Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Tom Manton was not only a great guy, but for those of us who have been involved in politics, as I said earlier, he truly was a politician's politician. You did not have to ask a question and hear a lot of arguments that you did not understand. Tom would give you a straight answer and save you a lot of time. But if there was a book written about great Americans or, even more importantly, great New Yorkers and great Americans, Tom Manton really would fit in that profile. His parents came to the United States from Ireland, and Tom followed the course of not only being a United States Marine but being a dedicated police officer. After that he continued to serve for 14 years in the New York City Council and then succeeded Geraldine Ferraro in the House of Representatives. All of these things are careers in and of themselves. But to be prepared to be the Democratic county leader of the diverse county that Queens represents really takes an exceptional person, and Tom was just that. So many people have spoken about the opportunities that he has given not only to African Americans, Jews, and gentiles, but the multiracial composition of that great county which we all in the City of New York love, to be able to reach out and to find qualified candidates and to support them so that in Albany and in the city council, that great county would have representatives that are elected really takes the wand of a magician who recognizes that he, too, came from a community, from a family that were strangers at one time to the United States and especially to New York. I had a very special relationship with Tom when he was in the city council. I enjoyed working with him in the Congress. And even when he became a county leader, he still would reach over the rivers, over the bridges, to find out how he could put together tickets for the city council and bring about some degree of harmony so that, instead of having fights within the Democratic Party, he would find out how could we put together a package which all the boroughs could agree? I enjoyed working with him. I would want to thank his beautiful wife, Diane, and the members of his family, for sharing this great New Yorker and this great American with us. Our prayers and support will be with you.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, last Saturday, we lost Tom Manton. Many of you worked with him and knew him as well as we did in the city of New York. He was the son of Irish immigrants. His family came to this country. He worked as a salesman. He was a policeman for the New York City Police Department. He worked before that as a city councilman. Most of you knew him when he came to Congress and served so well, and he was followed to the Congress by Joe Crowley. He left the Congress to become the Democratic county leader for the County of Queens and made a name for himself as he sought out black and white, Irish, Asian, Hispanic candidates for one of the most diverse political subdivisions that we have in the city of New York. He is what we call, in New York City, a ``politician's politician,'' who was respected by Republicans as well as Democrats. We will miss him in the city of New York, but he left a better city than the one that he inherited. And I would like to yield to my friend and senior Republican in our New York delegation, Mr. Boehlert.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an article from the Volume 6 Edition of Africana Heritage magazine which highlights an event hosted by Dr. Cornel West celebrating the music genre of Hip-Hop. This panel based event, held on Monday, April 24th, 2006, was titled ``A Hip-Hop Revolution?'' and it featured expert panelists from the academia, entertainment, and publishing spheres who gathered to address the issue of whether Hip-Hop music had the capability to serve as a tool for revolution. This event formed part of a four-program series, the ``Leadership Forum Series: Higher Pursuits'' taking place at the Schomburg Museum in Harlem, New York. This particular event that focused on the potential of Hip-Hop to serve as an instrument for social movement shed some light on contemporary perspectives on the evolution of Hip-Hop from a subgroup of African American music born to the New York borough of the Bronx, to one of the most popular genres of music around the world. To some panelists, the answer to this question was positive. Writer Greg Tate held that Hip-Hop was just a manifestation of black people's way to transform their world. To him, Hip-Hip embodied a culture that produced leaders and prophets ``to get us through the next plateau of our struggles.'' On the other hand, Dr. Imani Perry, associate professor at Rutgers Law School, submitted that ``Hip-Hop doesn't exist as a viable social movement, but its music generates courage.'' Whatever the case may be, facilitator Dr. West concluded and all the panelists agreed that Hip-Hop may perhaps offer the ``soundtrack'' for a movement. However, one should not look to it for a ``blueprint'' for a revolution when there is a great exemplar from the African-American and African Diasporan history. [From the Africana Heritage, Apr. 24, 2006] Cornel West and Panel Talk Hip-Hop Activism On Monday, April 24, 2006 the Schomburg Center held the third of four programs in its Leadership Forum Series: Higher Pursuits hosted and moderated by Dr. Cornel West. The focus of the discussion was ``A Hip-Hop Revolution?'' and featured guest panelists Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Assistant Professor of Urban Education at Temple University; Dr. Imani Perry, Associate Professor at Rutgers Law School and author of Prophets of the Hood: Politics and Poetics in Hip-Hop; Carlito Rodriguez, Producer Consultant at BET News and former Editor-in-Chief of The Source magazine; Akiba Solomon, Senior Editor at Vibe Vixen and Co-Editor of Naked: Black Women Bare All About Their Skin, Hair, Hips, Lips, and Other Body Parts; and Greg Tate, author of Everything But the Burden: What White People are Taking from Black Culture and long-time contributor to the Village Voice. Dr. West gave each of the panelists time to address the issue of whether Hip-Hop music has any revolutionary potential. According to Carlito Rodriguez, people often have a very romantic view about Hip-Hop and its influence, but he reminded the audience that he grew up in the Bronx during the music's toddler years and everything about the culture wasn't necessarily a good thing. ``I don't subscribe to the revisionist history that everybody and everything in Hip-Hop was positive. It began with acts like Run-DMC who went from looking like Parliament Funkadelic to [wearing] street gear. It soon became `I want that chain, that car' and somewhere along the line, that became the norm. I think someone has to make music that caters to me--grown man rap.'' Rodriguez emphasized that the lyrics today don't really address the many issues he faces as a man in his late 30s. Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who is currently working on several book projects regarding Hip-Hop culture, made a very important distinction. ``The question mark at the end of `A Hip-Hop Revolution?' is so critical. Is Hip-Hop a revolutionary form, born out of resistance? Yes. Is it in content? I'm not sure.'' Dr. Hill added, ``When someone looks at a rapper like Lil' Kim as a feminist role model, there is a [disconnect] with the message of Hip-Hop not engaging listeners in the day-to-day politics of the `hood.' '' Writer Greg Tate was more optimistic on what the future could bring as far as leadership. ``I know it has never really been about Hip-Hop; it has always been [about] black people's way to transform their world,'' explains Tate. ``The culture spits [out] the prophets, the leaders, to get us through the next plateau of our struggles. The future of Hip- Hop is in a maternity ward somewhere. The answer to the crisis is a voice we haven't heard before, but because we can imagine it, it probably exists.'' Dr. Imani Perry believes that a community-based approach seems more realistic than a creative one. ``Hip-Hop doesn't exist as a viable social movement, but its music generates courage. I am more interested in the community providing a social justice movement.'' Editor and journalist Akiba Solomon put things rather bluntly: ``my short answer to the question [about Hip-Hop being revolutionary] is `no.' I've gone through a lot with Hip-Hop; I compare it to an abusive marriage. Every time it punches me in my face--it gives me gifts. Hip-Hop has been used as a euphemism for different things. It's important that we define what we're talking about and whom we're talking about. My mid-80s view is that I think we are talking about predominately black and Latino youth who come from a certain class or struggle. But I think a major piece that is missing is that you cannot have an art form have any social change potential when it objectifies or minimizes half the population.'' Dr. West offered closing thoughts: ``Latinos and blacks have so many resources, but they still don't have total control of it. Hip-Hop is a global phenomenon and it has a different context in other countries like Bolivia and Colombia.'' Unlike those countries, Hip-Hop here in the United States can often be more degrading than it is uplifting. But one thing that all the panelists, Dr. West included, agreed on is that society's ills will not be changed by a song or a performer, but by small pockets of people doing their best to make a difference. And while Hip- Hop can sometimes provide the soundtrack to a movement, no one should look to it for a blueprint, when there is so much more from African-American and African Diasporan history that could provide that sort of guidance.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me agree with the chairman of the committee. This agreement is important not from an economic standpoint, it would have little or no impact on our economy. For political reasons it would be important. For security reasons it would be important. But I think that most Members would agree that we should have a trade policy that is not a Democratic trade policy or a Republican trade policy. We should have one that reflects the people of the United States of America through the people's House, which is the House of Representatives. And over the years, it appears more and more that the United States Trade Representatives will deal with the majority, but on issues that we think are important we have to deal with the country itself. This is wrong. Whatever divisions we have politically in our country, we ought to keep it on this side of our flag and not have to expose these differences with foreigners. So often we have Presidents of Peru and Ambassadors from Oman indicating that the majority party has said we can get this out but you have to talk with the Democrats. Well, you shouldn't have to talk with the Democrats, but the United States Trade Representative should have to talk with us and Republicans and members of the committee. The House, to a large extent, relies on the expertise that is developed by those of us who are privileged to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, and we owe it to our Members to say what is in the trade bill and what is not in the trade bill. But also, in order to give a fair explanation, we should know what USTR intends to put in the bill. Now, over the years, all we have said is this: The the details of a bill should be fair, and as far as I am concerned, America should have a fair advantage. We should make certain that we are able to see that our products have access to their markets. But there is also something that I think is a principle that is American, and that is that the basic rights of the workers should be protected. On so many bills the religious leaders, the labor leaders, the farmers, the peasants come to us and say, Please support the bill but please make certain that you have the same type of protections in that bill to protect our rights of assembly, protect our rights to strike, as you have in that bill for intellectual property rights. We have taken the lowest possible denominator and taken the International Labor Organization regulations. And we have had people say they have no problem with that, but somehow that is never, but never, discussed in our committee even though we have an amendment that deals with the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement that at this very moment is in the hearing room. We are not talking about it. We are debating an amendment. What we should be talking about is what is good for both of these countries and can we walk away from these trade agreements knowing that it is good for America, but we are not driving the workers to the lowest possible denominator; but we would like to be able to say that there are basic protections for the people, especially in developing countries that we do business with. So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have to be respected. We may be in the minority, but we should not be excluded in participating in discussions with the United States Trade Representatives. And the United States Trade Representatives should not send us to foreign representatives in order to see what we can get in the bill. They are supposed to be our negotiators the same way they are the majority party's negotiators. That does not happen. I do believe that it should. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the senior member of the Trade Subcommittee, who has put in hours of work on this, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the traveling exhibition created by the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, a branch organization of the New York Public Library, in conjunction with the UNESCO Slave Route Project to mark the United Nation's General Assembly's resolution proclaiming 2004 as the International Year to Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its Abolition. To reach a wider audience the Schomburg Center has created versions in French, Portuguese, Spanish, as well as in English. The online version of the exhibition is available on the Schomburg Center website. (http://www.nypl.org/research/sc/sc.html) The exhibition, titled Lest We Forget: The Triumph Over Slavery, is a celebration of the extraordinary human capacity to overcome oppression and injustice. Its tour through Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America and Europe, is a reminder of a heritage that binds people of all races and color, across national and religious boundaries. Lest We Forget shows us the images of downtrodden degraded people who were stripped of their humanity and culture who were forced to live their lives as mindless, agendaless pawns in vicious, all-powerful systems of human degradation. The transatlantic slave trade was brutal, vicious, denigrating and horrific. It is a representation of one of the most consistent assaults on human dignity and self-worth in the history of mankind. We see a different kind of slavery today. Guest-workers, lured from third world countries with false promises, are forced to work in hazardous work conditions with very little wages in countries where oftentimes they do not even speak the language. They have virtually no rights as foreign workers and are sometimes forbidden by law to form unions. These modern-day slaves have no recourse but to follow the directives of their employers to exploit their helplessness. The United Nations defines an enslaved person as one whose movement and decision- making abilities are curtailed so that he/she does not have the ability to choose his employer. With this in mind, it is doubly important for us to recall the brutal reality of slavery and systematic degradation of human dignity; and take action in order to eliminate this modern-day slavery. I commend the Schomburg Center for creating this remarkable presentation, and the UNESCO for making it accessible across the globe. Their cooperation and collaboration has made the exhibition a resounding success, and I hope to see this cooperation repeated and expanded in finding the resolution to the problem of slavery in today's world. Traveling With A Global Appeal To mark the United Nations International Year to Commemorate the Struggle Against Slavery and its Abolition in 2004. UNESCO commissioned the Schomburg Center to create a traveling version of its exhibition Lest We Forget: The Triumph Over Slavery. The exhibition highlighted the extraordinary capacity of human beings to confront and transcend oppression, and to overcome state-sanctioned injustice. The traveling version of Lest We Forget has toured in Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Europe. Travelling to countries such as Cameroon, South Africa, Cape Verde, Mali, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Senegal, The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Brazil, Sweden, France, Finland, and Norway. To help ensure that the exhibition did indeed reach a wider audience the Schomburg created versions in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish. Just as Lest We Forget tells a portion of the story about people of the African Diaspora, so too does In Motion: The African-American Migration Experience, which originally opened at the Schomburg Center in February 2005. In Motion traces 13 different migration patterns of African Americans over 500 years. As part of the Schomburg Center's ever-expanding Traveling Exhibition Program, In Motion opened at the Lyric Theater in the historic ``Overtown'' district of Miami, Florida at the beginning of Black History Month. Miami Mayor Manny Diaz opened the exhibition with a reception and Schomburg Center Chief Howard Dodson was on hand for the unveiling. The exhibition's Miami host Dr. Dorothy Fields, Founder of the Black Archives, History and Research Foundation of South Florida, Inc, knew In Motion would be perfect for her city. ``Miami is a city of many people from so many different countries. As soon as you walk in the information about the Haitian migration experience is right there, strategically in the center [of the theater],'' said Dr. Fields. ``In Motion: The African-American Migration Experience explains that we are all different branches of the same tree.'' To guarantee that the exhibition would have a lasting effect, Dr. Fields and her colleagues signed a contract with the county to do a Black History bus tour, which began at the Lyric Theater, this resulted in more than 9,000 visitors in one month. And they even devoted the entire month of May to bring school children to see and learn from the exhibition, and offered two days of teacher workshops with In Motion Project Content Manager Sylviane Diouf, so that educators could prepare their students for the experience ahead of time. In Motion is set to run at the Lyric Theater until the end of May, Miami's Haitian American Month, but Dr. Fields has confirmed that her organization has plans to expand on In Motion, by providing the Schomburg Center with primary sources on the African Diaspora in Miami to develop another exhibition. With traveling exhibitions like Lest We Forget and In Motion, the resources of the Schomburg Center reach far beyond its structure to educate and inspire scores of people around the world. Traveling dates: Lest We Forget When: May 19-July 19, 2006. Where: Esmeraldas International Center for Afro-Amerindian Cultural Diversity and Human Development, Esmeraldas, Ecuador. Organizer: UNESCO Quito's Office. In Motion: The African-American Migration Experience When: October 2, 2006-March 9, 2007. Where: National Heritage Museum, 33 Marrett Road, Lexington, MA 02421 For more information about the Traveling Exhibition Program, please visit www.schomburgcenter.org, or contact Mei TeiSing Smith at msmith@nypl.org, or by calling (212) 491- 2204.