000 persons or an estimated 13-14 per cent of the population lived below the poverty line. ``Enough time has elapsed that we need to have a new report to see if we have made any dent into that 35,000 that we talk about,'' Prescod added. ``But it all depends on what you use as a measurement for poverty. The IDB dealt with an income consumption analysis and what the Ministry is doing, we now have a broader definition of poverty.'' Specifically, it would focus on ``social deprivation,'' taking into account access to health care, education and other essential services rather than simply zeroing on income and consumption, he pointed out. However, the approach the government plans to adopt would make it difficult to compare the IDB's rate with any new findings, because the latter would touch on the lives of a broader cross-section of the Barbadian population. That raises the distinct possibility that the actual number of poor people could be higher than in the late 1990s. ``It is going to be very difficult if we now have the new definition to compare it with what occurred with the IDB's assessment,'' the Minister said. While he acknowledged that any assessment which showed a rise in poverty could become a political controversy, with the Opposition Democratic Labor Party leading the charge against his Ministry, Prescod said that it was clear that the Arthur Administration had attacked the problem of poverty by eliminating many of the debilitating conditions under which some Bajans had to live. ``If we do an assessment we would discover there has been a change, especially in the provision of housing, many of the persons identified the last time around have since been empowered, were retooled by giving skills to those persons who previously had no skills,'' he argued. ``You would discover that both the Urban Development Corporation and the Rural Development Corporation have replaced the dilapidated houses. On the basis of observation alone, without having the kind of empirical figure to show, there is obvious evidence of an improvement. I think that is what worries the opposition more than anything else. ``We have done a lot of work, especially in the urban and rural communities across Barbados,'' he said. ``We had lots of people living in horrible conditions and we have been able to make substantial changes in the lives of those persons. No one can realistically question the quality of life and the way it has improved in Barbados over the last 10 years or so. We have done exceedingly well.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate one of my constituents, Calixto Chinchilla, on the completion of what has quickly become a New York film tradition: the New York International Latino Film Festival. This past Sunday, Chinchilla and a group of dedicated volunteers and sponsors closed out another fantastic 5 days of film screenings and panels for the eighth straight year. Chinchilla, then a young marketing executive, founded the festival in 1999 to showcase the talent of the growing Hispanic community, at home and abroad. Its crazy to think that despite's New York's immense Latino talent, there has never been a consistent side-by-side display of Spanish- language and English language films from all of Latin America and the U.S. But there wasn't. So he pulled together an event that looked to shatter stereotypes that society had about Latinos with films that came from all over the Hispanic Diaspora and that challenged notions that both mainstream society and the Latino community had when it came to race, ethnicity and class. He sought to do this in an environment where Hollywood could meet independent cinema, so that fresh faces could be brought to the stage and longtime community voices could be heard. The journey has not been perfect, yet Chinchilla, current co- Executive Director Elizabeth Gardner and enthusiastic mix of veterans and newbie volunteers always seem to pull it off bigger and better each time around. Although many of the films are shown downtown, Chinchilla has made a habit of bringing the festival to other parts of the city during and after the summer festival. The only local festival to feature a night exclusively dedicated to Dominicans, NYILFF this year will also treat my constituents in Washington Heights with a family day filled with games, activities and movies for children. I submit into the record two articles from the New York Daily News that provide a little more information about this year's showcase. It's just another example of the great body of artistic talent that has called and will continue to call Northern Manhattan home. [From the New York Daily News, July 25, 2007] Pictures of Latino Life (By Roberto Dominguez) It took a few years for aspiring director Bruno Irizarry to get around to making a movie about the trouble many Latino actors have finding quality, nonstereotypical roles. But Irizarry didn't hesitate when it came to submitting his feature-length film, ``Shut Up and Do It!,'' to the one festival he knew would appreciate it. The comedy is among the 80 or so features, shorts and documentaries at the New York International Latino Film Festival, now in its eighth year of showcasing new movies by or about Hispanics. The festival was founded in 1999 by Calixto Chinchilla, at the time a Warner Bros. marketing employee, who felt the need to counteract the dearth of Latino themes and characters in mainstream movies. ``Shut Up and Do It!'' is about a down-on-his-luck Latino actor compelled to make his own movie--and cast himself in it--because of a lack of good parts. ``To have my first film accepted into the festival has been a totally amazing experience,'' says Irizarry, 40, who directed the film together with Veronica Caicedo and also cast himself in a leading role--as a struggling actor. ``Most of the stuff in the movie has really happened to me as an actor trying to make it in New York,'' adds Irizarry. ``Like the characters, I was fed up and tired of casting directors seeing me for roles like `Garbage Man No. 1.' But being in this festival has allowed me to start off my directing career with a bang, because it's so well- established.'' That wasn't always the case. The first year's festival screened just a handful of movies at a community center in midtown that Chinchilla rented for a couple of nights. It has since expanded into the largest event of its kind, with movies from both established and emerging filmmakers from across the U.S., Latin America and Spain. They're presented in several Manhattan locations, along with panel discussions, free outdoor screenings of classic movies (like ``West Side Story'') and themed evenings like Dominican Night--with the backing of corporate sponsors eager to tap into the buying power of the U.S. Latino market. As the number of submissions from around the world has grown into the hundreds, so has the festival's reputation and prestige. Director Alfredo De Villa, whose first feature, the low- budget drama ``Washington Heights,'' was a festival darling five years ago, has seen his career grow as a result. All three of his films have been screened at the fest over the years, and De Villa has gone on to work with several name actors, including Dominic Chianese of ``The Sopranos'' and Heather Graham, who star in De Villa's drama ``Adrift in Manhattan.'' ``It's definitely like coming home,'' says De Villa of the festival. ``As long as they'll have me, I'll keep bringing them movies.'' In recent years, the festival has also become a springboard for bigger-budget projects--``El Cantante,'' produced by Jennifer Lopez and starring Marc Anthony as troubled salsa singer Hector Lavoe, is premiering at this year's fest before it hits theaters in August. But according to Chinchilla, the true measure of the festival has been giving locals like Sonia Gonzalez the chance to display their work. ``They've always been very supportive of Latinos, but now it's become a really visible showcase for first-time filmmakers,'' says Gonzalez, whose documentary on New York stickball, ``Bragging Rights,'' premieres today. ``To have a feature [at the festival],'' she adds, ``makes you feel like a celebrity.