Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Richard Cohen for his recent article published in the Washington Post entitled ``Terror Alert: Severe Risk of Hype'' in which he calls into question the Bush administration's credibility when it comes to terrorism. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States. Unfortunately, research and intelligence reports have proven otherwise. Instead of being adept at making sound policy, the current administration appears to be skilled in the art form of deception and dishonesty. Currently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is once again putting the American people on ``Terror Alert'' without having substantial information. Just last week Mr. Gonzales announced the arrest of seven terrorists. Have we not learned from our past mistakes? The announcement of the arrests of these alleged terrorists are part of a sad trend within the Bush administration to exaggerate the facts, labeling anyone thought to be acting suspiciously or fitting a racial stereotype an al-Qaeda type terrorist. What we see is the Bush Administration's need to once again hype certain issues to gain not only America's trust, but to use that to bolster its declining credibility. This is a serious matter for a variety of reasons. First, if Americans are being asked to surrender a measure of privacy and civil liberties, they deserve to have an administration that will use data not to deceive but to protect. Also, the arrest of the seven alleged terrorists should not be used as evidence of the administration's success in protecting the Nation if the facts are not clear that a real threat is involved. The facts as revealed in press reports to date, as Richard Cohen asserts are suspiciously short of providing a reasonable case that these misguided youth were in any position to pose a real threat to accomplish their alleged goals. There is some likelihood in fact, that it was the FBI's sting operation that gave these would be perpetrators any credibility at all, and that their planning was led by the FBI operative who posed as a terrorist to entrap the inept plotters. I enter into the Record the Washington Post column by Mr. Richard Cohen and commend him for presenting this issue regarding the Bush administration's penchant to hype Terror Alerts. In order to regain the American people's confidence the Bush administration should not use or target events to achieve some political gain. I believe the War on Terror can and will be won when leaders start leading responsibly, placing the interest of the people first and their political objectives second. [From washingtonpost.com, June 27, 2006] Terror Alert: Severe Risk of Hype (By Richard Cohen) It is the sheerest luck, I know, that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales looks (to me) a bit like Jerry Mahoney, because he fulfills the same function for the Bush administration that the dummy did for the ventriloquist Paul Winchell. At risk to his reputation and the mocking he must get when he comes home at night, Gonzales will call virtually anyone an al-Qaeda-type terrorist. He did that last week in announcing the arrest of seven inferred (it's the strongest word I can use) terrorists. I thought I saw Dick Cheney moving his lips. The seven were indicted on charges that they wanted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI bureau in Miami. The arrests came in the nick of time, since all that prevented mass murder, mayhem and an incessant crawl at the bottom of our TV screens was the lack of explosives, weapons or vehicles. The alleged conspirators did have boots, which were supplied by an FBI informant. Maybe the devil does wear Prada. Naturally, cable news was all over the story since it provided pictures. These included shots of the Sears Tower, the FBI bureau, the seven alleged terrorists and, of course, Gonzales dutifully playing his assigned role of the dummy. He noted that the suspects wanted to wage a ``full ground war'' against the United States and ``kill all the devils'' they could--this despite a clear lack of materiel and sidewalk-level IQs. Still, as Gonzales pointed out, if ``left unchecked, these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaeda.'' A presidential medal for the man, please. It is not now and never has been my intention to belittle terrorism. Clearly, if what the government alleges turns out to be the truth--look, that sometimes happens--then these guys deserve punishment. But theirs was such a preposterous, crackpot plot that the only reason it rose to the level of a televised news conference by the nation's chief law enforcement officer was the Bush administration's compulsive need to hype everything. For this, Gonzales, like a good Boy Scout, is always prepared. Does it matter? Yes, it does. It matters because the Bush administration has already lost almost all credibility when it comes to terrorism. It said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and there were none. It said al-Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots and that was not the case. It has so exaggerated its domestic success in arresting or convicting terrorists that it simply cannot be believed on that score. About a year ago, for instance, President Bush (with Gonzales at his side) asserted that ``federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted.'' The Post looked into that and found that the total number of (broadly defined) ``terrorism'' convictions was 39. This compulsion to exaggerate and lie is so much a part of the Bush administration's DNA that it persists even though it has become counterproductive. For instance, the arrest of the seven suspects in Miami essentially coincided with the revelation by the New York Times that the government has ``gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans.'' Almost instantly, the administration did two things: It confirmed the story and complained about it. The Times account only helped terrorists, Cheney said. Is he right? I wonder. This is a serious matter. After all, Americans are being asked to surrender a measure of privacy and civil liberties in the fight against terrorism-- essentially the argument Cheney has been making. I for one am willing to make some compromises, but I feel downright foolish doing so if the fruit of the enterprise turns out to be seven hapless idiots who would blow up the Sears Tower, if only they could get to Chicago. Cheney in particular has zero credibility, but his administration colleagues are not far behind. Prominent among them, of course, is the attorney general, a man so adept at crying wolf and mouthing the administration's line that he simply cannot be believed any more. The Sears Tower. The Miami bureau of the FBI. Please. Someone, put the dummy back in his box.