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity. I stand in strong support of this resolution. Some may say, well, how could you be against the war and supporting this? Well, I think it is good historic sense, it is good moral sense, that any sovereign nation that gets attacked should have the opportunity and be given support for defending herself. Clearly, when we went into Iraq, we had no clue as to who the terrorists were. They certainly were not in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But here we have a nation that has been invaded. People have come into their country, killed their soldiers, kidnapped their soldiers, and rain rockets on them, and the surprising thing that we find here is that we find something to that. As an American, I cannot imagine the hostility I would feel and the support I would give in retaliation if something like that happened to our country. What amazes me, however, is that for the first time people have recognized that the terrorists are not just after the United States and Israel. The terrorists are after every decent thing that we believe in, and at long last the Governments of Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia has seen that these terrorists, that somehow we found out that they believe that not being at war with Israel is the same as being at peace with Israel, but recognize in that area some of the Arab countries that we give support to, economic and trade support, still held hostile the people in Israel and resented the right for Israel to exist. I think this is a great opportunity to bring those Arab nations together, to let them know that they are just as vulnerable for the people that they have supported, and even though the animosity seems to be going toward Israel, is toward them, is toward the United States, is toward everything that we believe. So, if we do have crown princes and kings and Presidents unable to go to the ranch and discuss whatever they do, and if Israel does not come up as a place where they teach hatred and anti-Semitism, why not take advantage of this opportunity to tell the Arab countries in the region that this is the time for all of us to come together not just in a willing coalition, but in a coalition for peace, and to make certain that we cut this cancer out not just because of Israel, but because of the free world? The Hamas and the Hezbollah have to really cut this cancer out of our society now, and it gives us an excellent opportunity to bring the friends of the United States and the so-called friends of Israel together to see whether or not we can make certain that these people are not a threat to Israel and not a threat to the neighboring countries and not a threat to the great United States of America.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of illegal trafficking of small arms and light weapons which is responsible for the death of approximately 1,000 people every day worldwide. As U.N. Secretary General Kori Annan reminded us in the U.N. conference on curtailing small arms and light weapons, ``these weapons may be small, but they cause mass destruction.'' The United States objects to any international regulation on arms trade and is opposed to a blanket ban on governments selling arms to `non-state actors,' i.e. rebel groups, on the grounds that the oppressed have the right to defend themselves against tyrannical and genocidal governments. Unfortunately our policy also leaves the door open for terrorists groups to get their hands on weaponry. The U.S. government is loathe to sacrifice the liberty of the oppressed people worldwide in exchange for a possible security risk (terrorist threat) to the United States, but has no qualms in forfeiting the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens in return for security. Furthermore, the United States is the leading producer of arms in the world, meaning we, more than any other country engage in arms trade with other governments, as well as `nonstate actors.' We, as the superpower of the global system, must take the leading role in eliminating illicit arms trafficking which supplies armaments to brutal civil wars and organized crime networks and thereby causing massive casualties worldwide, everyday. The United Nations has adopted a non-binding agreement program of action in its conference on ``illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects,'' held in July 9-20, 2001. It encourages nations to ensure manufacturers use markings on small arms and light weapons make tracing illegal arms easier. It also encourages implementation of procedures to monitor legal sales, transfer and stockpiling of small arms and light weapons and urges governments to make illegal manufacture, trade and possession a criminal offense. The U.S. policy should be to support the U.N.'s Program of Action and try to make the resolution of the conference binding to the member states. We already have strict regulatory policies in arms trade within our borders. We need to expand those policies internationally with the assistance of the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record, the article by Warren Hoge, titled With caveats. U.S. Backs Session at U.N. on curtailing Illegal Arms, published in the June 28, 2006 edition of the New York Times, reporting on the U.N. Small Arms & Light Weapons Review Conference 2006. [From the New York Times, June 28, 2006] With Caveats, U.S. Backs Session at U.N. on Curtailing Illegal Arms (By WARREN HOGE) United Nations, June 27.--The Bush administration gave its backing on Tuesday to a United Nations conference on curtailing the international flow of illegal arms, but warned delegates against adopting measures that would restrict individual possession of weapons. ``The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights,'' Robert G. Joseph, under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, told the General Assembly. ``Many millions of American citizens enjoy hunting and the full range of firearms sports, and our work will not affect their rights,'' he said. He also said Washington would object to any steps to establish international regulation of ammunition or to ban governments from selling arms to rebel groups, known in diplomatic jargon as ``nonstate actors.'' ``While we will of course continue to oppose the acquisition of arms by terrorist groups,'' he said, ``we recognize the rights of the oppressed to defend themselves against tyrannical and genocidal regimes and oppose a blanket ban on nonstate actors.'' The two-week conference, which began Monday, is intended to improve ways of curbing the $1 billion black market in the manufacture and distribution of small arms and light weapons that supply brutal civil wars and organized crime networks and end up killing an estimated 1,000 people every day worldwide. Secretary General Kofi Annan reminded the gathering that ``these weapons may be small, but they cause mass destruction.'' He urged member countries to toughen existing laws governing arms deals. Steps that Mr. Joseph said the United States would support included the marking and tracing of weapons, controls on transfers, certification of the ultimate recipients, effective management of national stockpiles and destruction of illicit and government-declared surplus weapons. Mr. Annan said the conference was not contemplating a global ban on gun ownership. ``Nor do we wish to deny law- abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws,'' he said. He seemed to be referring to a campaign by the National Rifle Association, which has charged in mass mailings that the United Nations is plotting to take away Americans' guns through a treaty banning ownership. John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, confirmed that he had received hundreds of the form letters. Asked why all three citizen delegates from the United States to the conference were prominent members of the gun lobby group, he said he made it a practice not to comment on the activities of nongovernmental organizations.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record a press release and letter to Members of Congress from Troops Home Fast, a new initiative of the peace organization CODEPINK whose members are holding a hunger strike to highlight their call to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. I pay tribute to the members of CODEPINK who are participating in the Troops Home Fast and praise their creative efforts to assist our troops in Iraq and those wounded at Walter Reed Hospital by many campaigns protesting the continuing occupation of Iraq. One of their peace actions is a Friday night vigil at Walter Reed Hospital to protest the war and thus prevent further casualties. Today I especially want to bring attention to their latest campaign taking place here in the District of Columbia, around the country and around the world--the Troops Home Fast. While many Americans were celebrating Independence Day with barbeques and fireworks, CODEPINK was launching this new campaign--a fast-- calling for independence from war. Among the Washington Fasters are Cindy Sheehan, legendary comedian/civil rights activists Dick Gregory, activist/environmentalist Diane Wilson, former Army colonel Ann Wright, Iraq war veterans, Vietnam veterans, and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. They are joined by almost 3,500 others from other countries. Celebrities and other well-known public figures have committed to join including actors Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Danny Glover, musicians Graham Nash and Willie Nelson, and more. The group is supported by Gold Star Families for Peace and endorsed by other organizations. The Fast ceremony began at Gandhi's Statue at Massachusetts Avenue and Q St., NW in Washington DC with a brief Rally and a March to Lafayette Park in front of the White House. The fasters in DC which included co-founders of CODEPINK Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans, Gael Murphy and Cindy Sheehan were present as were other fasters including comedian and social activist Dick Gregory who has fasted for many causes. On July 10, 2006, I received a letter sent tall members of Congress from Troops Home Fast calling themselves a ``group of concerned citizens who are conducting an open-ended fast in front of the White House calling for our troops to come home from Iraq. . .'' and asking for each member's help in this cause. Troops Home Fast asks for the following: Legislation to set a time line for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq and bring he troops home. In the opinion of the Troops Home Fast Congress is moving ``far too slowly.'' Troops Home Fast believes as I do and as Congressman Murtha has repeatedly stated that the American people are way ahead of Congress. The polls show that a solid majority of the American people now want a time table and a quick end to our involvement in Iraq. They want American troops home. According to a recent poll, 87 percent of Iraqis want their government to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Iraq's president, vice resident and national security advisor have all called for such a timeline. General Casey, the commander of American troops in Iraq has established a time table. It is only the President and his supporters in Congress who will not follow the will of the American people ho elected them, or the will of the Iraqi people who have spoken and whose democratic government has spoken for them who continue to refuse to hear anything but their own slog: ``Stay the Course'' or ``We will never give up until we have achieved victory'' or the least excusable ``we will stay and achieve victory so that our men and women who have died in Iraq will not have died in vain.'' I honor those who are fasting as Gandhi did to bring about the change they believe is essential to preserve the character of this nation and to save the lives of Americans and Iraqis. I wish them great strength and pray with them for peace in Iraq. July 11, 2006. Dear Representative, We are a group of concerned citizens who are conducting an open-ended fast in front of the White House calling for our troops to come home from Iraq, and we are asking for your support via the attached form. The fast, called Troops Home Fast, was initiated by CODEPINK and Gold Star Families for Peace, and endorsed by dozens of organizations. It began on July 4, 2006, and more than 3,500 people in the U.S. and around the world are participating, with hundreds more joining every day. (Additional information about the fast is available at the website www.troopshomefast.org.) You have the power to enact legislation to achieve the goal of this fast: set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq and bring the troops home. We deeply appreciate the efforts of members of the House and the Senate who have already been working to end this war. But Congress is moving far too slowly. Every day, more American soldiers die, more Iraqis die, and more federal funds are squandered which could be used to alleviate a whole host of problems here in the United States. We all know that a solid majority of the American people now want to bring our military involvement in Iraq to a quick conclusion and bring our troops home. Iraqis are even more adamant about ending the war quickly. A remarkable 87 percent of Iraqis want their government to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Iraq's president, vice president and national security advisor have all called for such a timeline. Americans who want to end this war have gone through all the traditional methods of petitioning the President and you, our members of Congress, to urge you to act. We have marched, done vigils, written letters, lobbied our representatives, and formed broad-based coalitions in an effort to bring this war to end. Yet the war goes on without end. That's why we're here now in front of the White House, fasting. Fasting is a time-honored way to move people to action, from Gandhi's nonviolent liberation of India to Mitch Snyder's fasts for the homeless right here in Washington D.C. We hope you will support our efforts and work with us to bring our troops home--FAST. Attached is a form to record your support. We thank you in advance. Sincerely, Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evan and Gael Murphy, On behalf of Troops Home Fast. Press Release July 4, 2006. Cindy Sheehan, Diane Wilson, Dick Gregory, Iraq veterans and Iraqi citizens gather in front of the White House on July 4th, their first day without food. After eating their final meal in front of the White House yesterday, participants in the ``Troops Home Fast''--a historic hunger fast organized by CODEPINK: Women for Peace and Gold Star Families for Peace--will spend their first day without food on the Fourth of July. They will gather at the White House at 10 a.m. and plan to hold a spiritual ceremony, send a message of peace to the Independence Day parade, and remain outside the White House with their message to bring the troops home from Iraq now. Among the Washington fasters are Cindy Sheehan, legendary comedian/civil rights activist Dick Gregory, environmentalist Diane Wilson, former army colonel Ann Wright, Iraq war veterans, Iraqis and Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. They are joined by almost 3,000 others from around the United States and 18 other countries. Celebrities and other well- known public figures have committed to join the fast, including Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Danny Glover, musicians Graham Nash and Willie Nelson, writer Alice Walker, and more. ``While others are enjoying their barbecues and fireworks today, we will be going hungry for the most noble cause of all: peace,'' said Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan, who began an open-ended fast today. ``We are the true American patriots today. Our founding fathers cautioned future generations against engaging in wars of aggression for empire and economic gain, lest we lose our national soul. And the war in Iraq is exactly the kind of war our Nation's leaders once cautioned against.'' The hunger strike will continue throughout the summer. ``This fast has obviously touched a chord with the public,'' said CODEPINK cofounder Medea Benjamin. ``We thought there might be 3 or 4 of us fasting, and it is more like 3,000. Every day hundreds of new people are signing up for the fast. Some communities are doing rolling fasts, each person taking a day. This is sparking a new level of commitment to get out of Iraq.'' For more information, please see www.troopshomefast.org or meet the fasters in front of the White House at 10-11 a.m. or 5-7 p.m. Support War Resisters! For the first time in the Iraq war, an officer in the U.S. Military, Lt. Ehren Watada, has publicly refused orders and will be brought to court-martial this summer. Click here for ways to show your solidarity and here to read a letter from Carolyn, Ehren's mom, and find out more about his case. You can also support Army Specialist Suzanne Swift, who suffered sexual harassment at the hands of her commanding officers and refused to return to Iraq. Click here for more info. Declaration of Peace! We urge you to sign The Declaration of Peace, a pledge to take action against the war during September 21-28 if a peace plan is not established by that time. Declaration signers will take part in nonviolent action, marches, rallies, demonstrations, interfaith services, candlelight