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2707, Mr. Kucinich's resolution to reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program. I praise the initiative contained in this resolution to point out the historical, cultural, and educational legacy behind the Underground Railroad. It is through that network of tunnels and secret hiding places that many African Americans escaped slavery. As a symbol of freedom, the Underground Railroad deserves greater recognition and appreciation; regrettably many of its artifacts and secrets remain hidden and lost. I have long believed in and fought for more and better education of African American history. Well, an important part of that history is contained in the struggle for freedom that characterized the slave experience. Some would have us believe that slaves passively accepted their captivity in the plantations in the South. The truth is there was an active resistance to slavery; which included periodic uprisings and constant efforts to escape. The full role and extent of the Underground Railroad has yet to be discovered and remains unknown. The legislation authorizes the Secretary of Education to sponsor studies and make grants for programs that promote knowledge of the Underground Railroad. With the resources and technology available today, we owe it to the history of African Americans and the history of the United States to study, preserve, and make available to all the hidden secrets of the Underground Railroad. Secret routes and safehouses still remain unknown--secrets that may remain buried in our backyards. The establishment of this facility would allow significant missing pieces in African American history to be properly studied and commemorated. Through the passage of this legislation, the work of the National Park Service and its study of the phenomenon known as the Underground Railroad will be continued. Established by Congress in 1990, the National Park Service has made major progress in learning more about the secret routes and the processes used in escorting these fugitive slaves to freedom.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Calvin Copeland, the legendary owner of Harlem's Copeland's Restaurant and Reliable Catering. I rise because while the kitchen of this Harlem staple may have served its last meal this past Sunday, it will always be open in the hearts of many a beacon of hope and great cuisine that you could call home. Calvin Copeland, was born in Smithfield, Virginia, one of eight children and grew up in Newport News, VA with relatives when both his parents died. If you ask him, Copeland still remembers the names and addresses of all the restaurants and establishments where he worked since his first job in Virginia kitchens at the age of 13. He moved to New York in the late 1940s, where he married Rita Copeland, an Irish immigrant, who was a waitress at a New Jersey restaurant where he worked. When Copeland arrived in New York, he thought, like many recent arrivals and immigrants that dream in our fine city today, that the streets in New York were paved with gold. He took any job he could, from dishwasher to bus boy to cook. Yet no matter where Calvin he was employed, he studied and watched the chefs and tried to pick up techniques. He worked from 3 p.m. to 12 a.m., seven days a week, for six years, and very often, never saw the sun set; and The first Copeland's restaurant opened in 1967 in a cubbyhole on Broadway, between 148th and 149th Streets, around the comer from his present location. It was a dream that only came about after his Aunt Alma told him to take the money he had saved from working in restaurant kitchens all across Manhattan and open up his own place. By 1980, Copeland's Restaurant and Reliable Catering was established at its current location at 547 West 145th Street, its southern style foods a testament to both to Calvin's proud Virginia roots and his adopted family uptown. I submit into the record the following two articles from the Associated Press and the New York Times that captures a piece of the important role Copeland played in the city and the neighborhood. For over five decades, Calvin Copeland been committed to his roots and his community, enduring through the riots of the 1960's, the crack epidemic of 1980's, personal financial ruin and even fire. He always found away through his cooking to keep people like me, Muhammad Ali, Richard Pryor, Stevie Wonder, David Dinkin, Harry Belafonte, Dakota Staton, Natalie Cole, Bishop Tutu, Sammy Davis, Jr. and Michael Jackson as frequent and enthusiastic customers. How? As any great chef will tell you--its not just about the food. It's not just about the presentation. It's about the entire package. Harlem Restaurant Serves Its Last Fried Chicken Brunch (By Karen Matthews) New York.--A soul food restaurant that survived rioting and looting could not survive gentrification. Copeland's held its last brunch Sunday, closing for good after 50 years and bringing an end to one of the greatest restaurant runs in Harlem history. ``It's a sad occasion,'' diner Gloria Jackson said. ``You feel like a celebrity when you come here. They always cater to your every need.'' Owner Calvin Copeland, who opened the place on l45th Street with $850 in savings and saw it overcome hard times such as the riots of 1964, said the neighborhood's changing demographics no longer made it viable. In recent years, middle-class black and white families have bought Harlem's handsome brownstones and fixed them up. They just didn't crave his savory fried chicken anymore. ``The transformation snuck up on me like a tornado,'' he said. Copeland's denouncement brought out many elected officials including the dean of Harlem politicians, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel. They all paid tribute to Copeland. Rangel and others heaped praise on Copeland as high as their plates were piled with chicken, cornbread, potato salad and collard greens. ``You are more to us than a restaurateur,'' Rangel said. ``You're a legend. You're hope. And you're inspiration.'' The Rev. Calvin Butts, the influential pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church, thanked Copeland, 82, for his dedication and hard work and prayed ``that this will be a new day for him, a day of relaxation and enjoyment for the rest of his years.'' Proclamations were presented from Congress, from Gov. Eliot Spitzer, from the City Council and from the state Senate and Assembly. ``It's an institution,'' said Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott, a 30-year patron of Copeland's. ``It's important to come out and say thank you and let Mr. Copeland know that we appreciate all he's done for the community.'' As Copeland thanked his customers Sunday, he left the door open for a Copeland's rebirth or for starting another restaurant somewhere else. ``With what you've showed me and how you feel about me, I think there's another chapter,'' he said. ``Going home with no place to go and no purpose, I don't think that could work for me.