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Leonard H. Robinson, a humble and committed public servant whose judgment and insight helped further USA policy initiatives in Africa and whose dedication and leadership helped change the lives on two different continents. Mr. Robinson who was a strong advocate for Africa, and for the rights of others, died unexpectedly at Washington Hospital Center on July 25, 2006 of kidney failure following a short illness. Mr. Robinson's belief in the potential of Africa motivated others to look beyond themselves to see how their actions could be used to benefit others. Born in North Carolina, Robinson earned a BA from Ohio State and did graduate studies at the State University of New York, the American University and Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Robinson believed that if you can conceive it, then you can achieve it, and he proved that with all of his many accomplishments. At the tender age of 23, Mr. Robinson was named the associate Director for India for the Peace Corps, where he later became the director of minority recruitment. Mr. Robinson left America at a time when people were not learning from one another to serve in a country that benefited from his help as a black man. This experience shaped how he envisioned the rest of the world, laying the groundwork for a long and successful career in the public sector. Following his work in the Peace Corps, Mr. Robinson served two terms as a deputy assistant secretary of State for Africa. From 1983-1984 during the Reagan administration, Robinson oversaw economic and commercial policy at the State Department. When he returned to the African Bureau in 1990, he coordinated U.S policy toward west and central Africa and directed U.S diplomatic efforts to end Liberia's civil war, until President Bush left office in 1994. During that time, for six years between his State Department postings, Robinson served as president of the U.S. African Development Foundation which was established by Congress to provide small-scale assistance to community based organizations in Africa. Also in 2001, Robinson helped in the creation of the Africa society to carry on public awareness and support for Africa as a direct outgrowth of the historic National Summit on Africa. This National Summit was initiated with funding from the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York to build support for Africa in the United States. He was named President of the organization in 1999. The Africa Society is helping educate America about Africa and has assisted in the expansion of a broad base of support for Africa through the initiatives taken on by Mr. Robinson. Bernadette Paolo, vice president and co-founder of the Africa Society said that Mr. Robinson ``gave everything he had to the Africa society, and to the continent of Africa for over 30 years. He contributed brilliance, passion, and visionary leadership. He was our founder, our inspiration and our star. His memory will serve to move us forward on our mission to educate all Americans about Africa''. Africa for a long time and perhaps still is considered a poor and aids stricken ``country'' and not a rich and diverse continent. The African Society with Mr. Robinson's leadership has attacked this misconception. We all mourn the loss of such a true pioneer. I enter into the Congressional Record the press release written about his life published by the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa on July 25, 2006. As more and more American's perceptions and policy decisions change towards Africa, we must forever reflect on the individuals who gave their life so that we can begin the process of understanding the lives of others. One will not be able to speak about the progress between the USA and Africa without bringing up his name, for he has without a doubt made great contributions to achieving understanding between us. [From the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa] Africa Society Staff--Leonard H. Robinson, Jr. Leonard Robinson has more than 30 years working and living experience in international affairs, with Africa and Asia as regions of specialization. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, from 1983-85 where he was responsible for economic and commercial policy. And, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State from 1990-1993, he was responsible for U.S. policy toward Central and West Africa. His other portfolios for Africa included Narcotics, Terrorism, Democracy and the Peace Corps. He also directed U.S. diplomatic initiatives to help in the resolution of the Liberia civil war. Robinson spent six years as President of the U.S. African Development Foundation, established by Congress in 1981 to provide official assistance to community-based organizations and grassroots enterprises throughout Africa. During his tenure, annual Congressional appropriations increased from an initial $lm to $17m. He has also worked with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Battelle Memorial Institute, and the Peace Corps where he served as a volunteer, Associate Director for India and as Director of Minority Recruitment for the United States. A native of North Carolina, Robinson received a BA from Ohio State University; and attended graduate school at the State University of New York, Binghamton, and post graduate school at the American University, Washington, DC, and Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the recipient of two honorary doctoral degrees. He is professor of African Studies at the University of Massachusetts--Boston, and Senior Fellow at the Center for Development and Democracy at the John W. McCormack Institute, the University's think tank. He founded LHR International Group, Inc. in 1997, a political policy consulting firm specializing in the analysis of U.S. foreign policy for the heads of state and foreign ministers of African and Asian nations. Mr. Robinson and colleagues founded The Africa Society in 2001 as a direct outgrowth of the historic National Summit on Africa. The mission of the Africa Society is to educate and inform all Americans about the great and diverse continent of Africa. With a grant supported by the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the National Summit on Africa was established in 1997 to educate all Americans about Africa, to build a broad constituency of support for Africa in the United States, and to formulate a National Policy Plan of Action on U.S.-Africa Relations in the Twenty-First Century--the Summit held a historic conference on Africa in Washington, D.C., February 16-20, 2000. Over 8,000 Americans from every state, as well as continental Africans, attended. Robinson will continue to serve as President and CEO of the newly established Africa Society of The National Summit on Africa. Robinson is the author of several articles and publications, and serves on a number of boards and advisory councils including the National Peace Corps Association, and Discovery Channel's Global Education Fund. In 2005 Mayor Anthony Williams appointed and swore in Robinson to the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia. A frequent speaker, he has made presentations at World Affairs Councils throughout the U.S., the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at UNC-Chapel Hill, UMass- Boston, Eastern Connecticut University, UCLA, The Monterey Language Institute and the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. The University of Virginia appointed Robinson as its first Diplomat Scholar in Residence in August 2004. He has been listed in Who's Who in America since 1985.