vigils and other creative ways to declare peace at the US Capitol and in cities across the US. Click here to sign the Declaration and learn more. Mothers Declare Peace on Mother's Day! CODEPINK's 24-hour Mother's Day peace vigil was an amazing soulful, painful and joyful gathering. Cindy Sheehan, Susan Sarandon, Patch Adams, Dick Gregory, and Iraqi and Iranian mothers joined with mothers and others from all over the country to create a magical pink presence at the White House. Click here to see the media coverage & video, read our blogs and see the most beautiful photos imaginable! And click here to see reports from solidarity events that happened around the country. CODEPINK Takes Out Ads in Iraqi papers! On Monday, May 15, CODEPINK placed ads in 8 Iraqi newspapers calling for Americans and Iraqis to work together, in a non-violent fashion, to end the occupation and bloodshed in Iraq. People in 99 cities generously funded this ad campaign. The Iraqi response has been tremendous, with hundreds of Iraqis calling the newspapers saying how excited they are to see this ad and how it gives them great hope. Click here to see the ad. Click here to see the Arabic website Esteklal (which means independence). To see the press release about this ad, click here. Stop Nuclear War With Iran! We weren't able to stop the last war, but we must stop the next one . . . NOW! The United Nations, which is mandated to uphold international law, must speak out against the Bush Administration's plans. Let's send a collective letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan imploring him to denounce this threat and call for a diplomatic solution. Click here to sign on and/or send your own, and pass it to friends and family around the world. Let's let the Bush administration and Kofi Annan know that the world is demanding an end to this madness! Support Iraqi Women: The US invasion of Iraq has moved Iraq from a secular to a more religious--and violent--society where women's rights are being curtailed. Read our report Iraqi Women Under Siege and recent articles about women in Iraq. Click here to see the blogs, photos and media articles of the Iraqi Women's Tour to the US. Donate to our efforts to support Iraqi women. Women--& Male Allies--Say NO To War! Sign here to join women and men from around the world who are coming together to SAY NO TO WAR. We are creating a massive movement crossing generations, races, ethnicities, religions, and borders to pressure our governments, the United Nations, the Arab League, and other international leaders to negotiate a political settlement to the war in Iraq. Bring Our Guard Home Now! With over 70 000 National Guard troops deployed to Iraq, our homefront has been left vulnerable in the face of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. In response, CODEPINK is working with a coalition of peace groups to seek the immediate withdrawal of all National Guard troops from Iraq. At least twelve states are petitioning their governors to bring home our Guard! Click here to find out how you can join this effort and start a working group in your state! Hurricane Katrina CODEPINK is now in New Orleans, working with the Common Ground Collective, the People's Institute for Survival & Beyond, various grassroots organizations and local neighborhood groups. We are part of an active movement to rebuild and revision the city, standing in solidarity with residents to strengthen their communities and take their cities back! We invite you to come down to participate in this massive and historic effort to rebuild this beautiful city from the bottom up and the inside out. Click here for more info, join our upcoming work brigade this summer and read Dana Balicki's blogs from New Orleans!

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce into the Congressional Record a letter that I received from the United Church of Christ which I believe is worth our contemplation because of its sincere efforts to generate greater awareness and understanding in the international and domestic communities disproportionately affected by current environmental problems. The earth's climate has changed over the last century. This change has had deleterious effects on the world community, but more so on poor communities who have high concentrations of people of color. Communities of color are burdened with poor air quality and are twice as likely to be uninsured than whites. Yet these communities will become even more vulnerable to climate-change related respiratory ailments, heat-related illness and death, and illness from insect- carried diseases. A study conducted by the Congressional Black Caucus substantiated his claim by pointing out that in every single one of the 44 major metropolitan areas in the U.S., Blacks are more likely than Whites to be exposed to higher air toxic concentrations. Although people of color are less responsible for climate change, ironically they will be made to suffer the most from it. We should not avoid the issue of race, class and gender when it comes to serious discussions about the environment. The inclusion of race, class and gender doesn't take us away from the issue, but helps make the issue more comprehensive and complete. The impact of climate change has not been addressed or assessed specifically for people of color. As we continue to seek solutions to this ever growing and changing problem, we must seek to ensure that the rights of all peoples are met regardless of race, class or gender. I enter into the Record this letter written by the United Church of Christ on this important issue. As we continue to strive or a cleaner world and environment, we must also strive to protect those most vulnerable to hurt. [From Witness for Justice #274, June 26, 2006] Global Warming: Harmful to All, But Some More Than Others (By C.J. Correa Bernier) The international dimensions of environmental problems are becoming the center of attention as they gain center-stage in debates concerning the future of our planet. The range of issues being discussed is extensive, but global warming seems to be a common subject in most conversations. The coexistence of environmentalism and economic development and the need for cooperation, fairness and equity among countries seems to be one of the major questions. In the midst of our global environmental conversations we must keep in mind that the activities of human society, on a broad scale, are harmful to all, but to some more than others. In the case of global warming, we suffer along with the planet but for island nations that will disappear, or for indigenous communities, it is not an ``environmental problem,'' it is the literal destruction of their environment, history, legacy and lives. In the United States, communities of color are also drastically affected. A recent report notes the disproportionate corelation between African Americans in the U.S. and climate change. The report argues that African Americans are less responsible for climate change, but suffer more from the health impacts. In 1987 the existence of a nationwide pattern of disproportionate environmental risk based on race was demonstrated for the U.S. This evidence challenged the U.S. environmental movement to recognize its tendency to ignore issues of race, class and gender when setting agendas for social action. Today the mainstream environmental community is involved in serious discussions about how to frame the eco-justice issues along with those dealing with environment justice or environmental racism, but, to look at the issue of global warming as one that is in opposition to those confronted by the environmental justice movement will be a mistake. The global environmental justice movement compels us to rethink our understanding of global environmental problems and existing proposals to solve them. Justice is an essential demand, in the aftermath of historic, systematic discrimination and disproportionate environmental degradation of those on the margins. If we look at global warming as an issue of human rights and environmental justice we will be able to see the connection between the local and the global. Rising temperatures are already affecting the lives of millions of humans, particularly in people of color, low-income, and indigenous communities. The health of many has been already compromised, their financial reality has become a burden, and their social and cultural lives have been disrupted. As we dialogue, research and seek solutions to our climate and energy problems we must seek to ensure the right of all people to live, work, play, and pray in safe, healthy, and clean environments. We must envision a transition to a future that protects the most vulnerable from the impacts of climate.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and John Conyers for working together and making all Members of this House so proud to show what we can do when we do work in a bipartisan way. I also want to thank Chairman Watt for the work that he has done with the Congressional Black Caucus, and beyond, to make certain that the commitments that have been made by the leadership of this House were kept. We all know that there are parts of the history of this great Republic, slavery, the stigma of slavery, prejudice, that we all abhor; but we also know that this great body not too long ago passed a Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen, men who gave up their lives and put themselves at risk in order to make certain the world was safe for democracy. At the time, many of these people could not vote and their mothers could not vote and their families could not vote. So there comes a time where certain people have the courage to stand up for it, and John Lewis was one. I think we all should get together and say that we could not march with them, but we could reaffirm the commitment that they made.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to address the importance of the renewal of the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Our Nation's growing Hispanic population is gradually becoming important in the political arena with the increased involvement of second and third generation Latinos. The number of naturalized citizens has also increased over the years. All these Americans, whether native- born or naturalized have an equal right to vote. English-only policies are subtle mechanisms that deny American citizens their constitutional right to vote. America is supposed to be a country of freedom, of democracy. Naturalized non-English speaking citizens must endure long waiting periods to enroll in English as a Second Language (ESL) literacy centers, whose numbers are scarce due to lack of funding. In New York State, the wait lists were so long, the State decided to establish a lottery system instead. How can we ask for English-only policies when we do not have the requisite infrastructure in place to teach English to our citizens, let alone enable them to comprehend the complex ballots? Why shouldn't we make voting easier for our citizens? Why should we obstruct their ability to exercise their right to vote? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are forgetting that English is not an easy language to learn. The Republican Party is alienating a large voting population and running the risk of aligning ethnic politics for years to come against them. President Bush has always urged his party to engage Hispanic voters to keep Democrats in the minority. He is advocating for inclusionary politics. But his efforts are being severely undermined by the hard-line politics of an overwhelming number of conservative Republicans. I emphasize again the importance of the language issues in H.R. 9 which must be resolved in favor of greater inclusion and assistance for language minorities in the extension of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, I request that the article titled ``House May Chill Bush's Wooing of Latino Voters,'' by Charles Babington, published on June 30, 2006 in the Washington Post, be entered into the Congressional Record. House May Chill Bush's Wooing of Latino Voters (By Charles Babington) By pushing English-only policies and tough measures against illegal immigrants, House conservatives are endangering President Bush's goal of drawing millions of Latino voters to the Republican Party and helping realign ethnic politics for years to come, according to an array of analysts and officials. The latest blow to Bush's efforts to woo Hispanics came last week, when a band of House Republicans unexpectedly balked at renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, partly because of a 30-year-old requirement that many local governments provide bilingual ballots. The revolt, which forced House GOP leaders to abruptly postpone a vote, came as House Republicans are stiffening their resistance to Bush's bid to allow pathways to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants while also strengthening borders and deportation efforts. ``It's sort of a double whammy,'' said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), a Cuban native who is among the GOP's most visible Hispanic leaders. Under Bush's leadership, he said in an interview, ``our party has shown a very welcoming approach to the emerging Hispanic vote.'' However, he said, ``there obviously are those who feel that's not important. . . . I think there could be great political risks to becoming the party of exclusion and not a party of inclusion.'' While the stalemate over immigration legislation will be difficult to break, House leaders predict they eventually will quell the conservative rebellion over the Voting Rights Act and reauthorize the law for 25 years. But the depth of House GOP support for English-only policies was demonstrated Wednesday night, when an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted to end funding for the bilingual ballots provision. The effort, led by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), failed only because 192 Democrats joined 61 Republicans to vote against it. The actions have embarrassed the White House and inflamed many Latinos. ``It's offensive and insulting,'' said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy for the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights and advocacy group. She said the national Republican Party is running ``a real risk'' of replicating the blunder that began unraveling the California GOP in 1994. That's when then-Gov. Pete Wilson (R) backed a ballot initiative barring illegal immigrants from attending public schools or receiving social services. The ensuing uproar drove hundreds of thousands of Latino voters into Democrats' arms. The state has backed Democratic presidential and senatorial nominees ever since. ``That is exactly the danger that is facing Republicans today,'' Munoz said. She praised Bush, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and others who ``know that immigrant-bashing is disastrous to the future of their party--and they're right.'' Peter Zamora, legislative attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said he believes that House leaders will manage to salvage the Voting Rights Act renewal. However, he said, ``it will be a political challenge to explain tabling the Voting Rights Act to the Latino community if action isn't taken very soon.'' Both parties are energetically courting the nation's burgeoning Hispanic population, which will become increasingly important as more second- and third-generation Latinos get involved in politics, and as more immigrants attain citizenship and the right to vote. Most Latino voters lean Democratic, but Republicans have long felt they can chip away at that advantage. Bush--who has advocated social services and pathways to legal status for illegal immigrants since he was governor of Texas--took 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004 after winning 34 percent in 2000, according to exit polls. In league with Mehlman, political adviser Karl Rove and others, Bush has urged his party to pursue Latino voters in numbers that could help keep Democrats in the minority for decades. But some GOP activists say the drive is being undermined by the Republican-controlled House's tough stance on immigration and the flap over voting rights. Many Southern House Republicans have long objected to the Voting Rights Act's requirement that their states obtain Justice Department approval for an array of voting activities. Last week, in a closed GOP caucus meeting, they were joined by colleagues from throughout the country who object to a measure added in 1975 that requires ballots or interpreters to be available in a number of foreign languages in places where census reports found a need for language help. ``Multilingual ballots divide our country, increase the risk of voter error and fraud, and burden local taxpayers,'' said a letter signed by nearly 80 House Republicans and authored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The 2000 Census found that nearly 41 percent of all Hispanic persons 5 years and older spoke English less than ``very well,'' and those eligible to vote needed language assistance. John Bueno, a Republican from Michigan, is president of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, which was meeting in Dallas last week when news of the voting rights flap broke. ``My first reaction was, 'My God, here we are, it's 2006, and we're still dealing with this issue,' `` Bueno said. ``Mainstream Republicans are frustrated right now with what's going on in Congress.'' Latino Democrats, meanwhile, can hardly believe how Bush's overtures are being thwarted by his own party. By stressing English-only policies and stumbling on the immigration and Voting Rights Act issues, congressional Republicans ``either made the best case for switching the Congress from Republican to Democratic control, or they made the best case for their own incompetence,'' said Pedro Colon, a Wisconsin legislator who attended the Dallas convention. ``As a Democrat, I'm really optimistic about our opportunities.