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized to respond?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it appears as though the decision for extra time should be one that our leadership should have decided on. It just seems to me that since our leader has not been conferred with, that if you just reserve the opportunity, that in a very short while we will be able to discuss this.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, Mr. Speaker, the minority somehow manages to find time to speak on this and many other subjects. But I am saying that under normal conditions, you would think that your leadership would have discussed this issue with ours so that at some times the Members would know exactly what to expect. Now, I don't see any reason why this should not be agreed upon, but I just don't think Members can come to the floor by unanimous consent and ask for an hour or 2 hours or 3 hours. We don't even know whether or not the minority intends to follow any other procedures that could kind of take away floor time in terms of debates and exchanges. Just based on some of the things that I've seen from your committee, it appears to me that we have to find out what you want to do with that hour.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this great piece of legislation that this august body has the privilege of supporting. There may be some concerns in the House, some with merit, about procedure, but we on the Ways and Means Committee are so proud of the work that has been done by the subcommittee, led by Mr. Stark, working with Mr. Camp, that we had 15 hearings on what was involved in this bill and a half a dozen sessions where we just talked with the professionals to make certain that not only did we support the great work that had been done by the Dean of our House in terms of education, in terms of Energy and Commerce and the SCHIP bill, but so at the same time we could preserve the benefits that are provided to our senior citizens through medical programs. Mr. Stark did one great job at making certain that we worked with the administration, tried to find out where the abuses were and, where we could, we were able to raise $15 billion so that the poorest of our seniors would have the ability to receive health care enhanced. Of course, those who live in rural areas and who for years have not be able to receive the type of access to health care, we found $5 billion to do it. I am not thoroughly convinced as to what PAYGO is going to mean in the future, but it is the rules of our party. It seems now that it makes some sense. But when you say that you have to enlarge this program so that an additional 6 million people, kids, that are already on the program, adding 5 million people to it, nobody, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, does not believe that these children should be entitled to health care. It is not just the right and moral thing to do. But in terms of being fiscally responsible, everyone would tell you that having a kid in the family exposed to preventive care actually costs less money than just ignoring the care of our children. I could go even further in saying that, even kids that go to school, if they are not well, they can't learn. And God knows we have millions of people in the street that had health impediments, that they thought they were educational impediments, and they are out there. I personally believe that a stronger country is a healthier country and a well-educated country. Now, it is true when you have these PAYGO rules and you don't want to raise taxes that you have to find the money. And so it is a great deal of empathy that I have for our poor cigarette smokers, because I used to be one; and, two, I just don't like the idea of regressive taxes where the poor are penalized. But I am learning to live with it in such a sense that these cigarette smokers, these addicts, they hate themselves for smoking. And I have stretched it to the point that when I talk with them and tell them what we are about to do, after they finish coughing and spitting, they said, ``I have got to stop this smoking.'' Then, when you look at the little kids, this is the one thing that an increase in prices sharply reduces, it is kids going to smoke. So, I am trying to get myself to think that maybe I am doing it for the tobacco companies, because they advertise they don't want kids to smoke, and we are going to help them by increasing the price of cigarettes, which one thing is abundantly clear, it will stop a lot of children from smoking. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from California, Pete Stark, who has done such a fantastic job in finding out where the problems were and bringing to this floor not only a great child insurance bill, but also improving Medicare, increasing the benefits of our seniors who are poor and help into rural areas. While we may have a lot of procedural differences, and I understand that, I just hope that whether you are Republican or Democrat that you feel comfortable being able to say that there may be some pain for cigarette smokers who really are costing us a lot of money with these lung transplants and whatnot. But that is painful enough. So you may have some problem with your smokers. But just think about 11 million children and their families that love them so much and a country that wants them healthy, and I am certain that at the end of the day that the kids are going to win, we will have a better health care delivery system, and you will feel very, very comfortable in talking about the procedural differences that you differed with. But, in your heart, you would know that every major advocate for children and health and hospitals and doctors have signed up saying, ``do the right thing.'' I personally believe that that is what you are going to do today. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California, Pete Stark, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and I thank him publicly, and the staff, for the fantastic job that they have done in having hearings and letting all Members have a better understanding of the problem, but, better than that, in being able to bring a solution to this floor today.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I want to compliment my colleague on his concern about earmarks; and I hate to see your record and credibility shattered merely because many Members, Republicans and Democrats, did not want certain hospitals to suffer the cuts, as has been recommended by this administration. And where we could and where there appeared to be some doubt, I gave my word to the members of the Ways and Means Committee, as did Mr. McCrery, that Pete Stark and I would be taking a look at each and every one of them. But it would be a tremendous stretch of anyone's imagination to call that an earmark.