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Cora Walker, a just woman whose sincere determination and resolve not only helped change the way law became practiced in New York but also helped diversify its practitioners. Ms. Cora Walker who is recognized as being one of the first black women to practice law in the state of New York, succumbed to cancer at her Manhattan home on July 20, 2006. As a living example of an individual who defied the odds, Ms. Walker walked the path less traveled, opening it up for many others to follow. Born in Charlotte in 1922, to William and Benetta Jones Walker, Ms. Walker was one of 9 children. Ms. Walker's family, at that time like most Southern families, wanted a life beyond the laws of segregation and Jim Crow. Their search for the American dream carried them to the Bronx. The new life in New York, however, brought unexpected changes, the biggest one being the sudden divorce of her parents. The separation of her parents, created a financial burden for the entire family leaving her mother and her siblings dependent on public assistance. Although this incident proved to be tragic, just like the saying goes, ``only the most beautiful flowers bloom in adversity,'' Ms. Walker emerged from this hardship as the main provider and supporter of the family, eventually getting her family off of welfare. Ms. Walker earned her bachelors degree and law degree in a special 6- year program in which students earned both a bachelors and law degree. She is recognized as being the first African-American woman to graduate from the St. John's University School of Law in 1946. Recognizing the disparity between the number of black and white lawyers, Ms. Walker spent much of her career working for the National Bar Association, the organization of Black lawyers formed to support the advancement of Blacks in the progression and helped found the Associations Counsel Conference, an annual meeting that helped black lawyers cultivate relationships with corporate clients. It is through her work within this organization and others that gave her the skills to become the first woman to serve as president of the Harlem Lawyers Association. Although she was admitted to the Bar in 1947, the color of her skin still proved to be the only measure being used to judge her capabilities and worth. A woman who defied so many odds, who found the self-will within, to do the unthinkable, whose courage should have been commended, was still black. Sadly, the only position offered to her was the position to be the firms' secretary. Unwilling to write the story of a woman who came, fought the great battle and lost, she decided to re-write history with her own thoughts utilizing her own gifts. Her efforts culminated in the establishment of her own firm. Although she ran unsuccessfully for the New York Senate in 1958 and 1964, she was recognized at that time as being one of the most powerful leaders in Harlem. Her legacy rings true even today. Not only does the African American community mourn her loss, but all the lives she touched by being a symbol for justice everywhere as well feel her loss. I enter into the Congressional Record the obituary published in the New York Times on July 24, 2006. She has truly left her mark on our society and she will always be remembered for that. As the percentages of African American lawyers continue to increase across the country, we must acknowledge the pioneers whose contributions to justice and equality made the opportunities we have today a reality. [From the New York Times, July 20, 2006] Cora Walker, 84, Dies; Lawyer Who Broke Racial Ground (By Margalit Fox) Cora T. Walker, a prominent New York lawyer who nearly 60 years ago became one of the first black women to practice law in the state, died last Thursday at her home in Manhattan. She was 84. The cause was cancer, said her son Lawrence R. Bailey Jr., a lawyer, who practiced with his mother for many years. For decades, Ms. Walker ran a private practice in Harlem, first on 125th Street and later from a restored brownstone at 270 Lenox Avenue. From 1976 until her retirement in 1999, she was the senior partner in Walker & Bailey, one of the city's few black law firms, which she established with her son. The firm's practice eventually included corporate clients like Conrail, the Ford Motor Company, Texas Instruments and Kentucky Fried Chicken. But Ms. Walker continued drawing up wills and preparing personal-injury claims for the men and women she described as the ``plain, ordinary, not elegant people'' of her Harlem community. Active in Republican politics, Ms. Walker ran unsuccessfully for the New York State Senate in 1958 and 1964. In 1970, The New York Times included her--the only woman--on a list of the most powerful leaders in Harlem. Cora Thomasina Walker was born on June 20, 1922, in Charlotte, N.C., one of nine children of William and Benetta Jones Walker. The family moved to the Bronx when she was a child. When she was an adolescent, her parents separated, leaving her, her mother and her siblings dependent on public assistance. After graduating from James Monroe High School in the Bronx, Ms. Walker promptly informed the Welfare Department that their help was no longer required: she would support the family. She took a night job as a teletype operator with Western Union and also sold Christmas cards. At the same time, Ms. Walker was enrolled at St. John's University, then in Brooklyn, in a special six-year program in which students earned both a bachelor's degree and a law degree. She received a bachelor's degree in accounting from St. John's in 1945 and a law degree the next year. For much of her career, Ms. Walker was active in the National Bar Association, a historically black organization. She helped found the association's Corporate Counsel Conference, an annual meeting sponsored by its commercial law section. Begun in 1988, the conference helps black lawyers cultivate relationships with corporate clients. In the 1960s, Ms. Walker became the first woman to serve as president of the Harlem Lawyers Association. Ms. Walker's marriage, to Lawrence R. Bailey Sr., a lawyer, ended in divorce. In addition to her son Lawrence Jr., of the Bronx, she is survived by another son, Bruce E. Bailey, a physician, of Norwich, Conn.; a sister, Danetta Black, formerly of White Plains; and three grandchildren. In 1947, when Ms. Walker was admitted to the New York bar, she found the doors of the city's law firms tightly shut. (One firm relented and offered her a position--as a secretary.) So she struck out on her own. Her first client was an undertaker, for whom she did collections. Before long, by dint of reading self-improvement books, Ms. Walker had learned to ``join everything, give everybody a card, join a political club,'' as she told The New York Times in 1989. In 1999, the New York County Lawyers' Association installed a plaque outside the Lenox Avenue brownstone where Ms. Walker had her office, commemorating her half-century in the law. The building has since been sold, her son said, and the plaque is now gone.