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Dennis Walcott, New York City's Deputy Mayor for Education and Community Development for enthusiastically joining the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) and envoys from Grenada, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago in celebrating the Caribbean Week. I was a co-sponsor of the recent bill (H. Con. Res. 51) that declared the month of June as the Caribbean Heritage Month in order to recognize and applaud the contributions of the Caribbean-American communities to the United States. I have participated in celebratory activities in the said communities, including those in my district, such as parades, carnivals and festivals to commemorate this month and present an opportunity to explore the diversity within the Islands. Mr. Walcott has joined me in this celebration. A celebrity cricket match, a Caribbean Gospelfest, Town Hall meetings featuring Ministers of tourism from the region, a Caribbean Fair at South Street Seaport, and cooking demonstrations by some of the region's top chefs has taken the city by storm. Mr. Walcott, who traces his origin to the islands of Barbados and St. Croix, envisions a win-win tourism relationship between the Islands and New York City, as well as the Nation. Mr. Speaker I wish to enter into the Record, the article from the June 27,2006 edition of The New York Carib News, titled Deputy Mayor Walcott Embraces Caribbean Week. Deputy Mayor Walcott Embraces Caribbean Week New York.--According to Dennis Walcott, New York City's Deputy Mayor for Education and Community Development, the recent Caribbean Week in New York, staged by the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO), is deeply important to the City of New York and people and nations of the Caribbean. Walcott underscored the importance of the Diaspora to the City, and said Caribbean Week is a reinforcement of his personal roots as well as a reminder of the importance of the Caribbean here. Walcott, who traces his roots to the islands of Barbados and St. Croix, said Caribbean-Americans are key players in the running of New York City. Caribbean Week presents an opportunity for people to understand the diversity of the Caribbean, and according to Walcott appreciate the various countries that are part of the Diaspora of the Caribbean. The Deputy Mayor envisions a win- win tourism relationship between the City of New York and CTO member nations. A celebrity cricket match, a Caribbean Gospelfest, Town Hall meetings featuring Ministers of Tourism from the region, a Caribbean Fair at the South Street Seaport, the popular Media Marketplace and cooking demonstrations with some of the region's top chefs, were some of the exciting events that took the City by storm during Caribbean Week in New York. Addressing a town hall meeting at Medgar Evers College in the borough of Brooklyn, Ministers of Tourism from Grenada, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago told the audience about the importance of tourism to their respective economies, and updated nationals on crime fighting strategies in their territories. Minister Brenda Hood unveiled plans to work with the VFR (Visiting Friends and Relatives) market, and pledged her commitment to review proposals from the Diaspora media and communications community to promote Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique in the marketplace.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an article titled Moving On Up: In Harlem, A Renaissance in Food by Cynthia Kilian into the Record. The article, published in the June 28, 2006 edition of the New York Post, celebrates the variety of restaurants and dining experiences available in Harlem. Harlem is one of the foci of diversity in New York City. One only has to walk down the streets of Harlem to see this celebration of diversity. Nowhere else it is more evident than in the dining scene of Harlem. Dinosaur Barbeque, the ribs joint on 131st St., West Harlem has been a big hit from the moment it opened on December 1, 2004. If we walk down a little farther, we arrive at Pier 2110 Seafood Restaurant, the new seafood place with a raw bar and lounge with ginseng drinks, that just opened next to the Harlem Lanes bowling alley. A little to the east on 121st St. and Frederick Douglass Boulevard lies Harlem Vintage, the sleek wine shop on 2235 Frederick Douglass Blvd., where a $10 bottle of sauvignon blanc is as easy to come by as a $90 bottle of Brunello di Montalcino, caters to a variety of tastes. Native at 118th St. and Lenox Ave. offers BLT salad to Moroccan fried chicken with collard greens and walnut sauce. Right around the corner is Ginger, known for its ``organic'' Chinese food. Harlem Tea Room, on 118th and Madison, is a perfect spot to enjoy poetry readings, music events and seminars while sipping one of their 22 kinds of tea with the eclectic menu of sandwiches and cakes. Further to the east, on 118th St. and 3rd Ave., is Creole, where alligator gumbo and crawfish etouffe is accompanied by nightly jazz from a changing roll call of artists. The ``New Harlem'' with its assorted collection of bars and eateries is fast becoming the destination for the sophisticated palate and fine dining, along with maintaining the popularity of the neighborhood's stalwart Patsy's pizza, Copland's gospel brunch and Senegalese thiebou diene (fish stew). My colleagues and I invite you to go on a gastronomic adventure in Harlem. And I am sure that I need not remind you that our immigrant communities take the credit for enriching the American culture by adding a variety of spices to the ``melting pot.'' Moving on Up: In Harlem, a Renaissance in Food (By Cynthia Kilian) June 28, 2006.--No one can accuse 125th Street of subtlety. To walk across the Harlem thoroughfare is to submit to a barrage of music-blaring shops, barking street vendors and crowds. But head south on Frederick Douglass Boulevard, and a much different climate quickly emerges. There's Harlem Vintage, a sleek wine shop filled with a large, of-the-moment international selection of bottles. A few more blocks down, patrons sip cocktails in the cool, woody comfort of Melba's, while just across the street, latte lovers tap on their laptops in an airy coffee-cum-eatery that--surprise--is not Starbucks. Sure, we'd heard about Harlem's luxury condo market and coveted brownstones, and even a new crop of trendy clothing shops. But caviar bars and organic wines? North of Central Park--and above 96th Street to the east-- soul kitchens are being sidled up to by everything from organic Chinese food to moules frites that a waitress at a restaurant named Food says even Belgians seek out. Not that the neighborhood's popular chicken and waffles and Senegalese thiebou diene (fish stew) are going anywhere. Neither are stalwarts Patsy's pizza and Copeland's gospel brunch. They're just getting some company. The latest buzz on one-two-five is Pier 2110 Seafood Restaurant, which just opened nearby last week. From the management of Manna's of Harlem and Brooklyn, it sports a snazzy lounge, raw bar and ginseng drinks. As for ViVa--a k a Viaduct Valley--that's real-estate speak for the West Harlem area reportedly poised to spawn its own restaurant scene in the coming year near Dinosaur Bar-B-Que, Fairway Market and the new Citarella. ``New Harlem'' is fast becoming the next destination for fine dining. Served uptown 1. Food, 1569 Lexington, between 100 and 101st streets; (212) 348-0200. The no-nonsense moniker belies the jazzed-up classics in this new incarnation of the former DinerBar, where fish- centric chef Scott Geller (who's worked at Nobu) turns out luscious escolar and moules frites in Dijon white wine broth in a friendly neighborhood spot. 2. Itzocan Bistro, 1575 Lexington Ave., at 101st Street; (212) 423-0255. Mexican with French flourishes--such as seafood posole--has been making East Harlem residents happy at this offshoot of an East Village original. 3. Creole, 2167 Third Ave., at 118th Street; (212) 876- 8838, creolenyc.com. Creole and Cajun bites--alligator gumbo and crawfish etouffee from the kitchen--and nightly jazz from a changing roll call of artists. 4. Harlem Tea Room, 1793A Madison Ave., at 118th Street; (212) 348-3471, harlemtearoom.com. Twenty-two kinds of tea including fruit blends and organics at this comfy spot for nibbling cakes and sandwiches or taking in poetry readings, music events and seminars. 5. Ginger, 1400 Fifth Ave., at 116th St.; (212) 423-1111, gingerexpress.com. Healthy Chinese food? That's the word at this sleek, colorful space located in a ``green'' building. Organic and antibiotic-free ingredients light on the frying result in a baked egg roll (skip it) and sweet, fall-off-the-bone BBQ beef ribs. 6. Native, 101 W. l18th St., at Lenox Avenue; (212) 665- 2525, harlemnative.com. Ample outdoor seating makes this bright-colored, 5-year-old eatery a fair-weather find for eclectic fare from a BLT salad to Moroccan fried chicken with collard greens and walnut sauce. 7. Settepani, 196 Lenox Ave., at 120th Street; (917) 492- 4806. This 5-year-old offshoot of a Westchester bakery chainlet has become an epicenter for pastries, sandwiches, salads and pasta, especially when a jazz band riffs outside. 8. Emperor's Roe, 200 Lenox Ave., at 120th St.; (212) 866- 3700, emperorsroe.com. Caviar and Harlem together as never before at this mail- order shop which has just added a shiny new tasting bar and dining area for fish eggs, smoked salmon and bubbly. 9. Society Coffee & Juice, 2104 Frederick Douglass Blvd., between 113th & 114th; (212) 222-3323, societycoffee.com. Airy, laptop-friendly lounge for java, wine, and ``passion and cream'' smoothies to wash down waffles, fondue and thin- crust pizza. 10. Melba's, 300 W. 114th, at Frederick Douglass Blvd.; (212) 864-7777, melbasrestaurant.com. This welcoming, woody bistro gives comfort food a tweak by filling spring rolls with yellow rice, black-eyed peas and collards. 11. Harlem Vintage, 2235 Frederick Douglass Blvd., at 121st Street; (212) 866-9463, harlemvintage.com. A $10 bottle of sauvignon blanc is just as easy to come by as a $90 Brunello di Montalcino from their ``winemaker of color'' selection at this chic shop. 12. Pier 2110 Seafood Restaurant, 2110 Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd., between 125th and 126th streets; (212) 280-4737, pier2110.com. This spanking-new seafood place with a raw bar and lounge just opened next to the new

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate former Congressman and Mayor-Elect Ron Dellums as he makes a political comeback at age 70 in winning the mayoral election in the city of Oakland, California. I submit to the Record an article written by Dan Rasmussen from the June 20, 2006 edition of Roll Call Politics entitled ``Dellums: Comeback ``Kid'' is 70.'' While this article references the effort mounted by 8000 people who signed a ``Draft Ron Dellums'' petition to convince him to run for mayor, it also highlights Mr. Dellums' stellar 27-year Congressional career. Ron Dellums' celebrity as a powerful representative has not waned as evidenced during a recent speech at a local celebration when the crowd spontaneously started chanting, ``Run Ron, Run.'' Their actions spoke volumes of the sentiment felt by the group who voted Ron Dellums into office and back into the political arena. Dellums, the first black elected to Congress from Northern California, has continued a perfect electoral streak: He has not lost an election since he first won a seat on the Berkeley City Council in 1967. Ron Dellums has a plan to make Oakland, California the 21st Century Model City. He is committed to working with the citizens and local organizations to solve the city's problems as they transform Oakland into a great municipality. I am sure that much will be accomplished through his leadership. I enter the article ``Dellums: Comeback ``Kid'' is 70'' into the Record in recognition of Ron Dellums' strength, fortitude, longevity, and commitment to fairness and positive change. I congratulate Ron Dellums on his election to mayor of Oakland, California and wish him much success in the future. [From Roll Call, June 20, 2006] Dellums: Comeback `Kid' Is 70 (By Dan Rasmussen) At 70 years old, Ron Dellums is making a political comeback. Seven years after he abruptly ended his 27-year Congressional career, Dellums, after almost two weeks of uncertainty, has won election as the new mayor of Oakland, Calif. Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, Dellums' closest opponent in the June 6 nonpartisan election, conceded defeat on Saturday. The announcement came after two tense weeks as the Alameda County Registrar of Voters finished counting paper ballots and found that Dellums had won the majority of the vote, avoiding a runoff by a mere 155 votes. It continued Dellums' perfect electoral streak: He hasn't lost an election since he first won a seat on the Berkeley City Council in 1967. Dellums is now slated to take office on Jan. 1, 2007. He'll replace another veteran political warrior, former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who, at age 69, is waging a battle to become the Golden State's next attorney general. Over nearly three decades in the House, Dellums championed many liberal causes--opposing the Vietnam War, U.S. nuclear proliferation and President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy-- while leading the fight in Congress against South African apartheid. His liberal views earned him a place on former President Richard Nixon's ``enemies list.'' But he briefly served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, losing the gavel after Democrats lost control of the House in 1994. Generations of California political activists, as well as several prominent black leaders, rallied behind Dellums' mayoral campaign. ``The election of former Congressman Ron Dellums as Oakland's mayor marks the revival of a black-progressive- labor coalition that many thought was on its last legs,'' wrote San Francisco Chronicle columnists Philip Matier and Andrew Ross, declaring the election a ``sea of change in Oakland politics.'' Dellums, the first black elected to Congress from Northern California, was not planning to run for mayor. But he changed his mind after 8,000 people signed a ``Draft Ron Dellums'' petition to convince him to run. The key moment, his friends and supporters say, was when he was giving a speech at a local urban renewal celebration and the crowd spontaneously started chanting, ``Run, Ron, run.'' Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), an 11-year staff member and former intern for Dellums, said she was in the airport listening to the speech on her mobile phone and realized at that moment that Dellums would run. ``He was like a jazz musician, going in and out and you didn't know where he was going to go,'' she said. ``Then there was a moment when there was a crescendo in the musical, and I thought, `He's going to do it.' '' Now, Dellums is hoping he can help Oakland make a comeback similar to his own--the city in recent years has been plagued with crime and violence. ``The other candidates were touting their experience with the nuts and bolts of a city, but not moving things forward,'' said Dellums spokesman Mike Healy. ``Ron is blending the nuts and bolts with a vision of a model city.'' Dellums, who during his years in Congress earned a reputation as a deal maker despite his far-left ideology, wants to make Oakland a model for urban renewal: combating crime with community policing, providing alternatives for young people, working to improve health care and encouraging corporations to use green technologies. ``Ron is going to make Oakland a shining light in a sea of real desperation,'' Lee said. ``I'm excited for the city of Oakland. Ron's involved young people and gotten them to care about the city's future.'' Despite his age, Lee said Dellums really has connected with Oakland's youths. ``You should see him with the young people. It's a young people's campaign run by young people with Ron at the head,'' she said. ``He's an eager, energetic, healthy, wise man.'' In taking office, Dellums will be working with a few familiar faces from his old Congressional staff. Not only is Lee filling his old spot in Congress, but Sandre Swanson, Dellums' district director and senior policy adviser for 25 years, won the Democratic primary this month for California's 16th Assembly district, and Keith Carson, another former aide, is now the president of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. ``There's a quiet storm taking place,'' Lee said.