Mr. RANGEL. Let me extend an olive leaf to my friends on the Republican side, because it just wouldn't be fair for you to be going home thinking that people will be talking about politics and process when the bottom line is: Where were you when this government, as big as it is, wanted to protect 11 million kids in health insurance? That's going to really be the bottom line. And if you think that government is really so big that $50 billion is just too much money to invest in these little kids, then kind of think about what you're willing to invest in Afghanistan, in Baghdad, in improving its schools and its hospitals. And think of what we get back. Just think of what we get back in preventing these kids from getting diseases and illnesses that would not only cost us billions of dollars in health care, but the lost competition, the inability to learn and to be productive. What a heck of an investment this is, even for our United States Government, to be concerned with 11 million Americans becoming healthy, better educated and competitive. This is not a question of Democrats being so dumb, so stupid, so apolitical that we want to hurt our own folks. Unlike children, they vote. And every organization that has dedicated themselves to older Americans for health services have endorsed this: the hospitals, the doctors, the nurses, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, the gentiles. People who are concerned about human lives are concerned that we do these things. What do you think we are? We were born yesterday? No. I don't know what the President intends to do, but you can't hurt this President anymore. You don't have to do this to yourselves. Just think about your explanations: The bill wasn't ready; it didn't come out of committee. I don't know. How are you going to pay for it in 2012? Or maybe some of you youngsters have to think about it. But just think about how many people are going to get health care between now and 2012 before we look at the President's tax cuts. Somehow they kind of broke it off at 2010. So it's not the first time people had these creative ideas. But let me suggest this to you: This bill expires on September 30. Now, I don't know whether they have town hall meetings on the other side or not, Steny, but I would hate to be at one of them when they explain why there is not going to be insurance for these six million, and additional five. I hate for them to say how they were reading the bill because they didn't participate. These are things that we can improve upon. And Mr. McCrery and I work every day to see whether we can do a better job on communication. But don't you let our lack of communication interfere with having coverage for 11 million kids who deserve better than what we've given them in terms of the debates and the discussion on this historical piece of legislation. So we have the opportunity to join with hundreds of Americans that are concerned about our young people, our old people, a better America. Our educators, our teachers want to do this. I cannot think of anything that's more important for our national security and our national defense than investing in these young people who carry the torch of freedom for the generations that follow us. But if you don't do this, if they find themselves without health care, if their parents cannot be productive on the job because they're worried about their kids and not being able to get to a clinic, if they can't enjoy the preventive care that you enjoy and I enjoy and our children and grandchildren enjoy, you explain it, that we weren't talking to each other, we didn't cooperate, and the program just expired. No. I don't want you to go that way. I don't even think the President wants to go that way. I want you to think about the bottom line: 11 million kids, an improved Medicare system, $15 billion helping citizens or older that don't have the funds to get insurance, 5 billion for those in the rural areas that don't have access to health care. This is what we're doing. You may not have liked the roadmap, but you can't walk away from what we've done. You can never say anything that's wrong about helping children. So let us try to think about how we end this up, because come this November people will be asking the questions. I don't think it's going to be on process. I don't think it's going to be how long you kept us up at night. I don't think it's going to be how many parliamentary maneuvers we had. I don't think it's whether we missed our Easter recess. Did you let this program expire and were you there when the children called on you? I hope we can count on your vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I stand today to call attention to the issues of diversity this country is facing at the moment. I would also like to enter into the Record an opinion editorial by Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, from this week's edition of the New York Amsterdam News, entitled, ``What's next for diversity?'' Diversity has been, and continues to be, an issue faced by America's institutions of higher education. Brown v. Board of Education was a monumental step forward in achieving diversity for the students in these institutions, but Supreme Court decisions like Grutter v. Bollinger, have caused many to wonder if we have forgotten what those involved in Brown v. Board of Education sought to do. Instead of seeing the Supreme Court continuously striving to achieve diversity, Americans see the decisions of the Supreme Court slowly chipping away at the precedents set forth in Brown v. Board of Education. The question, ``What's next for diversity?'' is one at the forefront of current issues and it calls all those who support diversity to support all that promotes it and denounce all that contradicts it. I believe that programs meant to achieve diversity like affirmative action are necessary, and those who oppose such programs should be questioned for their motives. I hope that the questions brought forth by worried Americans will be answered in a timely fashion. Diversity has not been achieved, therefore I do not agree with those who believe diversity aimed programs should be phased out. I support affirmative action, as well as other programs aimed at achieving diversity, and call for the support of all others who feel the same. What's Next for Diversity? (By Lee C. Bollinger) For those of us who worked over so many years to reach the Supreme Court and affirm the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education, which occurred in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger, this is the moment we have been dreading. The recent 5-4 decision limiting voluntary desegregation programs in our nation's public schools represents an inversion of the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision's clarion call for racial equality in education. And it is all too easy to understand how societal efforts to achieve racial integration, including through affirmative action in higher education, are now in serious jeopardy. To be sure, Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion stopped the majority short of slamming the door on race-based diversity in our