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Harold George Belafonte, the acknowledged ``King of Calypso,'' and one of the most successful African American pop stars in history. His ingenious assimilation of folk and jazz, with an emphasis on African rhythms and third world theme allowed him to rise to unheard of popularity in the days before the advent of the civil rights era. His album ``Calypso'' was the first recording in the music industry to sell over one million copies. It set the standards and laid the groundwork that led to his winning the Grammy Award for lifetime achievement in 2000. The son of Jamaican-born immigrants, Harry Belafonte was born on March 1, 1927, in Harlem, New York. Soon afterwards, his mother sent him home to Jamaica, where he spent his formative years and early adolescence. His exposure to life on the island and all its variety has been a constant inspiration to him and became the reservoir of his cultural and artistic expression. After serving in World War II, he returned to New York and became involved in the theater community of New York. His first Broadway musical, John Murray Anderson's ``Almanac'', won him the coveted Tony Award. The overwhelming success of Carmen Jones, the Oscar Hammerstein adaptation of Bizet's opera ``Carmen'', made him one of the most sought after African American actors in the history of Hollywood. He won the Emmy Award for his performance in the television musical epic ``Tonight with Belafonte.'' He is one of the nine winners of the 2006 Impact Award recipients by the AARP magazine. He was the first recipient of the Marcus Garvey Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2000, which created the tradition of honoring humanitarians in the Jamerican Film and Music Festival in the subsequent years. He was also the first to receive the Nelson Mandela Courage Award and was honored with the 1994 National Medal of Arts from President Clinton, as well as numerous other awards and honors. I am awed by the talent of this remarkable man. His success continues to be a great inspiration for African American artists. Harry Belafonte is a pioneer as an actor and musician and he is equally a committed social activist. A close friend and confidante of Martin Luther King Jr., he was the driving force who mobilized the cultural and artistic community in support of Dr. King's work, leading to their financial support and their personal identification with the needs of the Civil Rights movement. Dr. King himself acknowledged Belafonte's contribution, ``Belafonte's global popularity and his commitment to our cause is a key ingredient to the global struggle for freedom and a powerful tactical weapon in the civil rights movement here in America.'' In 1987, he accepted the appointment as UNICEF's Goodwill Ambassador. The second American to hold this title, he continues to play a vital role in holding special concerts to raise funds and gamer support for UNICEF programs, along with his assignments to UNICEF missions. In 1985, he assembled 45 top performers to record the song ``We Are the World,'' raising millions of dollars for emergency aid in Africa. In 1987, he created a historic symposium in Dakar, Senegal for the immunization of African children, the positive response to which has lead to a successful campaign for the eradication of curable diseases among African children. In 1988, he performed a concert in Harare, Zimbabwe, to focus global attention on child survival and development in South African countries, especially those victimized by the apartheid war. In 1989, the U.S. Committee for the UNICEF honored him with the Danny Kaye Award, for his important contribution in service of the children of the world. Seeing the effects of HIV/AIDS in South Africa firsthand, he launched the Harry & Julie Belafonte Fund for HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa using a U.S. $100,000 honorarium from the Ronald McDonald House Charities' Award of Excellence. He received the award in 2000 in recognition of his humanitarian work. Recently he was presented with the Black Entertainment Television (BET) Humanitarian Award, which he dedicated to Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela, as well as to the poet soldiers of the civil rights activists such as Fannie Lou Hamer. ``I had a mission to overthrow oppression,'' he said in his speech honoring social activists all over the world. Harry Belafonte has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy, opposing the embargo on Cuba, the war on Iraq, as well as condemning the Bush administration for refusing aid from Venezuela and Cuba in the aftermath of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. He has taken a strong position against the spying on American citizens sanctioned by the USA PATRIOT Act and conducted by the Bush Administration outside of the law. His calling President Bush as the ``biggest terrorist in the world,'' has created controversy and made him unacceptable to some, but he shows little concern over the reaction to his words because he sees the need to speak the truth as he sees it. He has called upon the American people to demand their constitutional rights from the government. Instead of spending billions of taxpayer dollars abroad in a needless war, he suggested that we should focus on reforming our broken social security and Medicare system to ensure social benefits for our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor this remarkable man for all his achievements and for what he continues to do for civil rights and as a Goodwill Ambassador for UNICEF. On behalf of all of us, and in recognition of Harry Belafonte's extraordinary career, I declare that: (1) Harry Belafonte is as popular among White audiences as Black audiences, shattering the traditional divisions between Black and White music. Whether plaintive or rousing, the music of Harry Belafonte transforms the everyday lives, pain, and joy of the common people into songs that resonated with and inspired people of all nationalities, races, and classes. (2) His multiracial appeal enhanced the movement toward racial equality and increased understanding and tolerance across racial boundaries during the Civil Rights movement. (3) As a supporter of that Movement, he performed benefit concerts and provided additional financial support to causes led by his friend, Rev. Martin Luther King. (4) His activism and search for justice extends beyond the borders of the U.S. as evidenced by his strong opposition to the apartheid system in South Africa as well as his contribution as a Goodwill Ambassador for the UNICEF. (5) Harry Belafonte, at this point in his career, is an immensely respected and dazzling figure in American culture and is equally esteemed and admired as a fighter against injustice at home and abroad.