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article by Anthony Ramirez, titled ``A Gift Shop in Harlem Finds Customers for Memorabilia of Racist America,'' published in the July 5, 2006 edition of the New York Times. Ramirez interviewed Mrs. Mary Taylor and Ms. Glenda Taylor, owners of a Harlem shop that sells collectibles from the Jim Crow era. While some (Black) residents find it offensive to see the display of the white robe of the Ku Klux Klan, others are as driven to collect these reminders out of a `lest-we- forget' impulse. Ms. Taylor said that the main reason that blacks collect objectionable objects is that they love and hate the item at the same time. They are a symbol of dehumanization of the African Americans through caricature that justified their political, social and economic oppression. This stereotyping of African-Americans perpetuated the belief that Blacks were unfit to be first-class citizens. At the same time, these ``contemptible collectibles'' are emblems of the civil rights movement and evidence of how much change has occurred and the positive changes that we take great pride in. The Taylors liken their shop to a time machine. Older black customers, prompted by the memorabilia, like to reminisce about the times gone by. As the elder Ms. Taylor said, if there is a shop like this, it should be in Harlem. I concur. These objects represent a painful period of our history. But they also symbolize the period when we rose up to claim our fundamental rights as human beings. I acknowledge that it is an ugly part of our heritage, but it should not be hidden away. It serves as a reminder of the era of Jim Crow and a warning that we should never forget the negative consequences of racism. David Pilgrim, who is Black, argues that these ``contemptible collectibles'' either belong in a museum or in a garbage can, and not in stores. He runs a temporary museum with 5,000 racist objects and is trying to raise funds to establish a permanent Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia. The Taylors would like to establish a museum as well, but they too lack the funding. Mr. Speaker, I bring this effort to preserve this history to the attention of my colleagues and to nongovernmental organization who might be interested in the creation of a museum display the momentos of the Jim Crow era and to serve as a concrete reminder to the Congress of the perils of exclusionary politics. A Gift Shop in Harlem Finds Customers for the Memorabilia of Racist America (By Anthony Ramirez) The day Glenda Taylor placed the white hood and white robe of the Ku Klux Klan in the window of her Harlem shop was one to remember. At the foot of the Klan gown was an 1868 issue of Harper's Weekly depicting a dead black man, with the caption ``One Vote Less.'' Passers-by of all races stopped, stunned, in front of her memorabilia shop, Aunt Meriam's, on West 125th Street, Ms. Taylor said. One black woman dispatched her 10-year-old daughter into the shop to confront Ms. Taylor, 50, who is black. The girl, Ms. Taylor recalled, said something like, ``How could you?'' Ms. Taylor and her mother, Mary Taylor, sell all manner of black memorabilia, including advertisements for the Cotton Club and playbills for a Broadway musical starring Sammy Davis, Jr. But the Taylors and dealers like them also sell collectibles from the Jim Crow era--cookie jars, coin banks, matchbook covers, fruit-box labels, ashtrays, postcards, sheet music, just to name a few items--that portray blacks in grotesquely racist ways. Little boys eat watermelon. Men steal chickens. Women happily scrub and clean. While selling such items in the heart of America's most famous black neighborhood might seem offensive, dealers say that blacks rather than whites tend to be the ones collecting the most repellent objects. ``Why do some Jews collect Holocaust material?'' asked Wyatt Houston Day of the Swann Galleries in Manhattan, who organizes an annual auction of African-Americana. ``Any people who endure a Holocaust tend to collect, out of a lest- we-forget impulse. It is very much akin to what happened to blacks, and the objects are just as vile.'' With the civil rights movement, many whites became ashamed to keep their own racially caricatured bric-a-brac, or that of their parents and grandparents. The rise of the Internet caused prices to fall as attics and cupboards emptied and glutted the market on eBay and Yahoo auction sites. An especially prized type of cookie jar--the McCoy mammy jar-- once sold for as much as $600; it now sells for as little as $50. ``The main reason that black people collect'' objectionable objects, Glenda Taylor said, is ``that they love that item and hate that item at the same time.'' She added, ``It's like the `n' word. African-Americans are very good at turning a painful thing into something else.'' For David Pilgrim, a sociology professor at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Mich., however, the issue is starker. ``This is the ugly intersection of money and race,'' he said. Mr. Pilgrim, who is black, runs a temporary museum, with 5,000 racist objects. Stores, he argued, are not the proper surroundings for a thoughtful discussion of what he calls ``contemptible collectibles.'' He is trying to raise money to establish a permanent Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia (www.ferris.edu/jimcrow). ``To me,'' said Mr. Pilgrim, whose own collection makes up nearly half of the temporary museum's inventory, ``this stuff is garbage. It belongs either in a museum or a garbage can.'' Most historians date the Jim Crow era from 1877, when the federal occupation of the South ended, to 1965, when the Civil Rights Act guaranteeing basic rights for black Americans was passed. Jim Crow was an 1820's musical routine performed by white men in blackface, and the term became a synonym for discrimination and segregation. Jim Crow laws passed by Southern legislatures were a way for whites to roll back black gains after the Civil War. But Mr. Day of the Swann Galleries said that derogatory objects were made in every state, including New York. ``It is very much blacks through white eyes, not a region's eyes,'' he said. Mary Taylor, 68, remembers growing up with mammy dolls and other racially stereotyped objects in Hallandale, Fla., near Fort Lauderdale. ``We resented this stuff,'' said Ms. Taylor, a former administrator at Medgar Evers College. ``It depicted us as ugly.'' She added that blacks now looked at it differently. ``We look at ourselves differently. A lot of black people don't have that inferiority complex anymore.'' The Taylors scour garage sales, lawn sales, auctions, flea markets and estate sales in upstate New York, Pennsylvania and Florida for items. ``The smaller the town, the better,'' because they tend to have more of the smaller auctions and estate sales, where prices are still low, the elder Ms. Taylor said. Glenda Taylor, a former administrator for nonprofit education groups, said she got the 1920's Klan robe from ``a white collector who got it from an estate sale from someone's attic,'' she said. The Taylors later sold the hood and robe for $1,500 to a collector in Washington State. The younger Ms. Taylor likens her shop, named after a favorite aunt, to a time machine. Older black customers, prompted by the memorabilia, like to reminisce, she said. A black man in his 60's, looking at a ``For Colored Only'' reproduction in the shop, remembered the time when as a college student he had lunch in a Louisiana coffee shop. As he left, the white owner broke every dish he had used. The next day, the black man, a drum major at nearby Grambling State University, brought the entire football team--all blacks--for lunch. They watched in satisfaction as the shaken white owner broke dozens of his dishes. ``If any type of shop like this should be, it should be here in Harlem,'' the elder Ms. Taylor said. ``There should be a black museum. I would prefer that, if we had the money.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly outstanding woman, Ms. Norma Becker. A teacher, civil rights activist, and promoter of peace, Norma touched the lives of everyone who came in contact with her. On June 17, 2006, at the age of 76, we lost Ms. Becker to lung cancer. Norma Becker started out her tremendous career as a schoolteacher in New York City. However, she soon moved to the South to teach, after hearing about Birmingham, AL, Sheriff ``Bull'' Connor's use of dogs against civil rights protesters. During that time, Norma could not help but feel the growing anti-Vietnam war sentiment that surrounded her. But instead of idly watching others, Ms. Becker took some of the biggest steps a single person could. She helped to start the Peace Parade Committee, a peace protesting movement in New York City. Norma's efforts did not die with the Vietnam war, but rather her energy and intensity rose. In 1977, she helped create the Mobilization for Survival, which helped to bridge the broad antiwar movement with the intensifying anti-nuclear power sentiment. However, Norma's favorite endeavor was the War Resisters League, of which she served as chairwoman from 1977 to 1983. Staff members of the league have praised Ms. Becker for her outstanding leadership. Others commended her always present energy. She had an innate ability to work well with everyone. Peace activists across the country are devastated by this loss. But Norma's spirit remains with us and encourages us to continue the fight for peace. I enter into the Record with pleasure a piece by the War Resisters League as a reminder of the tremendous impact Norma Becker has had on our country. It is critical that we keep her memory alive so that many generations to come will know who Ms. Becker was as well as all the great things she accomplished. She set an example that we should all be proud to mimic. Antiwar Leader Norma Becker Dies Norma Becker, teacher, civil rights activist, and towering figure of the peace movement during the Vietnam War, died of lung cancer in her New York City home June 17. She was 76. A founder of the Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee, which drew tens of thousands to protest the Vietnam War, and a founder of the Mobilization for Survival coalition, she was crucial to the antiwar movement. She served as chair of the pacifist War Resisters League from 1977 to 1983. ``One of the truly great has passed,'' said longtime War Resisters League staffer David McReynolds on hearing of her death. ``As much as any, and more than most, she provided leadership in hard times and for the long and horrific years of [the Vietnam] conflict.'' Becker was a New York City schoolteacher in 1963, when, as she said later, she was ``recruited into the civil rights movement by Sheriff `Bull' Connor of Birmingham [AL].'' Appalled by media accounts of Connor's use of dogs to subdue civil rights demonstrators, Becker went South to teach in the summer Freedom Schools. Over the next couple of years, Becker--and the burgeoning movement against the war in Vietnam--found that she was as gifted an organizer as she was a teacher. In 1965, she helped to start the Peace Parade Committee, which organized massive antiwar protests in New York City. Wendy Schwartz, a younger WRL activist who came to the antiwar movement during those years, adds, ``It was Norma's energy, intelligence, and charm that helped make those demonstrations so large and so peaceful. She worked as well with the disparate peace movement factions as she did with the police.'' In 1977, after the Vietnam War had ended, Becker helped create the Mobilization for Survival, which linked the emerging movement against nuclear power to opponents of nuclear weapons and the wider antiwar movement. But whatever other organizations she worked with, Becker also remained involved with the War Resisters League. Only a week before she died, at the annual WRL dinner, the organization paid tribute to Becker's profound influence on the struggle for peace. WRL and peace activists across the country mourn her loss and send condolences to her daughter and son-in-law, Diane and Stephen Tosh, her daughter-in-law Anita Becker, and her four grandchildren, Sarah, Nicholas, and Katrina Tosh and Alicia Becker.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a crucial challenge that our generation will face. In the June 27, 2006 edition of the Washington Post, an opinion editorial titled, ``Open the Door to Curing Alzheimer's'' by Robert Essner describes the urgency that exists in declaring research on Alzheimer's disease as a top priority for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In the meantime, Alzheimer's has been accepted as an inevitable phase of aging. However, this needn't be the case because with enough research, more successful treatment can be discovered, and this research can easily deliver a cure. However, it is not only the mere personal and emotional burden caused by this degenerative disease that should be of concern to all of us as legislators. This disease will also cause a serious economic drain on our funds. With the baby-boomer generation quickly approaching as a risk group for Alzheimer's, it is estimated that this disease will claim 1 in every 10 people of this sizeable population; that is, about 14 million baby-boomer elders will have Alzheimer's. Essner estimates that with such an immense population of Alzheimer's patients, the costs of care for this disease will ``drain--if not bankrupt'' the federal and state health care budgets. Given these approximations, a vast majority of us are at risk for either becoming Alzheimer's patients, caring for one in our immediate family, or at least know a patient in our extended family. The article emphasizes how costly Alzheimer's truly is. Today, a whopping one third of all of Medicare funds are directed towards care for Alzheimer's patients. Last year alone, $91 billion in Medicare dollars was spent on those suffering from this disease. Furthermore, Alzheimer's incurs $19,000 a year in ``out-of-pocket'' costs for the families of patients. Therefore, it is crucial that entities from the science, regulatory, and industry fields join forces to work as quickly as possible to thwart this disease and the imminent epidemic that Alzheimer's is bound to cause. If not enough financial support is provided for research and a cure for this possibly avoidable illness, we will continue to risk delaying the discovery of an effective treatment for Alzheimer's and this will potentially adversely impact on millions and millions of people. Essner says it best when he asserts, ``we could make my generation the last to dread Alzheimer's,'' and I believe this is a matter of obligation, not option. Open the Door to Curing Alzheimer's--Why This Research Must Become an Urgent Priority (By Robert Essner) June 27, 2006.--America is getting serious about preparing for the possibility of an outbreak of avian flu. Would that it could muster the same sense of urgency for a disease that is already here and is certain to become epidemic. The disease is Alzheimer's. It will claim one in 10 baby boomers, create a personal and fiscal nightmare for their families, and drain--if not bankrupt--state and federal health-care budgets. Medicare now pays one-third of all its health-care funds for some 4.5 million Alzheimer's patients. Are we ready for three times that number? Alzheimer's doesn't have to be an inevitable part of aging. It is a disease for which research can find a cure, or at least a more effective treatment. In that way, it could be like HIV-AIDS--a disease that, for most sufferers, went from a lethal diagnosis to a treatable chronic condition within six years of its discovery. One breakthrough AIDS drug rapidly led to another, because we mobilized pandemic- strength muscle against it. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration created review and approval processes that helped new therapies for AIDS reach people who needed them years ahead of what would have otherwise been possible. The FDA now needs to give the same priority status to drugs for Alzheimer's as it has for AIDS and cancer treatments. And, the federal government needs to designate Alzheimer's as a No. 1 research priority. If we don't do these things, the projections are staggering. Within the next five years, nearly a half-million new Alzheimer's cases will be diagnosed annually, as 78 million baby boomers reach age 65. Given those numbers, most of us will either become an Alzheimer's patient, care for one in our home or know a patient in our extended family. By robbing victims of memory, Alzheimer's strips away individuality, dignity and independence. Alzheimer's is expensive. It requires $19,000 a year in out-of-pocket costs for each caregiver family. Last year Medicare spent $91 billion for Alzheimer's. That figure will nearly double in just four years--and keep soaring as 14 million cases are diagnosed in boomers' lifetimes. Within the pharmaceutical industry, there are 28 Alzheimer's compounds in development. But progress on all fronts is unconscionably slow considering the looming shadow of this epidemic. And, given the complexity of the disease, no single research organization has the resources to research all its facets as quickly as we must. At Wyeth alone, we've committed hundreds of millions of dollars to this research. We are moving in a promising direction by testing eight innovative approaches. Right now no one can say that any one of them will work. But we believe that, through taking multiple ``shots on goal'' in our research labs, a treatment can be found. In October 2001 Wyeth started its Alzheimer's research program with a vaccine approach designed to stimulate the body to stop the buildup of beta-amyloid plaque in the brain--thought to be a critical part of the disease process. While that initial effort proved unsuccessful, it did not deter us from moving ahead with another vaccine approach. This new vaccine program is in the clinic. Furthest along in development at Wyeth is a pill--a potent serotonin receptor antagonist that may enhance cognition in moderate cases and significantly enhance the quality of life. Another promising approach is an antibody directed against beta-amyloid. By removing these plaques, we hope to stop the disease from progressing. But it is imperative for industry, scientists and regulators to work together to help us reach our goal even faster. We need a sense of urgency, a commitment to collaboration that will lead to a concerted, focused effort to prevent this impending epidemic. A TV journalist who cares for a husband diagnosed with the disease wrote in a recent issue of the scientific journal Alzheimer's & Dementia: ``Right now the majority of Alzheimer's victims and their caregivers are our parents. Their plight is our future. . . . We are desperately in need of access to new therapies instead of being left with only agonizing decisions.'' For every month we hesitate, we will find ourselves spending down the nation's health-care budget to care for the demise of millions of people. We should be preparing to cure them. We could make my generation the last to dread Alzheimer's. It is time to accelerate the pace of our efforts and take the battle to a level on par with our hope.