schools; and even the Chief Justice tried to explain why the use of race in law school admissions is different. Specifically, the Court said it was tolerable to consider race as one of several factors in Grutter because individual applicants were evaluated in a ``holistic'' way and because ``the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment''--and fostered by diversity--``occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.'' Yet anyone reading between the lines of the majority opinion could feel the Chief Justice straining to explain Grutter's constitutionality before making the point he really wanted to make: Grutter is a weak precedent with ``expressly articulated key limitations'' and that ``the lower courts'' have ``largely disregarded'' this ``in extending Grutter'' beyond ``the unique context of higher education.'' It is important that we read the narrowness of this interpretation of Grutter alongside the sweeping rhetoric that Chief Justice Roberts really wants this holding to signify: ``The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.'' This is the language anti-affirmative action advocates and a host of others will seize on. In this way, the methodical process Thurgood Marshall and others followed to achieve the Brown revolution will be used by the Roberts Court to undo it. The difference is that the Brown decision brought the law down to earth, where it could finally see that separate school facilities were, as a matter of fact and experience, ``inherently unequal.'' The Seattle and Louisville decision removes the law to its formalistic and disconnected position of a century ago, where, as empty rhetoric, it imagines an America that never was--and because of it, may never be. In doing so, it obscures the larger debate about race in this country. Stripped bare, however, these school decisions are not about precedent, they are about broad philosophical differences about the role of public institutions in dealing with issues of race in America. Undergirding them is the feeling that Justice Scalia has made explicit, that society is tired of mending centuries of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, and that it is now up to those who have been discriminated against to ``make it'' on their own, as other groups have. For them, to consider race even for the noble end of integration does more harm than good by inflaming racial tensions. These arguments make many Americans uncomfortable, and so they avoid them. I say let them be put on the table and debated, not hidden beneath phony ``interpretations'' of Brown. How should we respond to the fact that cities are more segregated today than they were a half century ago, or that the unemployment rates among African Americans in our inner cities is a multiple of the national number? The problem for the Chief Justice is that wishing Brown stood only for the simpler proposition of ``stopping discrimination'' does not make it so. From the very beginning, Brown impelled us to take affirmative steps to achieve racial justice. And it is absurd to think the Court that decided Brown would have struck down these local school districts' efforts to carry out this mission. Yet this is precisely the result the Roberts Court wants us to take at face value. It is up to us to confront them on this and insist, that if they are going to take this new turn in our basic law, they must state their real reasons for it. Otherwise the Court will continue pretending that its rulings are consistent with the Brown line of cases--and thus devoted to ``conservative'' principles--until there is nothing left of Brown. If that is not the epitome of ``judicial activism,'' what is? I often wonder what the unanimous Brown Court would think of a country fifty-three years later that has proven itself too impatient to achieve racial justice after centuries of being too slow to recognize it. Perhaps, knowing painfully the legacy of invidious discrimination they were seeking to overturn, they actually would not be surprised by this most recent turn of events. After all, every half century or so, the nation seems to back away from solving the problems of racial injustice, only to recommit itself to the cause when the pot is about to boil over. From the beginning of the Constitution to Dred Scott; from the Civil War and emancipation to Plessy; from Brown to today--we always seem to be better at articulating our ideals than delivering on them. But it doesn't have to be this way. One of the things I learned in leading the litigation in the affirmative action cases was that dealing with issues of race is not something that people in the mainstream of American life want to talk about, but with the proper leadership, they will. For example, while we were eventually praised for enlisting the support of forty of the Fortune 500 largest US corporations and from leaders in the military, it was exceedingly difficult to get those advocates to sign on to the cause of affirmative action in higher education. Like many of our political leaders, they were convinced that a majority of Americans would oppose them, and pointed to Prop 209 in California for proof. It was only after the Late President Gerald Ford agreed to stand with us that things began to change. ``I don't want future college students to suffer the cultural and social impoverishment that afflicted my generation,'' he wrote in the New York Times. That is what inspired General Motors to sign on--only then were we ``in business.'' I fear this latest Court decision represents the first act and scene of a national tragedy of withdrawal from Brown and Grutter's promise of a more inclusive America--a perilous shift in the direction of constitutional law from the last half century. But the scenes that follow are still ours to write--if only we have the courage and will to take up the pen. As President Ford said, ``If history has taught us anything . . . it is the notion of America as a work in progress.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to express praise and support for H.R. 176, introduced by Representative Barbara Lee. This bill would provide financial assistance for an educational exchange program for U.S. and Caribbean students and enhance training for Caribbean educators. A program such as this would enable students from the U.S. and the Caribbean to gain a wealth of academic and cultural knowledge. Further, it would contribute to enhancing the relationship the U.S. has with its Caribbean neighbors. This past June, heads of state from the Caribbean visited Washington, DC for a week long conference. I attended meetings with them to learn more about the needs of their countries and to begin a dialogue that would foster closer diplomatic relations. I learned more about the Caribbean nations difficult challenges with widespread poverty, crime, and drug addiction. While I and others in the executive and legislative branches of government worked towards strengthening our government-to-government ties, non-governmental organizations and ordinary citizens meet in seminars organized to foster closer people-to-people ties. I am particularly concerned about trade, economic growth, and national security, all of which have a connection to the social challenges in some Caribbean nations. Due to globalization and other advances in technology, the world is getting smaller and thus competition in the marketplace will be more rigorous. In order for people of the Caribbean to compete in the future marketplace, they will need an education in the characteristics of globalization. It is clear that education is a key ingredient to resolving poverty, not only in the U.S., but in the Caribbean as well. The lack of opportunities to receive an education has far reaching implications. This bill offers some help with addressing the social issues that are threatening the health and stability of the Caribbean, which has a direct connection to limited educational opportunities. It is important for the U.S. to play a role in uplifting the people of the Caribbean. I applaud Representative Lee for introducing this bill and highlighting the need for the U.S. to create strong educational exchange programs with the Caribbean. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Supporting this bill will affirm the U.S. interest in building relationships with the Caribbean, which strengthen the ties between our people and have a lasting beneficial impact upon the region.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my full support for H. Res. 27, a bill introduced by Representative Lantos, which urges the Government of Canada to end the commercial seal hunt. This bill addresses the inhumane treatment of seals. I would like to express my thanks to Representative Lantos for introducing this bill and raising awareness on the inhumane treatment of seals in Canada. At present, there is a practice of hunting and capturing seals for commercial purposes. The United States addressed this issue in 1972 through the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which barred the import of seal products in our great country. Today, despite opposition from the United States and other countries, our Canadian neighbors continue to hunt seals. In Canada, seal hunters maim and kill their prey by shooting and clubbing. Each year thousands of seals experience this tragedy, of which a large portion are under 12 weeks old. This is unacceptable. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, which will send a message to our Canadian neighbors about our discontent with the mutilation and killing of seals. Our great Nation opposed this issue years ago and should continue to do so.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, H.R. 180. The passage of this bill will require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan and prohibit the United States Government to contract with such companies. The atrocities in Sudan have only continued to escalate. The U.S. Government must cut ties with a government that fails to address the genocide within its own boundaries. The Government of Sudan has not put any action to disarm the Janjaweed militia and is therefore equally responsible for the human rights violations against Darfurians. An estimated 450,000 people have been killed, and 2 million people have been displaced--234,000 of which have been forced into neighboring Chad. Janjaweed soldiers continue to ride into villages stealing whatever goods they can find, slaughtering men, women, and children along the way. These soldiers systematically rape women and children, holding some as sex slaves for weeks at a time before releasing them. Colleagues, we are in a position to help stop the carnage in Darfur. We must continue to pressure the Government of Sudan to stop the massacre in Darfur. Enforcing economic sanctions is a way to achieve this goal. I urge you all, for the sake of humanity, to support the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. We are not blind to the truth and we have a responsibility to do our part to alleviate this awful tragedy.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 2707, Mr. Kucinich's resolution to reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program. I praise the initiative contained in this resolution to point out the historical, cultural, and educational legacy behind the Underground Railroad. It is through that network of tunnels and secret hiding places that many African Americans escaped slavery. As a symbol of freedom, the Underground Railroad deserves greater recognition and appreciation, regrettably of its artifacts and secrets remain hidden and lost. I have long believed in and fought for more and better education of African American history. Well, an important part of that history is contained in the struggle for freedom that characterized the slave experience. Some would have us believe that slaves passively accepted their captivity in the plantations in the South. The truth is there was an active resistance to slavery; which included periodic uprisings and constant efforts to escape. The full role and extent of the Underground Railroad has yet to be discovered and remains unknown. The legislation authorizes the Secretary of Education to sponsor studies and make grants for programs that promote knowledge of the Underground Railroad. With the resources and technology available today, we owe it to the history of African Americans and the history of the United States to study, preserve, and make available to all the hidden secrets of the Underground Railroad. Secret routes and safe houses still remain unknown. Secrets that may remain buried in our backyards. The establishment of this facility would allow significant missing pieces in African American history to be properly studied and commemorated. Through the passage of this legislation, the work of the National Park Service and its study of the phenomenon known as the Underground Railroad will be continued. Established by Congress in 1990, the National Park Service has made major progress in learning more about the secret routes and the processes used in escorting these fugitive slaves to freedom. The story is far from well enough known, and the study far from complete. Let us as members of the 110th Congress exhibit the same respect and appreciation of the Underground Railroad as was shown in 1990. Please join me in support of H.R. 2707, as we move further in understanding the whole story and celebrating the legacy of the Underground Railroad.