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow at the passing of one of the Dominican commmunity's most beloved young musicians, Wilson Batista. On June 18, the world lost 29-year-old classical pianist Wilson Batista to a sudden brain aneurism. At the time of his death, he was attending the Manhattan School of Music, where he studied under with internationally recognized pianist Philip Kawin. Born in the Dominican Republic, but raised in Washington Heights, Wilson came from a family that worked hard to fund his early music education. Those efforts and Wilson's inherent talents helped turn the child prodigy into an internationally renowned classical pianist. Eager to listen to the youngster in concert, the excitement over Wilson's early success opened the world of classical music to new fans of all ages and classes. He would go on to amass numerous distinctions, including winning the top prize at the Luis Ferre International Concerto Competition and earning performances at places like New York's Carnegie Hall, Puerto Rico's Centro de Bellas Artes, and el Gran Teatro del Cibao in the Dominican Republic. While he performed around the world, Wilson was never too far away from New York and his Dominican traditions. He was a shining example of the best that our community can produce and an example to our youth that any dream is possible, in any field or industry. My heartfelt condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues. Though saddened by not being able to see this young man reach his full potential, we are all blessed to have enjoyed his talent during his brief time here on earth.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with my colleagues the achievements of Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza, a young lady whose determination and perseverance have achieved the honor of being Miss Puerto Rico in the Miss Universe pageant and then the big prize, the Miss Universe 2006 title. Born October 3, 1987, in Cayey, Puerto Rico at 3:47 p.m., this talented young lady of only 18 years of life, brought an incredible joy to the people of Puerto Rico the night of July 23, 2006, after winning the Miss Universe 2006 Pageant, held in Los Angeles, CA. As a child growing up in Salinas, Zuleyka showed great interest in sports. At five she played football and by seven she was a member of a basketball team. But, her sporting days were over as soon as she won the title of ``Queen of Hearts'' in middle school. Her mother quickly recognized the talent given to her child and enrolled her in an academy for aspiring models. At fourteen, she was the first runner-up in the Miss Puerto Rico Teen Pageant, the same year she became the image of a local fashion magazine. Zuleyka graduated from high school in Guayama, Puerto Rico, where she was president of the 2004 graduating class and part of the honor roll. Up until the pageant, she lived with her parents, Carmen M. Mendoza and Jerry Rivera, and her younger siblings, Jerry Jesus (12) and Jose Alberto (10), in Parcelas Vazquez, a small community in Salinas, Puerto Rico. Prior to winning the Miss Universe 2006 Pageant she was a freshman at the University of Puerto Rico, majoring in communications. 600 million people in 180 countries around the world witnessed the moment in which Miss Puerto Rico, Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza, was crowned with 120 pearls and 800 diamonds as Miss Universe 2006. She will now live in New York and travel the world in an effort to eradicate AIDS, these being part of her duties as Miss Universe 2006. After the pageant, Zuleyka wishes to fulfill her dream of becoming an actress, while always making the Puerto Rican community proud of her achievements.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit to the Record an opinion editorial from the July 25, New York Times entitled ``Raise Wages, Not Walls'' by former Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J.B. Mitchell in which the columnists openly criticize the current two primary policy approaches to illegal immigration, one being the erection of a wall along the Mexican border and the other being a temporary workers program. The apparent inefficiencies and problems inherent in both approaches have helped confirm that the raising of the minimum wage is the best and most efficient alternative. It is a mistake to assume that the erection and maintenance of a wall will ever stop the influx of immigrants across American borders. Walls rarely work. Spending billions to erect something akin to the Berlin Wall is simply unnecessary, especially at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed. The approach by the Senate is also not very realistic. It created the temporary workers program, but requires employers first to attempt to recruit Americans to fill job openings. Also, its success is dependent on the creation and distribution of a costly national identification card. The cost for producing such a card for the 150 million people currently in the labor force-- and the millions more who will seek work in the near future--extends to billions of dollars. The time to raise the minimum wage is now. More States are raising their minimum wages, pushing hourly rates above $8 in some and shrinking the role of the Federal minimum wage, which hasn't gone up since 1997. It is difficult for Americans to work and sustain themselves with this wage. For full-time work, it doesn't even come close to the poverty line for an individual, let alone provide a family with a living wage. As a result, many immigrants are filling in the gaps left over by Americans, often working for minimum and sub-minimum earnings. The minimum wage has already proven helpful to former welfare recipients who are entering the workforce. A study of a 1999 State minimum wage increase in Oregon found that as many as one-half of the welfare recipients entering the workforce in 1998 were likely to have received a raise due to the increase. After the increase, the real hourly starting wages for former welfare recipients rose to $7.23. If we want to reduce illegal immigration, we must reduce the number of low paying jobs that fuels it. By raising the minimum wage, more Americans would be more willing to work in what is currently considered low paying jobs, denying them to people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. I enter into the Record the New York Times opinion editorial written by Governor Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J.B. Mitchell and commend them for including raising minimum wage to the contentious debate concerning how to approach illegal immigration. I believe raising the minimum wage is by far a more effective way to deal with illegal immigration. [From the New York Times, July 25, 2006] Raise Wages, Not Walls (By Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell) There are two approaches to illegal immigration currently being debated in Congress. One, supported by the House, emphasizes border control and law enforcement, including a wall along the Mexican border and increased border patrols. The other, which is supported by the Bush administration and has been passed by the Senate, relies on employers to police the workplace. Both proposals have serious flaws. As opponents of the House plan have rightly pointed out, walls rarely work; illegal immigrants will get around them one way or another. Unless we erect something akin to the Berlin Wall, which would cost billions to build and police, a barrier on the border would be monitored by largely symbolic patrols and easily evaded. The Senate approach is more realistic but it, too, has problems. It creates a temporary worker program but requires employers first to attempt to recruit American workers to fill job openings. It allows for more border fencing, but makes no effort to disguise the basic futility of the enterprise. Instead, it calls on employers to enforce immigration laws in the workplace, a plan that can only succeed through the creation and distribution of a