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with the disappointing ending of the quest for the World Cup through a loss to Ghana last week, I find it appropriate to bring to the attention of Congress an article written by David Brooks, a columnist with the New York Times, entitled ``Our World Cup Edge.'' The article discusses our country's apparent disadvantage in skill and experience in this worldwide soccer competition, but touts the American university system, which produces most of the players on the U.S. team, as being the best. While the U.S. team unfortunately was eliminated in the first round of the competition, our team can boast having the most college graduates. American athletes go to college to foster their athletic abilities, whereas Europeans are removed from school at a young age and placed in specialized training programs. The article maintains that the higher level of education American athletes receive helps to boost our economy. American universities greatly contribute to a sense of community. Such a phenomenon dates back to the founding of these schools as autonomous, devoid of government intervention. Such a lack of government involvement allows American universities to remain competitors in the ideas market. By contrast, the European university system is controlled by the government and is therefore not very competitive. European governments encourage equality amongst their universities. American universities are at the top. As Mr. Brooks cites, not only have our schools fostered strong sports programs, but they also build camaraderie through extracurricular activities. American universities also lead to business and cultural centers, while the European system does not have nearly as large an effect. With globalization, American universities have become increasingly more desirable, further benefiting our society. I commend Mr. Brooks' analysis of the importance and success of our American universities. However, I would like to push Congress even further in identifying the challenge presented by the need to produce more engineers and scientists in today's increasingly competitive technological age. Our country has done an admirable job in ensuring our universities are the best, but we must continue working to keep up with technology by educating our students in the scientific fields. I thank Mr. Brooks for his thorough comparison of university systems. I therefore submit for the Record Mr. Brooks' column in the June 22nd issue of the New York Times. [From the New York Times, June 22, 2006] Our World Cup Edge (By David Brooks) Going into today's World Cup match against Ghana, no American player has managed to put a ball into the back of the net, but the U.S. team does lead the world in one vital category: college degrees. Most of the American players attended college. Eddie Pope went to the University of North Carolina, Kasey Keller attended the University of Portland and Marcus Hahnemann went to Seattle Pacific. Many of the elite players from the rest of the world, on the other hand, were pulled from regular schools at early ages and sent to professional training academies. Among those sharp-elbowed, hypercompetitive Europeans, for example, Zinedine Zidane was playing for A.S. Cannes by age 16, Luis Figo was playing for Sporting Lisbon at 17, and David Beckham attended Tottenham Hotspur's academy and signed with Manchester United as a trainee at 16. The difference in preparation is probably bad for America's World Cup prospects, but it's good for America's economic and political prospects. That's because the difference in soccer training is part of a bigger phenomenon. American universities play a much broader social role than do universities elsewhere around the world. They not only serve as the training grounds for professional athletes, unthinkable in most other nations, they also contribute more to the cultures and economies around them. The American university system was born with expansionist genes. As early Americans spread out across the frontier, they created not only new religious sects, but new colleges, too. The Dartmouth College case of 1819 restricted government's efforts to interfere in higher education. As the centuries rolled on, government did more to finance higher education, starting with the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862, but the basic autonomy of colleges and universities was preserved. They remained, and remain, spirited competitors in the marketplace of ideas, status, talent and donations. The European system, by contrast, is state-dominated and uncompetitive. During the 19th century, governments in Spain, France and Germany abolished the universities' medieval privileges of independence. Governments took over funding and control, and imposed radical egalitarian agendas. Universities could not select students on merit, and faculty members became civil servants. The upshot is that the competitive American universities not only became the best in the world--8 out of the top 10 universities are American--they also remained ambitious and dynamic. They are much more responsive to community needs. Not only have they created ambitious sports programs to build character among students and a sense of solidarity across the community, they also offer a range of extracurricular activities and student counseling services unmatched anywhere else. While the arts and letters faculties are sometimes politically cloistered, the rest of the university programs are integrated into society, performing an array of social functions. They serve as business incubation centers (go to Palo Alto). With their cultural and arts programs, they serve as retiree magnets (go to Charlottesville). With their football teams, they bind communities and break down social distinctions (people in Alabama are fiercely loyal to the Crimson Tide, even though most have not actually attended the university). State-dominated European universities, by contrast, cast much smaller shadows. A Centre for European Reform report noted ``a drab uniformity'' across the systems. Talented professors leave. Funding lags. Antibusiness snobbery limits entrepreneurial activity. Research suffers. In the first half of the 20th century, 73 percent of Nobel laureates were based in Europe. Between 1995 and 2004, 19 percent were. The two systems offer a textbook lesson in how to and how not to use government. In one system, the state supports local autonomy and private creativity. In the other, the state tries to equalize, but merely ends up centralizing and stultifying. This contrast might be worth dwelling upon as we contemplate health care reform, K-12 education reform and anything else government might touch. The dynamic American university system is now undergoing yet another revolution--globalization. More foreign students are coming to the U.S., and more want to stay after they get their degrees. This is bound to be great for American society. It will probably do almost nothing for our future World Cup prospects.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly remarkable man, Mr. Louis B. Sohn passionate supporter of the United Nations, Mr. Sohn has made a significant mark on both our country and the world. On June 7 at his home in Falls Church, Virginia, we lost Mr. Sohn to complications of a stroke. He was 92 years old. Born March 1, 1914, right at the start of World War I, in Lwow, Poland, Louis showed tremendous passion right from the beginning. He earned both his undergraduate and law degrees from John Casimir University. A mere two weeks before the invasion of Poland during World War II, a Harvard law professor who had been impressed by Mr. Sohn's treatises, invited him to be a research fellow at Harvard School of Law. Soon after his arrival, he met Betty Mayo, who became his wife and is now his only survivor. Serving as an assistant to Manley O. Hudson, a Harvard Law professor and a judge on the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague, Mr. Sohn traveled to San Francisco for the United Nations charter conference. With his help, the International Court of Justice was established. Then when Mr. Hudson retired as the Bemis Professor of International Law at Harvard, Louis Sohn was awarded the honor. Professor Sohn was well known for his book ``World Peace Through World Law,'' which he co-authored with Grenville Clark, a prominent Wall Street attorney. Their book delved into various proposals to transform the U.N. into a world government. Throughout his 50 year career in the field of law, which culminated at the University of Georgia School of Law, Professor Sohn was a champion for disarmament and the creation of a permanent U.N. peace force. He hoped that through such a peace force, the U.N. could use their military budget alternatively to relieve poverty. Mr. Sohn commendably spent his life working hard for a more powerful United Nations. I enter into the Record an article published in the New York Times on June 23, 2006 titled ``Louis B. Sohn, Passionate Supporter of the U.N., Dies at 92.'' The article provides a more in depth commentary of Professor Sohn's esteemed accomplishments. He is a truly remarkable man who has left an everlasting imprint on society. We must keep his legacy alive and continue to fight for disarmament and human rights. [From the New York Times, June 23, 2006] Louis B. Sohn, Passionate Supporter of the U.N., Dies at 92 (By Dennis Hevesi) Louis B. Sohn, a professor of international law who helped draft parts of the United Nations Charter in 1945 and was a leader in subsequent efforts to turn the United Nations into a true world government, died on June 7 at his home in Falls Church, Va. He was 92. The cause was complications of a stroke, said Paige Otwell, a friend. For nearly 50 years, while at the Harvard School of Law and then the University of Georgia School of Law, Professor Sohn served on commissions and organized conferences around the world, championing disarmament, human rights and increased powers for the United Nations. He called for the creation of a permanent United Nations peace force. He wanted nations with nuclear arsenals to hand them over to the United Nations and use their military budgets for relieving poverty. He campaigned to have the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights accepted as a legally binding document, rather than a statement of principles. In 1968, the General Assembly adopted that premise. Those proposals and others were seized upon by American isolationists to attack the United Nations. Professor Sohn called them ``the minimum requirements for peace, not a utopian scheme for a perfect world community.'' Louis Bruno Sohn was born on March 1, 1914, in what was then Lwow, now Lviv, then part of Poland but now in Ukraine. He graduated from John Casimir University there and then earned a law degree in 1939. Professor Sohn's parents, Isaak and Fredericka Sohn, were doctors. His father, taken to an internment camp after the invasion of Poland, barely survived World War II. His mother died of pneumonia that first winter. Two weeks before the invasion, at the invitation of a Harvard law professor who read one of his legal treatises, Professor Sohn had boarded a ship to the United States to become a research fellow. In 1941, he married Betty Mayo, a Radcliffe student; she is his only survivor. At Harvard, he became an assistant to Manley O. Hudson, a judge on the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague, which was established by the League of Nations but suspended during the war. Judge Hudson was the Bemis Professor of International Law at Harvard. Professor Sohn succeeded to the Bemis chair in 1961 and held it until 1981. In the summer of 1945, Judge Hudson and his assistant traveled to San Francisco for the United Nations charter conference. There, they helped draft the statute establishing the International Court of Justice, or World Court, as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. In an interview in 1977, Professor Sohn recalled how Harvard had asked him to teach a course on the United Nations after his return from the charter conference, ``because nobody else would teach anything so crazy.'' In 1958, Professor Sohn was a co-author, with Grenville Clark, of ``World Peace Through World Law'' (Harvard University Press), which examined proposals to transform the United Nations into a world government. The book envisioned a time when the United Nations budget, then $55 million, would surpass $35 billion, with $25 billion set aside to mitigate ``the worst economic disparities between nations.'' The authors also called for the elimination of all armaments in 12 years and envisioned that the United Nations would then have a monopoly on military force and would maintain a peace force of 400,000 soldiers. In 1967, Professor Sohn wrote a report for a committee of international law experts, urging the United Nations to study the threat to individual freedom posed by computers, eavesdropping devices and genetic engineering. The report, submitted to the United Nations as part of the 20th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, said the concept of national data banks ``raises the specter of a government which knows all.'' ``Arrangements have to be devised,'' it said, ``to control the precious few who run the machines, and on whose wisdom and impartiality the fate of mankind may depend.'' In 1977, Professor Sohn was a delegate to a United Nations- sponsored conference that drafted the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the General Assembly adopted in 1982. In 1981, after 35 years at Harvard, Professor Sohn accepted an invitation from Dean Rusk, who had been secretary of state under President John F. Kennedy, to join him in teaching international law at the University of Georgia.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an article titled Changing Face of Queens: From Small Asian Shops to High-End Stores from the June 28 edition of the New York Times. The article, by Alison Gregor, describes the economic development of Flushing and the large- scale mixed use condominiums that are being built in the area. It is evident that ethnic tradition and culture are the driving force behind these developments. There is a huge Asian population in Flushing that has disposable income that is currently shopping in Manhattan or even in Manhasset on Long Island. The retail potential of the neighborhood has attracted commercial developers and big-name businesses. The presence of the thriving immigrant community is the lure that is drawing the developers and spurring the revival of the desolate West Flushing neighborhood. In fact, Queens Crossing, a 12-story office condominium project, is being built by Mr. Michael Lee, president and CEO of TDC Development L.L.C. and a longstanding resident. With the added convenience that Flushing has to offer, Queens Crossing is going to be a destination for shopping, food, entertainment, education, medical and business services. Queens Crossing is only the first in the line of many development projects that are going on in Flushing. The Flushing Commons, under the direction of TDC Development and the Rockefeller Development Corporation, an even more ambitious project, is expected to be completed in about four years. Lastly there is the Flushing Town Center of the Muss Development Company, the largest mixed-use development project in New York City. The United Nations has recently reported on the beneficial effects of the immigrant population to their newly adopted countries. The renewal of Flushing is a real example of such an effect, repeating what the immigrants are doing to all our New York City to improve our communities. We are experiencing a wonderful revitalization of New York City because of our traditional role as a welcoming city for the pursuit of the American dream. I wish to draw the attentions of my colleagues to the redevelopment of Flushing neighborhoods and remember the positive aspects of immigration. Changing Face of Queens: From Small Asian Shops to High-End Stores (By Alison Gregor) If you're looking for cafes serving bubble tea or herbalists offering dried lotus blossoms or purveyors of waving-cat trinkets, downtown Flushing, the city's second- biggest Chinatown and the largest urban center in Queens, has them in large quantity. But in the next few years, the area may also welcome a host of more mainstream retailers. Almost 1.3 million square feet of retail space is planned in at least three major mixed-use developments--about the same area as at the renowned Mall at Short Hills in New Jersey--and a few hundred thousand feet of office space is also being developed. The first new stores are to open by the end of this year. Flushing is already a pan-Asian enclave that is a first stop for many immigrants from China, Korea and Malaysia, among other countries. Developers are hoping it will soon be a stop for American shoppers. ``You have to make this area a destination,'' said Michael Meyer, president of TDC Development L.L.C., which is involved in two of the mixed-use projects. Mr. Meyer is relatively new to the community. But the chairman and chief executive of TDC, Michael Lee, an immigrant from Taiwan, arrived in Flushing two decades ago and has purchased a substantial portion of the area's properties. TDC is a subsidiary of the F&T Group, a real estate company. Mr. Lee owns the Flushing Mall, a longstanding collection of boutique shops and restaurants on 39th Avenue, where signs are in Chinese and Korean. He also developed the nearby Prince Center in 2003; it is a complex of ground-floor retail space, now full of restaurants, and office condominiums that netted about $500 a square foot. Office condos are fairly unusual for New York City, but the market is receptive in Flushing. ``What drives a lot of this is the whole ethnic tradition and culture; the Chinese mentality is very much an ownership mentality,'' Mr. Meyer said. Mr. Lee is building another office condominium project: Queens Crossing, a 12-story building being framed at the corner of Main Street, Flushing's main shopping artery, and 39th Avenue. It will have 190,000 square feet of office space in about 80 office condominiums, and 86,000 square feet of parking. The building has a waiting list of more than 200 businesses, Mr. Meyer claimed. ``Queens Crossing sales, on a net square footage basis, are now estimated at $750,'' he said. The development will also have about 110,000 square feet of retail space, which has not yet been leased. It will open by the end of this year. ``We're looking for mainstream retailers like bookstores and health clubs and restaurants and apparel stores,'' Mr. Meyer said. But Queens Crossing would be dwarfed by another proposed development a block away called Flushing Commons, which envisions having a total of almost two million square feet. Flushing Commons is expected to be completed in about four years on the site of a municipal parking lot that now has space for about 1,100 vehicles. That development, with 500 residential units and about 350,000 square feet of retail space, will aim to attract more upscale retailers than currently operate in Flushing. While the city has given approval to the general concept of this project, it is still going through public hearings. Thus far, the developers of Flushing Commons--Mr. Lee and a partner, the Rockefeller Development Corporation--envision that much of the retail space will be used by a multiscreen cinema, a national-chain bookstore and a supermarket like Whole Foods, along with some smaller stores. Roughly 15,000 square feet of space dedicated to office condominiums is being envisioned for professionals like doctors and lawyers. Flushing Commons will also include a 200-room hotel, where developers would like to see a Westin, Mr. Meyer said. Alan L. Stein, a senior vice president at Rockefeller, said the developers, which won a bid to develop the city-owned property a year ago, had promised not to introduce any ``big box'' stores into the complex. Robin Abrams, an executive vice president of the Lansco Corporation, a commercial real estate brokerage firm that consulted on the project, said she envisioned retailers like Scoop, Cole Haan and Sephora setting up shop in the development. Stores like those ``are all over Manhattan, but don't have a presence in Flushing,'' Ms. Abrams said. ``Frankly, the thought is there's a huge Asian population that has disposable income that is currently shopping in Manhattan or even in Manhasset'' on Long Island. Mr. Meyer said that some retailers might be intimidated by the ethnic nature of the market, but that the developers believed they could convince them that they had nothing to fear. Also, retailers that already have outlets in Asia would be comfortable in downtown Flushing, said Josh Segal, owner of the Segal Realty Group, a commercial real estate firm that also consulted on Flushing Commons. ``It's like Shanghai on the Flushing River,'' he said. Already going in alongside the Flushing River is one of the largest mixed-use developments. The Muss Development Company is building 1,000 residential units in several towers on a l4-acre site. The $800 million project will also include an 800,000 square- foot shopping center anchored by national retailers. The first phase of the project will not be completed until 2008 at the earliest, said Jim Jarosik, a senior vice president at Muss. Flushing residents are watching the explosion of commercial development closely. Real estate professionals say Home Depot and Target are rumored to be anchor tenants at the Muss project, which is called Flushing Town Center, although the developer would not identify the stores it was negotiating with. Some Flushing residents say they believe that if retailers of that sort go into the development, there may be traffic backups along Roosevelt Avenue, said Chuck Apelian, vice chairman of Community Board 7, which represents downtown Flushing. Downtown Flushing, a transportation hub that has 24 bus lines and the terminus of the No. 7 subway, is an area that is used by nearly 100,000 commuters daily, according to the Downtown Flushing Transit Hub Business Improvement District, and has become synonymous with traffic congestion. A group called Save Our Flushing Community has formed to protest the Flushing Commons project. Others maintain that additional traffic snarls would not hurt business. Even if retail rents head far north of the $100 a square foot paid at certain locations on Main Street, the owner of Pho Vietnamese on Prince Street, Tai Ma, who has lived and worked in Flushing for 29 years, said he welcomed the new commercial development. ``The rent here is going high anyway,'' he said. ``If you want to develop Flushing, you need something big.