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to share with this body the life of a great American named Ron Brown, and I'm asking your support to have a Federal building, a U.N. missions building if you will, to be named after him. Even though Ron Brown was an African American from Harlem, his story is more of an American story than one of color, because on the streets of Harlem you don't find too many people exposed to dreams of ever becoming a Secretary of Commerce, indeed an ambassador for this great country. But Ron never forgot Harlem, and it was the Urban League that drove him to do things in the civil rights movement. It was his dedication to his country that drove him to spend 4 years in the military, but everywhere that Ron Brown would go as Secretary of Commerce, he was there not just to sell businesses to the country. He was there to sell the American flag, the principles of that flag and the thing that we stand for. I went with him to South Africa to see him negotiating with leaders, political leaders there, but all the time that he was talking to them, it wasn't which party was right or which party was wrong or how to bring about solidarity. He was asking how could America help the people to get clean water, to get medicine, to get food and to let them know that our multinationals were there, not just for the shareholders of their firm but the shareholders of the world. And so when you come to New York, where you always see diversity, people of different color, different languages, different cultures, and you see the Federal mission to the United Nations, there could not be a sight that would be more reminiscent of Ron Brown than the contributions that he made to my community, my country, but indeed, the entire world. And so thank you for shepherding this wonderful bill so that his family and his friends and his supporters and kids to follow would know that out of Harlem we planted the seed, and he died for this country on a mission for President Clinton. His memory will never, never be forgotten; and I was proud to be a desk clerk at the time that he was living in a hotel that his father managed in New York. And he will forever be in my mind and I hope in yours as you think about great Americans who lost their lives for this great country.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me once again thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for the bipartisan work that they have put into allowing this great bill to reach the floor. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is going to be a real win for America and a win for American farmers and a win for democracy. What it allows is that the people in Cuba can purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of goods from our farmers and be able to pay directly to U.S. banks without going through the red tape with the restrictions that we have on their visas and having to go to third countries. Close to 50 years ago, someone came up with the great idea that in order to get rid of Castro and the communist government, that we should put an embargo on that country, which, of course, included food products that our great farmers are producing. Well, what has happened is that Castro is still there and we have gone through 10 presidents, and we are the only country that it appears as though has this embargo, which is truly ineffective. Having said that, it would just seem to me that if we really want to win the hearts and minds of the people in Cuba, that we should make it abundantly clear that our greatest salesmen are our farmers, to be able to give food and nutrition to these people, and the money comes here and the food goes there. Hugo Chavez may be there trying to give them oil, but the poor people in Cuba can't eat oil. So this would open up the markets by hundreds of millions of dollars for wheat, pork, chicken, rice and beans, instead of having the Cubans go to Thailand and Europe, and indeed to go to Communist China. Now, I know there is a lot of fear about communists, but if you take a look at our deficit with the People's Republic of China, if you see our exploding exchange with the communist government of Vietnam, give me a break. This has nothing to do with communism, very little to do with Cuba, and a heck of a lot to do as to how people are going to vote in Miami and in Florida as relates to Republicans and Democrats. So we have a great opportunity to do what America does best: compete on the open market of competition. Let's try to take local and domestic politics out of it. I know it is difficult, because those who oppose this, they don't like Castro. Well, I am 77 years old. Forty years of that has been fighting Castro with an embargo. Young people, that is not going to work. If you want to get rid of Castro, let American enterprise, capitalism, farmers, food, liberty, justice, get that into Cuba, and that will bring the old man down. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, conversations on this very important topic are necessary to recognize the consequences of criminally convicted U.S. residents deported to Latin America and the Caribbean. I commend Chairman Engel for taking an interest and exploring the challenges that our deportation policies have imposed on the region. I look forward to working with you and the Committee, as you examine this issue. Recently, the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) visited the U.S. Congress. They spoke with several members and met with committees regarding the issues affecting the region. One major concern for them is the impact of thousands of criminally convicted deportees from the United States to the nations of the Caribbean. At times these individuals are repatriated without notice to the receiving country, regardless of the impact their arrival will have upon the societies to which they are being sent. The adverse impact of this practice is not only felt in the Caribbean, but in our communities as well, due to the financial burden it places on the families left behind without means of support. The CARICOM members are not asking for a change in the policy, but adjustment to how it is executed. The CARlCOM members understand that residence permits are a privilege granted to non-citizens contingent on their good behavior. Clearly, the commission of a crime does not constitute good behavior. However, mothers and fathers are being separated from their families without making the appropriate provisions for the welfare of children who remain in our country. Those repatriated sometimes have no support units in their country of citizenship and are forced into a life of poverty, as well as stigmatized for being deported. In addition, the families they leave behind are left with huge legal bills or in situations where they have to fend off poverty. It is my contention that poverty is a threat to the national security of the United States. The Human Rights Watch in their July 2007 Report entitled ``Forced Apart Families Separated and Immigrants Harmed by United States Deportation Policy,'' stated that since 1996 approximately 1.6 million families have been torn apart by the U.S. deportation policies. The top ten countries of origin for non-citizens removed on criminal grounds represent Latin America and the Caribbean. Mexico being the most affected of these nations; with over 500,000 Mexican nationals being repatriaed between FY 1997 and FY 2005. Haiti, the poorest nation in our hemisphere, is among the top ten with over 3,000 individuals being returned to that nation. Many parents explained that their children, the vast majority of whom had been left in the deporting country, faced extreme hardships, both emotionally and financially. These are American children that are forced into situations where they have to abandon school to support their families. These are American children sometimes forced to live in single-parent households or households without a parent. Ushered into a life of poverty. Poverty not only pricks our conscience, but it shortchanges our future as well. Society ultimately pays for poverty through a less productive workforce; more crime, higher use of welfare, greater drug addiction and other social ills. We need to support initiatives to integrate repatriated individuals into their new society. Often they have spent their entire life in the United States and lack a support system