costly national identification card. A national ID card raises serious questions about civil liberties, but they are not the sole concern. The cost estimates for producing and distributing a counterfeit-proof card for the roughly 150 million people currently in the labor force--and the millions more who will seek work in the near future--extend into the billions of dollars. Employers would have to verify the identity of every American worker, otherwise the program would be as unreliable as the one in place now. Anyone erroneously denied a card in this bureaucratic labyrinth would be unemployable. There is a simpler alternative. If we are really serious about turning back the tide of illegal immigration, we should start by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to something closer to $8. The Massachusetts legislature recently voted to raise the state minimum to $8 and California may soon set its minimum even higher. Once the minimum wage has been significantly increased, we can begin vigorously enforcing the wage law and other basic labor standards. Millions of illegal immigrants work for minimum and even sub-minimum wages in workplaces that don't come close to meeting health and safety standards. It is nonsense to say, as President Bush did recently, that these jobs are filled by illegal immigrants because Americans won't do them. Before we had mass illegal immigration in this country, hotel beds were made, office floors were cleaned, restaurant dishes were washed and crops were picked--by Americans. Americans will work at jobs that are risky, dirty or unpleasant so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions, especially if employers also provide health insurance. Plenty of Americans now work in such jobs, from mining coal to picking up garbage. The difference is they are paid a decent wage and provided benefits for their labor. However, Americans won't work for peanuts, and these days the national minimum wage is less than peanuts. For full-time work, it doesn't even come close to the poverty line for an individual, let alone provide a family with a living wage. It hasn't been raised since 1997 and isn't enforced even at its currently ridiculous level. Yet enforcing the minimum wage doesn't require walling off a porous border or trying to distinguish yesterday's illegal immigrant from tomorrow's ``guest worker.'' All it takes is a willingness by the federal government to inspect workplaces to determine which employers obey the law. Curiously, most members of Congress who take a hard line on immigration also strongly oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming it will hurt businesses and reduce jobs. For some reason, they don't seem eager to acknowledge that many of the jobs they claim to hold dear are held by the same illegal immigrants they are trying to deport. But if we want to reduce illegal immigration, it makes sense to reduce the abundance of extremely low-paying jobs that fuels it. If we raise the minimum wage, it's possible some low-end jobs may be lost; but more Americans would also be willing to work in such jobs, thereby denying them to people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. And tough enforcement of wage rules would curtail the growth of an underground economy in which both illegal immigration and employer abuses thrive. Raising the minimum wage and increasing enforcement would prove far more effective and less costly than either proposal currently under consideration in Congress. If Congress would only remove its blinders about the minimum wage, it may see a plan to deal effectively with illegal immigration, too.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place a long time, but I do not remember even this close to an election seeing the type of hypocrisy that we see today. There is only one ship that they would like to see get on the waters, and that is the estate tax relief, and it is only going to provide relief for a fraction of 1 percent, of some 7,500 individuals in the country. That is the wealthiest of the wealthy. Most Americans cannot even dream about getting to the status that they are going to be liable for taxes, and why would they want this? They want this because if you want campaign contributions, you go where the money is, and believe me, this is the cream of the crop of the money that we have in the United States of America. They know the bill stinks to high heaven. That is why it is not on its own two feet. If this were a great thing for America and democracy, one, we would not wait until midnight to talk about it; and two, we would be so proud of it. The Star Spangled Banner would be here, the lights would be shining and we would talk about estate tax relief. But it stinks so heavy, they try to sweeten it up by putting other tax bills on it. There must be around 40 extenders here that do good work, and so they say if you want the extenders, you got to buy this stinking rule, but that is not enough. Whatever you do for the corporations or the rich folks, but why hold millions of Americans that cannot get an increase in minimum wage, why would you put them on top of this? Why would you hold them hostage? And whether or not the bill passes in the other House, do we not have any shame? Are not all of these issues important enough for this august body to take them up one by one? It is almost like having a child talk about I want so badly to increase the minimum wage for them, and then you put these concrete shoes on them, as you throw them into the ocean alone and not being able to swim. If you care about poor folks, act like it. Give them a day by themselves. Do not mix their problems up with the richest of the rich of this country. Hypocrisy, I have now seen it all.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for him to control.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You can tell that if it is going to happen after midnight, that the majority just ain't up to something good because everything bad they do, they wait until late at night and then they come. So you take a look at this bill, and they call it the minimum wage bill. Well, that is good; so why would they wait until after midnight? Or you might take another look at the bill and you see that they are trying to help the poor miners. Well, that doesn't sound like Republicans to me. If they ever got enough religion to help poor miners, they would certainly want to do that in the sunlight. But, no, they wait until after midnight. Then, of course, there are the extenders that really help schools and research and development. It sounds pretty decent. It does not sound that Republican to me. There has to be a skunk at this picnic somewhere. And then you take a look and you find out that with all of the wonderful, spiritual good that they want to do for so many people, the working poor, we find out that there are 7,500 families in this great country that are worth billions of dollars, that they cannot leave this Congress without saying, ``We helped you. You are the people we really love.'' And if you take a look to see, have they sent us letters, these rich people, most of them, saying, ``Hey, try to cut back on the war, try to help us with some health and education project?'' They are not asking for this