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Anne Forrester, a tireless advocate who gave her life so that others could understand and appreciate the freedoms we exercise daily in America. Ambassador Anne Forrester, who served our Nation as head of the office of Ambassador Andrew Young in the Department of State and then as Ambassador to Mali during the administration of Jimmy Carter, succumbed to pancreatic cancer on June 23, 2006 at her home in New York City. She was memorialized at a service at the National Cathedral in Washington on Saturday, July 8, 2006. A woman of sound moral character and grace, Anne Forrester lived for others and irreversibly changed everyone she met. Born in Philadelphia in 1941, to a widowed social worker in a country very divided among race lines, Mrs. Forrester knew from experience what it felt to be denied, pushed aside and undervalued. She was a woman, a colored woman with an intellect and courage that extended beyond her small delicate frame. However, despite all of these challenges, she became a pioneer being among one of the first African American women appointed to serve as a United States Ambassador. Mrs. Forrester is noted not only as one of the first African American women appointed to ambassadorship in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter to Mali but for her contributions to the great movements of the 1960s and 1970s, the struggle for the attainment of civil rights and the resistance to the folly of our engagement in Vietnam. She channeled her displeasure with America's domestic policies to produce change in government through direct action. Later in her career, Anne became the staff director of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa. Her desire to share the hard-won freedoms gained by blacks in America with those in Africa laid the groundwork for a career of service to the people of Africa which replicated her commitment to equality and justice for Blacks in the U.S. Mrs. Forrester had a special relationship with the continent of Africa. As a young child, she vividly recalled various pleas from missionaries in her church describing a world and place she would later explain and describe in her own words and from her own personal experience. As a student in Bennington College in Vermont, Mrs. Forrester in 1962 made her first trip to Africa, traveling to Uganda with a summer cultural exchange program. She later earned her Masters Degree in African Studies from Howard University in 1968 and her Ph.D from the Union Institute & University in Cincinnati in 1975. Ambassador Forrester served as a Resident Representative of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Her work for the U.N. was exemplary, exhibiting the true qualities of a humble yet determined civil servant. As an official observer for the U.N., Mrs. Forrester traveled abroad to a variety of locales. Also as a mother and advocate for reform and peace, Mrs. Forrester was a doer whose work in the U.N.'s regional bureau for Africa under Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, now President of Liberia and as a guest scholar at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars garnered a lot of praise and attention. We all mourn the loss of such a true pioneer, who took positions and voiced her opinion at times when voices of opposition were not welcomed. What I hope people will gain from her life is that anything is truly possible and that you can aspire to achieve no matter how dire the situation or circumstances. Her selfless acts should be remembered and praised. I enter into the Congressional Record to illustrate to my colleagues Anne's special qualities the obituary published in the Post on July 3, 2006 which provides an insight into Anne Forrester's humanitarian efforts and accomplishments. She has truly left her mark on our society and she will always be remembered for that. We must keep her memory alive in our hearts and minds so that generations after us will know who she was and what she did. One will not be able to speak about the progress made in the struggle of people of color during the 1960's and 1970's for civil rights and equality of opportunity in the U.S. and for self determination and freedom in Africa and the Caribbean without bringing up her name, for she has without a doubt made great contributions to both areas. [From the Washington Post, July 3, 2006] Anne Forrester, Ambassador to Mali (By Patricia Sullivan) Anne Forrester, 65, former ambassador to Mali who had an abiding professional interest in Africa and the African diaspora, died of pancreatic cancer June 23 at her home in New York City. Ms. Forrester was appointed to the ambassadorship in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and was one of the first African American women to hold the post. A scholar and activist in the 1960s, she made the transition into a position of power in government and diplomacy. ``What I represent is the generation that learned traditional values in the 1950s, was cast into turbulent changes in the 1960s, learned a new vocabulary and had to integrate the changes,'' she told The Washington Post in 1979. Ms. Forrester served as ambassador until 1981, then returned to Washington to work as staff director for the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, where she laid the groundwork for the anti-apartheid bill that passed Congress in 1986. She helped Randall Robinson as he launched the TransAfrica Forum, which lobbies on African issues. Ms. Forrester joined the United Nations staff in 1985, a decade after working as staff director for Andrew Young at the State Department, when he was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. A small, delicate woman who joked about her reputation as a forceful advocate, Ms. Forrester carried memories of segregation and civil rights fights with her into the rulebound world of diplomacy. Born in Philadelphia to a widowed social worker, she attended public schools and remembered sitting in Philadelphia's historic St. Thomas Episcopal Church, listening to the pleas for missionaries in Africa. ``Knowledge of Africa, from a positive and enriching approach, was very evident in our home,'' she said. She was bright and left home early to attend the majority- white Northfield Mount Hermon School in Massachusetts. She also graduated from Bennington College in Vermont. In 1962, she made her first trip to Africa, traveling to Uganda with a summer cultural-exchange program, Operation Crossroads Africa. She taught at her old prep school for a few years, then, seeking an experience in a majority-black environment, moved to Washington to work on a master's degree in African studies at Howard University, which she received in 1968. She met and married Marvin Holloway, and they became involved in Washington's Drum and Spear Bookstore and Press, a center of black nationalist activism. During this period, she directed the Black Student Fund; worked part time for Young, then a Democratic member of the House from Georgia; started her doctoral work that culminated in a 1975 degree from Union Institute & University in Cincinnati; was an official observer at a U.N. conference; and traveled abroad a couple of times, all while her twin girls were going through their ``terrible twos.'' She ran Young's State Department office when he was the U.N. ambassador, successfully finding her way through the labyrinths of Foggy Bottom diplomacy. After her ambassadorship and work on Capitol Hill, she became a guest scholar at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and an adjunct professor in the African studies department at Georgetown University. Her work for the U.N. Development Program took her to Lesotho and Ghana and later to Barbados and the eastern Caribbean. She worked in the U.N. regional bureau for Africa under Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, now president of Liberia. Ms. Forrester became a senior adviser to the administrator in charge of launching the U.N. Foundation and in her first year raised $20 million. Ms. Forrester retired from the United Nations in October 2001 but continued to work as senior policy adviser on Africa, Afghanistan and HIV-AIDS matters for Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Calif.) for a year. She returned to New York and continued to work as an international consultant on African and Caribbean development issues. Her marriage ended in divorce. Survivors include two daughters, Camara Holloway of New York and Kandia Holloway of Charlotte, N.C.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Stearns Amendment (#21). The amendment prohibits the Department expending any funds to fulfill Section 203--the Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a representative of one of the many multiethnic districts in New York, I am fully conscious of the need to provide bilingual assistance to our language minorities and allow all our citizens the chance to participate in the democratic process. Thus far, bilingual election assistance has facilitated voting for over 200,000 Asian Americans nationwide, and caused a 50 percent increase in the Hispanic electorate in the first decade of the adoption of this provision. The right to vote is a fundamental characteristic of a healthy democracy. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act gives opportunities to enable every American citizen to exercise their right to vote. Unfortunately, despite our laws, many minority voters face impediments to voting. The Stearns Amendment makes Section 203 ineffectual, removing oversight from states and localities who would be free to discriminate against tax-paying American citizens and impeding their right to vote. We can spend billions of dollars to spread democracy in Iraq but we are refusing funding to give our citizens the right to vote. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) objects to the cost incurred to provide bilingual election assistance. The Oversight Hearing of the Voting Rights Act: Section 203--Bilingual Election Assistance, Part II, before the Subcommittee on Constitution, under the House Judiciary committee, revealed that 90 percent of the jurisdictions reported (in a national survey) that bilingual election assistance made up only an average of 3 percent of total election costs. Forty percent of the jurisdictions reported no extra cost for bilingual election assistance, rendering any cost-related objection to implementation of Section 203 groundless. Eliminating Section 203 is the same as discriminating against our citizens based on their language capability. I urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to disenfranchise American citizens. Let us not return to the era of the Jim Crow laws. As Mr. John Lewis said, ``The arguments of the opponents of Section 203 are suspiciously similar to the arguments once employed for literacy tests to disenfranchise African American voters.'' We cannot allow a repeat of such history. The VRA, considered by many as the most successful civil rights legislation in the country, has played a vital role in integrating all our citizens in the democratic process. Instead to proposing amendments that weaken this legislation, we must work together to immediately ensure the renewal of its expiring provisions. H.R. 9, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 2006, has come out of the House Judiciary Committee with a favorable voting margin of 33-1, in a rare show of bipartisanship. Let us not delay the efforts to pass this bill that has had such an important and successful effect in safeguarding the right to vote for all our citizens.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit to the record an opinion editorial from the June 26, New York Times entitled ``Playing Politics with Iraq'' by Bob Herbert in which the columnist alleges by giving the public what it wants, an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, the Bush administration is seeking political advantage from the conflict in Iraq, making the war part of a campaign strategy. The post-war occupation of Iraq has not gone smoothly. This has had considerable influence on the approval rating of President Bush and the popularity of his policies. As such, the Bush Administration and Republican Congressional leadership seeks to turn the debate over the Iraq War in their favor. Their plan is to possibly reduce the number of troops in Iraq before this fall's Congressional elections, with possibly even bigger cuts before the 2008 elections. Yet even while the Bush Administration appears to be executing a withdrawal of a significant number of U.S. troops in the coming month its Republican allies in the Congress are relentlessly claiming that anyone who proposes a withdrawal of troops to be proponents of a ``cut and run'' appeasement. Is the President and his administration to be accused of ``cut and run''? The Bush White House and Republican Congressional leadership are playing politics with Iraq. More than 2,500 American troops who answered the call to wage war in Iraq have already perished and thousands more are struggling with coming to terms with the emotional trauma and anguish as a result of their sacrifice. They deserve better, and we owe it to them to do better. We need to move beyond partisan politics because they only serve to deviate us from our main goal--the establishment of a safe and democratic Iraq state. As a War veteran, I know from experience how sound policy can lessen the damaging effect a war like Iraq can have on the individual. I do not think the Iraq War should be part of any party's campaign strategy. Mr. Speaker I call upon the Republican Congressional Leadership to end this divisive practice of using the Iraq war for political gain or advantage. [From the New York Times, June 26, 2006] Playing Politics With Iraq (By Bob Herbert) If hell didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. We'd need a place to send the public officials who are playing politics with the lives of the men and women sent off to fight George W. Bush's calamitous war in Iraq. The administration and its allies have been mercilessly bashing Democrats who argued that the U.S. should begin developing a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. Republicans stood up on the Senate floor last week, one after another, to chant like cultists from the Karl Rove playbook: We're tough. You're not. Cut-and-run. Nyah-nyah-nyah! ``Withdrawal is not an option,'' declared the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, who sounded like an actor trying on personas that ranged from Barry Goldwater to General Patton. ``Surrender,'' said the bellicose Mr. Frist, ``is not a solution.'' Any talk about bringing home the troops, in the Senate majority leader's view, was ``dangerous, reckless and shameless.'' But then on Sunday we learned that the president's own point man in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, had fashioned the very thing that ol' blood-and-guts Frist and his C-Span brigade had ranted against: a withdrawal plan. Are Karl Rove and his liege lord, the bait-and-switch king, trying to have it both ways? You bet. And that ought to be a crime, because there are real lives at stake. The first significant cut under General Casey's plan, according to an article by Michael Gordon in yesterday's Times, would occur in September. That, of course, would be perfect timing for Republicans campaigning for reelection in November. How's that for a coincidence? As Mr. Gordon wrote: ``If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance. The first reductions would take place before this fall's Congressional elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008 presidential election.'' The general's proposal does not call for a complete withdrawal of American troops, and it makes clear that any withdrawals are contingent on progress in the war (which is going horribly at the moment) and improvements in the quality of the fledgling Iraqi government and its security forces. The one thing you can be sure of is that the administration will milk as much political advantage as it can from this vague and open-ended proposal. If the election is looking ugly for the G.O.P., a certain number of troops will find themselves waking up stateside instead of in the desert in September and October. I wonder whether Americans will ever become fed up with the loathsome politicking, the fear-mongering, the dissembling and the gruesome incompetence of this crowd. From the Bush- Rove perspective, General Casey's plan is not a serious strategic proposal. It's a straw in the political wind. How many casualties will be enough? More than 2,500 American troops who dutifully answered President Bush's call to wage war in Iraq have already perished, and thousands more are struggling in agony with bodies that have been torn or blown apart and psyches that have been permanently wounded. Has the war been worth their sacrifice? How many still have to die before we reach a consensus that we've overpaid for Mr. Bush's mad adventure? Will 5,000 American deaths be enough? Ten thousand? The killing continued unabated last week. Iraq is a sinkhole of destruction, and if Americans could see it close up, the way we saw New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, they would be stupefied. Americans need to understand that Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder of the highest magnitude. It has resulted in mind-boggling levels of bloodshed, chaos and misery in Iraq, and it certainly hasn't made the U.S. any safer. We've had enough clownish debates on the Senate floor and elsewhere. We've had enough muscle-flexing in the White House and on Capitol Hill by guys who ran and hid when they were young and their country was at war. And it's time to stop using generals and their forces under fire in the field for cheap partisan political purposes. The question that needs to be answered, honestly and urgently (and without regard to partisan politics), is how best to extricate overstretched American troops--some of them serving their third or fourth tours--from the flaming quicksand of an unwinnable war.