in the receiving country. Recommendations that need to be explored include funding to expand or establish resettlement programs. These programs should be geared to setting up transition centers where individuals are afforded basic resources such as food, clothing and shelter. Job training programs and social service type institutions need to be reinforced in the region, since upon deportation, many of them drift into homelessness, and with no job prospects, they end up doing crime as a means of survival. There needs to be the creation of a system to track and monitor high- risk criminal deportees. In some situations criminals are repatriated and no formal processing takes place in the receiving country. In essence they are let loose into the community and there are no systems in place to track their movement in the receiving country. It is believed that there is a correlation between the increase in gang related activity in the region and deportees. These individuals often make their way back into the U.S. or form part of trans-national organized crime units. I am glad to see that this hearing has been convened to explore ways this Congress can help our neighbors in the Region address this issue. Failing to properly reintegrating repatriated individuals is a challenge that negatively impacts our neighbors and threatens our national security.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce an article entitled ``A Legacy of Her Own,'' in the Washington Post on July 13, 2007. This op-ed tribute written by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., highlights the legacy of Lady Bird Johnson. Lady Bird Johnson was instrumental in influencing President Johnson to support the Head Start program for low-income children in the country. She was also an influential advocate of beautification projects in the Nation's Capitol and throughout our country. Lady Bird Johnson's legacy has helped more than 20 million needy children since 1966 and her efforts have increased our country's appreciation for public space. Lady Bird Johnson was one of our Nation's finest First Ladies and she will truly be missed.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce an article entitled, ``Challenges for Black Colleges' Brightest in the Lab,'' written by Samuel G. Freeman in the New York Times on July 18, 2007. This article is about a new program that brings gifted science and technology students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the South, like Morehouse College in Atlanta, to two major Research Universities. Talented science students participate in an eight-week immersion program known as STEM which stands for science, technology, engineering, and math--career fields in which black students continue to be highly underrepresented. STEM was founded by Mr. Adam W. Herbert who became the first black president of Indiana University. There are 5 students participating in the program this summer at the Indiana-Purdue campus and at the University of Indiana at Bloomington where they join the research teams of renowned professors. The students get free room and board, a $4,000 stipend, and various development training sessions and lectures outside the lab such as writing grant applications and preparation sessions for the Graduate Record Examination. In exchange, the two universities get an inside track on recruiting highly capable blacks for graduate study. I applaud Mr. Herbert, Indiana University, and Purdue University for launching this initiative to bridge the gap for blacks in the science and technology field. I am positive that this program will be successful in developing young black students by situating them to succeed in a career path that only a handful of African Americans have reached before. This is an exceptional commitment to the American values of diversity, equality, and opportunity.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to praise the work of Ms. Betty Bigombe who has worked tirelessly on the Northern Uganda's peace process for over two decades. Ms. Betty Bigombe's story was featured in the Washington Post on July 11, 2007 in an article entitled, ``The Woman Behind Uganda's Peace Hopes.'' Ms. Bigombe was the primary negotiator between Joseph Kony, the commander of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and the Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Ms. Bigombe first started working on the northern Ugandan peace process in 1988 when Museveni appointed her as the minister of state for the north. Ms. Bigombe was called to action again on Feb. 21, 2004 after reading news dispatches of a massacre at a displacement camp in Barloonyo. Ms. Bigombe contributed to the peace talks by meeting with Joseph Kony and his army and urged them to sign a peace agreement. While the peace talks in Northern Uganda are now being led by southern Sudanese mediators, Kampala officials and the LRA continue to regularly consult with Ms. Bigombe. Ms. Bigombe has my deepest respect and admiration. She has put her life on the line and became the voice of nearly 2 million displaced Ugandans and 25,000 children who were kidnapped and forced to serve as soldiers and sex slaves. The road towards peace in Northern Uganda has taken personal sacrifice on the behalf of Ms. Bigombe. For instance, she has personally financed her operations while in Uganda and lived off grants. She found herself bankrupt in 2005 as a result. In addition, working on the peace process demanded time away from her family and loved ones and she often found herself missing birthdays and other celebrations. These are life moments that she simply cannot get back. Ms. Bigombe and others like her should be celebrated for their bravery and contributions in bringing peace throughout the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Second Chance Act which provides assistance to individuals who have been incarcerated, including the expungement of their records. Individuals released from prison have no chance of becoming productive members of society because their criminal records prevent employers from considering them for jobs. This leads many of them to return to lives of crime. In an effort to change the dynamic of recidivism, we must remove barriers to employment--particularly criminal records--which hang over the heads of ex-offenders, even those who have been rehabilitated. The Second Chance Act allocates $360 million towards programs that would help the ex-offenders adjust to their new environment after their release from prison. Focusing on four different areas: employment, housing, access to health services and families, it would provide a secure setting for the individual and make the transition easier, which would reduce the rate of recidivism. Almost two thirds of newly discharged individuals return to their lives of crime within 3 years of their release. This signifies a great number of crimes being committed that could have prevented through effective programs, which is one of the components of this legislation. Billions of dollars are being wasted in the criminal justice system mostly because of the prosecutions of repeat offenders. If we do not take the necessary actions to help these individuals, they will be trapped in the cycle of recidivism. We must take action to help them break the cycle.