money. And yet over $800 billion, we are prepared to take away from the Treasury at a time that our country needs it the most but it just cannot stand on its own two feet. So, therefore, we have to find a sweetness for it, and we have enough nerve to believe that someone is going to believe that you have a concern for the minimum wage. After 9 or 10 years, you wake up at the end of the day, and you bring in the estate tax relief bill that is the real money, and because that sucker is so heavy it cannot get off the ground, you try to spray some perfume on this skunk, and you call it minimum wage, extenders, and help for the miners. If you had any compassion at all, don't these people deserve to be treated separately? Do they have to be with 7,500 people who are close friends of yours? Should not the working people have a bill of their own just to increase the minimum wage? Should not the miners, their pensions and their health benefits, should they not have a bill of their own during the daytime hours? And certainly the incentives are so popular, why do you have to hold them hostage for where your hearts really belong? So I knew that you were going to wait until midnight, but no one knew exactly what you were up to. But, hey, it is after midnight, you are on the floor, and you say if you want all of this good medicine, then swallow our pill with it, but if you say no, you say no to what is good. It does not make any sense. But I think the newspapers, television, everyone knows what is going on. You have gotten away with this for a long, long time. But there comes a time when people wake up to what is happening, and even though you have done it in the middle of the night, the sun will rise and people would understand. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of our committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. LEVIN 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 am glad that the chairman has taken his mask off and brought his sense of honesty to this debate. Yes. Test you. What you are basically saying is that if you want to give some help to these people that have such low wages, we then have to buy, in the same bill, the $800 billion relief that you are giving to 7,500 people. I understand what you are doing. Why don't you call it the Estate Tax Relief Bill, which is sweetening up, you know, by just giving some of them minimum wage. And you say, if you don't like the rich people, if you don't want to get close to $1 trillion away, then of course vote against the minimum wage. It is so unfair to call this a package. It is a package for the rich, that just as an afterthought, you throw in minimum wage. But, fortunately, the chairman has said what he is doing. Either you buy it as I put it or forget about it. I think that is so unfair to the working poor people in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) to respond to the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Republicans for their honesty in expressing their concern at this late hour for the minimum wage bill. At least we know on the record, they know what the situation is, they know how long it has been since these people have not been able to increase the minimum wage. It would just seem to me, though, that honesty would dictate that this subject alone, the millions of people that are affected, would warrant that we not put it in any other kind of package, but we deal with it by itself because it deserves to be dealt with by itself. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that you have to really be a politician to understand that when any bill is going to cost $800 billion, and it only has 7,500 people as a beneficiary, I think you can call that controversial. I think you can say that all of the editorials believe it is unfair. People are talking about a Nation at war, a Nation that has a deficit, a Nation that has Katrina, a Nation that does not fund its health system. They are concerned about the deficit, they are concerned about the war, and they should be concerned about close to a trillion dollars loss in revenue for people that have these large estates. Now, for those who believe that they should get relief. Good. But why mix the two? Why take the poor folks and hold them hostage because you cannot get enough political support to get what you really want out of this, not help, I mean you are just not known to be concerned about coal miners. It is not my fault. You are not known to have compassion about working people. It is not my fault. You are known to be concerned about the wealthiest people in our Nation. That is not your fault, you just cannot help yourself. But why would you bring these things together and just give us one vote? Why do you not give America an opportunity to determine which side you are on? Are you with the minimum wage enough so that you give them a vote to say this is what you believe in, or are you so scared to death politically that you cannot get this 800-trillion-dollar gorilla off the ground that you have to throw in something that sounds compassionate? I do not know, but I know one thing, it all does not come out of the same committee. So you are not only mixing ideas in terms of tax incentives and giving away money, but what you are doing is taking committees with different jurisdictions, and bringing it together in the middle of the night, and asking people to vote on these things. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair. But I do believe that the American people will be able to determine the difference between our parties. That is what makes our country great. I want to thank you for being able to admit that you just cannot get your package off the ground unless you throw in poor folks' help with it.

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman from California. For those who have been listening to this debate, you would notice that the Republicans have never talked about one part of this bill. I heard the distinguished chairman of the committee go through all of the things that he requested a ``yes'' for, and he never mentioned the giveaway for the rich in the estate tax repeal. Everything that he talked about dealt with helping the poor folks get an increase in minimum wage. Well, that is the motion to recommit. I think he mentioned something, other people did, about helping the poor coal miners. That is here. I know he talked about the carefully skilled extension, the tax bills that expire, the extenders for that, and that is in it. And so since he didn't mention the estate tax repeal, a motion to recommit takes it away. And so we can all start reading from the same page and say this is like the Thomas-Rangel bill: it takes care of the poor that are working, the 6 million workers that deserve a pay increase. It takes care of the extenders that are so badly needed that takes care of a lot of kids and tax incentives for disadvantaged workers and school teachers and school renovations. And so it does a lot of these good things. But how can we refuse to see, pardon the pun, the elephant in the living room? Because it is there, and that elephant is called estate tax repeal. And you can say it any way that you want; if you want to do the good things that are in this bill, package, if you will, you have got to buy that elephant. And we are saying that not all of us are prepared to do it. We can take care of those people who work every day and believe that this Congress should be there for them, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but the Congress. These people deserve better than waiting until after midnight and taking their destiny and tying it up with an $800 billion elephant to provide relief for the richest in this country. I urge you to support the motion to recommit tonight.