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. In a recent speech on ``Power and Super-Power: Global Leadership in the Twenty- First Century'' at the Century Foundation and Center for American Progress in New York, on the 6th of June, Mr. Brown criticized the U.S. government for its lack of support given to the United Nations. In his speech he claims that the U.S. in the eyes of the rest of the world has ignored our commitment to the U.N., allowing divisive issues such as the Iraq War to break up a partnership which since the founding of the U.N. has mutually benefited the U.S. and the U.N. Historically, the U.N. was designed through U.S. leadership and other nations who emerged from World War II with the realization that there must be a vehicle to encourage the promotion of peace and provide collective security to all nations with the goal of promoting global values such as human rights and democracy. Today, the U.N. fields 18 peacekeeping operations around the world, from the Congo to Haiti, Sudan to Sierra Leone, Southern Lebanon to Liberia. Unfortunately, the U.N.'s ability to respond to the world's challenges is being weakened without U.S. leadership. The speech identifies several key issues that have exacerbated the tension between the U.S. and the U.N. First, The U.N. is currently renovating the dilapidated U.N. Headquarters in New York. Ironically, the government not fully supporting this project is the U.S. Also, the U.N. is undergoing specific reform. This reform comes in many forms from the creation of a new Ethics Office and a whistle-blower policy, to the establishment of a new Peacebuilding Commission and Human Rights Council. Although the U.S. championed such reform, our endorsement has provoked more suspicion than support. The U.N. will play a larger role in maintaining security around the world. No country can afford to neglect the global institutions needed to manage it. As such, the U.S. needs to be more supportive of the U.N. as a vehicle around which an international consensus can be formed to promote peace, social and economic development. America's leaders must again recognize that the U.N. matters. Ultimately, as America continues to address concerns in countries like Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, it should recognize that it needs the U.N. to provide an effective multilateral response that will have international legitimacy and support. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues in the House to encourage more open collaboration and engagement between the U.S. and the U.N. Speech by U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today on Power and Global Leadership. I often get asked to talk about leadership, but rarely about power. I wonder why. With that thought as my starting point, I am going to give what might be regarded as a rather un-U.N. speech. Some of the themes--that the United Nations is misunderstood and does much more than its critics allow--are probably not surprising. But my underlying message, which is a warning about the serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by U.S. Administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully with the U.N., is not one a sitting United Nations official would normally make to an audience like this. But I feel it is a message that urgently needs to be aired. And as someone who has spent most of his adult life in this country, only a part of it at the U.N., I hope you will take it in the spirit in which it is meant: as a sincere and constructive critique of U.S. policy towards the U.N. by a friend and admirer. Because the fact is that the prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. You will lose the U.N. one way or another. Founders' Vision Multilateral compromise has always been difficult to justify in the American political debate: too many speeches, too many constraints, too few results. Yet it was not meant to be so. The all-moral-idealism-no-power institution was the League of Nations. The U.N. was explicitly designed through U.S. leadership and the ultimate coalition of the willing, its World War II allies, as a very different creature, an antidote to the League's failure. At the U.N.'s core was to be an enforceable concept of collective security protected by the victors of that war, combined with much more practical efforts to promote global values such as human rights and democracy. Underpinning this new approach was a judgement that no President since Truman has felt able to repeat: that for the world's one super-Power--arguably more super in 1946 than 2006--managing global security and development issues through the network of a United Nations was worth the effort. Yes it meant the give and take of multilateral bargaining, but any dilution of American positions was more than made up for by the added clout of action that enjoyed global support. Today, we are coming to the end of the 10-year term of arguably the U.N.'s best-ever Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. But some of his very successes--promoting human rights and a responsibility to protect people from abuse by their own Governments; creating a new status for civil society and business at the U.N.--are either not recognized or have come under steady attacks from anti-U.N. groups. To take just one example, 10 years ago U.N. peacekeeping seemed almost moribund in the aftermath of tragic mistakes in Rwanda, Somalia and Yugoslavia. Today, the U.N. fields 18 peacekeeping operations around the world, from the Congo to Haiti, Sudan to Sierra Leone, Southern Lebanon to Liberia, with an annual cost that is at a bargain bin price compared to other U.S.-led operations. And the U.S. pays roughly one quarter of those U.N. peacekeeping costs--just over $1 billion this year. That figure should be seen in the context of estimates by both the GAO and RAND Corporation that U.N. peacekeeping, while lacking heavy armament enforcement capacity, helps to maintain peace--when there is a peace to keep--more effectively for a lot less than comparable U.S. operations. Multilateral peacekeeping is effective cost- sharing on a much lower cost business model and it works. That is as it should be and is true for many other areas the U.N. system works in, too, from humanitarian relief to health to education. Yet for many policymakers and opinion leaders in Washington, let alone the general public, the roles I have described are hardly believed or, where they are, remain discreetly underplayed. To acknowledge an America reliant on international institutions is not perceived to be good politics at home. However, inevitably a moment of truth is coming. Because even as the world's challenges are growing, the U.N.'s ability to respond is being weakened without U.S. leadership. Take the issue of human rights. When Eleanor Roosevelt took the podium at the U.N. to argue passionately for the elaboration of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world responded. Today, when the human rights machinery was renewed with the formation of a Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights, and the U.S. chose to stay on the sidelines, the loss was everybody's. I hope and believe the new Council will prove itself to be a stronger and more effective body than its predecessor. But there is no question that the U.S. decision to call for a vote in order to oppose it in the General Assembly, and then to not run for a seat after it was approved by 170 votes to 4, makes the challenge more difficult. More broadly, Americans complain about the U.N.'s bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable modern management structures and the political divisions of the General Assembly here in New York. And my response is, ``guilty on all counts''. But why? In significant part because the U.S. has not stuck with its project--its professed wish to have a strong, effective United Nations--in a systematic way. Secretary Albright and others here today have played extraordinary leadership roles in U.S.-U.N. relations, for which I salute them. But in the eyes of the rest of the world, U.S. commitment tends to ebb much more than it flows. And in recent years, the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage. As someone who deals with Washington almost daily, I know this is unfair to the very real effort all three Secretaries of State I have worked with--Secretary Albright, Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice--put into U.N. issues. And today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the U.S. is constructively engaged with the U.N. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I mean by ``stealth'' diplomacy: the U.N.'s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Exacerbating matters is the widely held perception, even among many U.S. allies, that the U.S. tends to hold on to maximalist positions when it could be finding middle ground. We can see this even on apparently non-controversial issues such as renovating the dilapidated U.N. Headquarters in New York. While an architectural landmark, the building falls dangerously short of city codes, lacks sprinklers, is filled with asbestos and is in most respects the most hazardous workplace in town. But the only Government not fully supporting the project is the U.S. Too much unchecked U.N.- bashing and stereotyping over too many years--manifest in a fear by politicians to be seen to be supporting better premises for overpaid, corrupt U.N. bureaucrats--makes even refurbishing a building a political hot potato. Making Reform Work One consequence is that, like the building itself, the vital renewal of the Organization, the updating of its mission, its governance and its management tools, is addressed only intermittently. And when the U.S. does champion the right issues like management reform, as it is currently doing, it provokes more suspicion than support. Last December, for example, largely at U.S. insistence, instead of a normal two-year budget, Member States approved only six months' worth of expenditure--a period which ends on June 30. Developing and developed countries, the latter with the U.S. at the fore, are now at loggerheads over whether sufficient reform has taken place to lift that cap, or indeed whether there should be any links between reform and the budget. Without agreement, we could face a fiscal crisis very soon. There has been a significant amount of reform over the last 18 months, from the creation of a new Ethics Office and whistle-blower policy, to the establishment of a new Peacebuilding Commission and Human Rights Council. But not enough. The unfinished management reform agenda, which the U.S. sensibly supports, is in many ways a statement of the obvious. It argues that systems and processes designed 60 years ago for an organization largely devoted to running conferences and writing reports simply don't work for today's operational U.N., which conducts multibillion-dollar peacekeeping missions, humanitarian relief operations and other complex operations all over the world. The report sets out concrete proposals for how this can be fixed while also seeking to address the broader management, oversight and accountability weaknesses highlighted by the ``oil-for-food'' programme. One day soon we must address the massive gap between the scale of world issues and the limits of the institutions we have built to address them. However, today even relatively modest proposals that in any other organization would be seen as uncontroversial, such as providing more authority and flexibility for the Secretary-General to shift posts and resources to organizational priorities without having to get direct approval from Member States, have been fiercely resisted by the G-77, the main group of developing countries, on the grounds that this weakens accountability. Hence the current deadlock. What lies behind this? It is not because most developing countries don't want reform. To be sure, a few spoilers do seem to be opposed to reform for its own sake, and there is no question that some countries are seeking to manipulate the process for their own ends with very damaging consequences. But in practice, the vast majority is fully supportive of the principle of a better run, more effective U.N.; indeed they know they would be the primary beneficiaries, through more peace, and more development. So why has it not so far been possible to isolate the radicals and build a strong alliance of reform-minded nations to push through this agenda? I would argue that the answer lies in questions about motives and power. Motives, in that, very unfortunately, there is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the U.S. supports must have a secret agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes to Washington's ends or weakening the institutions, and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether they make sense or not. And power, that in two different ways revolves around perceptions of the role and representativeness of the Security Council. First, in that there has been a real, understandable hostility by the wider membership to the perception that the Security Council, in particular the five permanent members, is seeking a role in areas not formally within its remit, such as management issues or human rights. Second, an equally understandable conviction that those five, veto-wielding permanent members who happen to be the victors in a war fought 60 years ago, cannot be seen as representative of today's world--even when looking through the lens of financial contributions. Indeed, the so-called G- 4 of Security Council aspirants--Japan, India, Brazil and Germany--contribute twice as much as the P-4, the four permanent members excluding the U.S. Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged exactly this point on his trip to Washington last month, and it is something which does need to be addressed. More broadly, the very reasonable concerns of the full U.N. membership that the fundamental multilateral principle that each Member State's vote counts equally in the wider work of the U.N. needs to be acknowledged and accommodated within a broader framework of reform. If the multilateral system is to work effectively, all States need to feel they have a real stake. New Global Challenges But a stake in what system? The U.S.--like every nation, strong and weak alike--is today beset by problems that defy national, inside-the-border solutions: climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, migration, the management of the global economy, the internationalization of drugs and crime, the spread of diseases such as HIV and avian flu. Today's new national security challenges basically thumb their noses at old notions of national sovereignty. Security has gone global, and no country can afford to neglect the global institutions needed to manage it. Kofi Annan has proposed a restructuring of the U.N. to respond to these new challenges with three legs: development, security and human rights supported, like any good chair, by a fourth leg, reformed management. That is the U.N. we want to place our bet on. But for it to work, we need the U.S. to support this agenda--and support it not just in a whisper but in a coast to coast shout that pushes back the critics domestically and wins over the sceptics internationally. America's leaders must again say the U.N. matters. When you talk better national education scores, you don't start with ``I support the Department of Education''. Similarly for the U.N. it starts with politicians who will assert the U.S. is going to engage with the world to tackle climate change, poverty, immigration and terrorism. Stand up for that agenda consistently and allow the U.N. to ride on its coat-tails as a vital means of getting it done. It also means a sustained inside-the-tent diplomacy at the U.N. No more ``take it or leave it'', red-line demands thrown in without debate and engagement. Let me close with a few words on Darfur to make my point. A few weeks ago, my kids were on the Mall in Washington, demanding President Bush do more to end the genocide in Darfur and President Bush wants to do more. I'd bet some of your kids were there as well. Perhaps you were, too. And yet what can the U.S. do alone in the heart of Africa, in a region the size of France? A place where the Government in Khartoum is convinced the U.S. wants to extend the hegemony it is thought to have asserted in Iraq and Afghanistan. In essence, the U.S. is stymied before it even passes ``Go''. It needs the U.N. as a multilateral means to address Sudan's concerns. It needs the U.N. to secure a wide multicultural array of troop and humanitarian partners. It needs the U.N. to provide the international legitimacy that Iraq has again proved is an indispensable component to success on the ground. Yet, the U.N. needs its first parent, the U.S., every bit as much if it is to deploy credibly in one of the world's nastiest neighbourhoods. Back in Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's day, building a strong, effective U.N. that could play this kind of role was a bipartisan enterprise, with the likes of Arthur Vandenberg and John Foster Dulles joining Democrats to support the new body. Who are their successors in American politics? Who will campaign in 2008 for a new multilateral national security?