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time to be controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record a column by Air Force Captain F. John Duresky, ``Forgotten Sacrifice,'' which appeared in the July 5, 2006 edition of The Washington Post. I have spoken out and written for more than three years about the unshared burden of the Iraq war but never as eloquently and with such forceful imagery as Air Force Captain Duresky. One of the ``boots on the ground'' in Iraq, Captain Duresky is among the troops President Bush likes to thank. He is one of the troops who, according to the Hawks willing to feed other people's children into the killing field of Iraq, smile bravely from a hospital bed at Walter Reid and promises that although he has lost both legs, he is happy he served his country and wants nothing more than to go back and join his ``buddies'' still ``in country.'' But Captain Duresky presents a problem for the President. Unlike most of the hawks who have not ventured beyond the safety of the ``green zone'' in Iraq or seen the carnage of the battlefield, Captain Duresky can describe the horror of war with the credibility of one who has been there. I share Captain Duresky's concern that, to most Americans, the war in Iraq is a fight for other people's children. Disproportionately, these are the children of the poor and minorities who proudly serve but also risk their lives for their chance at a college education, technical training and financial benefits the military affords. For most Americans the Iraq war is little more than another story on the evening news. I wish to offer some hope to Captain Duresky. To many Americans the war is not only real, but a great moral failure. Many of them are protesting and ``taking to the streets.'' They are lobbying Members of Congress and meeting in their communities to arrange marches and protests. The polls clearly show the American people are unhappy with President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. They want a change of course and they want the troops withdrawn. The Republican attempt to label any plan to set a date for withdrawal as ``cut and run'' is not working. The Republican attempt to label anyone who questions the President as not supporting the troops is not working. Millions of Americans believe the best way to support the troops is to question the President's failed policies in Iraq and to force him and Secretary Rumsfeld to protect the troops instead of leaving them in as targets in a war where there is no exit plan and no working strategy. I thank Captain Duresky for his service and his courage in writing ``Forgotten Sacrifice.'' Millions of us have not forgotten his sacrifice and that of the more than 2,500 Americans killed and 18,000 wounded. Nor have we forgotten the daily pain of their families. I will keep Captain Duresky in my prayers and long for his return home. Air Force Captain Duresky's words have painted an indelible picture for me. I hope my colleagues will benefit as I have from reading ``Forgotten Sacrifice.'' [From The Washington Post, July 5, 2006] Forgotten Sacrifice (By F. John Duresky) A few days ago, as I do every day in Iraq, I listened to the commander's battle update. The briefer calmly and professionally described the day's events. Somewhere in Iraq, on some forgotten, dusty road, an insurgent fighting an occupying army detonated an improvised explosive device (IED) under a Humvee, killing an American soldier. The briefer fielded a question from the general and moved to the next item in the update. The day before that, in America, a 15-year-old's incredibly rich parents planned the biggest sweet 16 party ever. They will spend more than $200,000 on an opulent event marking a single year in an otherwise unremarkable life. The soon to- be-16 girl doesn't know where Iraq is and doesn't care. That same day an American soldier died in Iraq. Two days earlier, a 35-year-old man went shopping for home entertainment equipment. He had the toughest time selecting the correct plasma screen; he could afford the biggest and best of everything. In the end, he had it installed by a specialty store. He spent about $50,000 on the whole system. He has never met anybody serving in the military nor served himself, but thinks we should ``turn the whole place into a parking lot.'' That day, another American soldier died in Iraq. Three days earlier, some college students had a great kegger. There were tons of babes at the party, the music was awesome. Everybody got totally blitzed, and many missed class the next day. The young men all registered for the draft when they were 18, but even though our nation is at war, they aren't the least bit worried about the draft. It is politically impossible to conscript young people today, we are told. That day, another American ``volunteer'' died in Iraq. Four days earlier, a harried housewife looked all over town for the perfect accessory for her daughter's upcoming recital. Her numerous chores wore her out, but she still found herself preoccupied. Her oldest son is having trouble in his first year of college, and he has been talking of enlisting in the Army. She is terrified that her child will go off to that horrible war she sees on TV. She and her husband decide to give their son more money so he doesn't have to work part-time; maybe that will help with his studies. That day, another soldier died. Yesterday millions of Americans celebrated Independence Day. They attended parties and barbecues. Families came together from all across the country to celebrate the big day. Millions of dollars were spent on fireworks. At public events, there were speeches honoring the people who served and those who made the ultimate sacrifice. These words mostly fell on bored ears. While the country celebrated its own greatness, other Americans were still fighting in Iraq. Today Americans go back to their normal business. The politicians in Washington have made sure the sacrifices of the war are borne by the very smallest percentage of Americans. They won't even change the tax rates to prevent deficits from running out of control. Future generations will pay the cost of this war. Many Americans feel strongly about the war one way or another, but they aren't signing up their children for service or taking the protest to the streets. What can they do? It is they whom we in the military trust to influence our leaders in Washington. Today, as on every other day in Iraq, American servicemen are in very real danger. Our country is at war. Mothers, fathers, wives, husbands and children are worrying about their loved ones in a faraway land. They all hope he or she isn't the one whose luck runs out today. The writer is an Air Force captain stationed in Iraq.