Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article by Ruth La Ferla, titled Downtown Comes to Harlem. The article published on June 22, 2006, in the Thursday Styles section of the New York Times, talks about the retail potential of Harlem. Most inner city communities, such as Harlem, possess tremendous undiscovered potential, and provide manifold opportunities for success by large scale business. It is a region of the city that has a greater competitive advantage, according to Michael E. Porter, a professor of Harvard Business School and a leading authority on business strategy. Compared to the suburbs and areas in the other boroughs of the city, the Harlem community is under-serviced and under-retailed. Although the average household income is low, the dense population of the Harlem community represents a buying power that is comparable to that of other parts of the city. Because of its historical and cultural heritage, entrepreneurs in Harlem have an added marketing advantage. As Ms. La Ferla remarks, N, the new fashion emporium in Harlem, ``is the latest in a growing number of retailers to invoke Harlem's multilayered heritage to put their wares on the fashion map.'' Offering a mix of local labels and African American designers like Byron Lars and Tracy Reese with more established, upscale brands, these rarified stores are visible symbols of the rapid gentrification of Harlem. Springing up along and just off Seventh and Lenox Avenues, from about 114th St. to 135th St. stores like Pieces of Harlem, Montgomery, Denim Library, B. Oyama, Harlemade are realizing urban sociologists' prediction of the ``branding'' of Harlem using niche marketing. Meanwhile some longtime residents are fretting that the goods might not be relevant to the local population. The store owners are countering that their inventories were specifically conceived to cater to the locals, simultaneously drawing attention of the tourists. I want to commend these business owners who are finally utilizing the competitive advantage of Harlem to revive the community. By infusing the legacy of Harlem's glory days with Cab Calloway, Dorothy Dandridge, and Nat King Cole with the modern street-inflected sensibility, these entrepreneurs are marketing Harlem's diversity and culture to revive the elegance of Harlem. [From the New York Times, June 22, 2006] Downtown Comes to Harlem (By Ruth La Ferla) Talking up N, his new fashion emporium in Harlem, Larry Ortiz posed a question: ``If we had to put Harlem in a bottle, what would the scent be?'' He then answered with no prompting. ``It would obviously be a little retro, a little 1930's.'' An infusion, in short, evocative of Harlem's glory years, an era of artistic ferment that spawned Cab Calloway, Dorothy Dandridge and Nat King Cole, fused with a modem street-inflected sensibility. For Mr. Ortiz, one of N's three partners, capturing the essence of the neighborhood is not just rhetoric. To succeed as a merchant, he maintained, he will need to distill Harlem, not just in a fragrance but in all of the upscale fashions, home accessories and cosmetic lines sold at his gracious two- level store in a town house on 116th Street between Seventh and Lenox Avenues. His objective in showcasing brands like Nicole Miller, Hugo Boss, Marimekko and Jonathan Adler to the increasingly affluent enclave north of Central Park is partly to cater to a fashionably hip local population that has until now traveled downtown in search of popular fashion labels. He is also the latest in a growing number of retailers to invoke Harlem's multilayered heritage to put their wares on the fashion map. ``One of the things that is compelling to us is the idea of branding Harlem,'' Mr. Ortiz said. It is an idea he hopes to render concrete by offering a mix of local labels and African-American designers like Byron Lars and Tracy Reese with more established, upscale brands. ``It's very important to push a lot of black designers who wouldn't get the same attention elsewhere,'' he said. ``This store is not about hip-hop,'' he added emphatically. At 4,000 square feet, N, which opened in April in Mount Morris Park, is the largest upscale retailer to descend on the area. Like N, other newcomers are pointedly distancing themselves from the brash hip-hop aesthetic and offering fashion that deliberately summons Harlem's fabled past, along with current fashion trends being interpreted by downtown outposts like Scoop, Intermix and Big Drop and also by a clutch of stylish men's stores. As well they might. They have arrived in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. Mount Morris Park, a 16-block area from 118th Street to 124th Street between Fifth and Seventh Avenues, has the highest concentration of Harlem households with incomes exceeding $100,000, said Nikoa Evans, a partner in the store and a former vice president for finance for the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, a federal economic development initiative. Affluent residents pay about $750,000 for a one-bedroom condominium and $2 million for the traditional brownstones that are in high demand. But Mount Morris Park, and much of Harlem, remains a relative bargain for boutique owners, who pay rents varying from $75 a square foot to as much as $150 on 125th Street, compared with $700 on prime blocks along Madison Avenue. Flaunting an aura of exclusivity, the new shops offer a high-style--and pricey--alternative to the wares on 125th Street. That crowded, populist thoroughfare is now home to, among others, a MAC cosmetics store; Atmos, a Japanese-owned store specializing in hard-to-find sneakers, with a flagship in the Harajuku district of Tokyo; Old Navy and H & M. ``Harlem is so much more than just 125th Street,'' said Faith Hope Consolo, the chairwoman of the retail leasing and sales division at Prudential Douglas Elliman. ``There is so much retail potential there,'' said Ms. Consolo, who is scouting sites for several clients. ``The challenge is to choose the right location.'' Springing up along and just off Seventh and Lenox Avenues, from about 114th Street to 135th Street, are stores like Pieces of Harlem, on West 135th Street, a boutique that sells denim skirts and jackets with Victorian-inspired ruffles and pearl buttons designed by the owners, Latisha and Colin Daring. It also carries draped jersey dresses ($354) by Rachel Roy, who is married to the rap entrepreneur Damon Dash, and ribbon-trimmed T-shirts ($185) by Gwen Stefani. Montgomery, on Seventh Avenue, sells handbags, T-shirts and lingerie emblazoned with the image of Jolinda, a head-wrapped rag doll that recalls the Southern roots of its designer, Montgomery Harris, who moved her store from SoHo to Harlem about three years ago. Ms. Harris is also known for her whimsically hand-embroidered, one-of-a-kind skirts and dresses, many in a vintage mood ($400 to $500). Another new store is Denim Library, on Seventh Avenue, a repository for premium jeans like People's Liberation, Citizens for Humanity and Ciano Farmer, all of which are displayed folded with rear pockets on view in a series of library shelves, and sell for $130 to $750. Hats by Bunn, on Seventh Avenue, sells waxed-straw chapeaus and flat-top felt hats by Bunn, the Trinidad-born milliner. Bernard Oyama, the owner of B. Oyama, an elegant old-world style haberdashery on Seventh Avenue, sells his own designs of suits, shirts and neckwear, which are displayed amid a collection of black-and-white photographs of dapper greats like Miles Davis and Duke Ellington, each a reminder that the Harlem of the 30's through the 60's was a thriving style capital. ``The idea was to bring back the sense of quality to Harlem,'' said Mr. Oyama, a native of Gabon who studied fashion design in Paris. His store draws locals and, he said, even greater numbers of clients from the Bronx, Brooklyn and New Jersey, who drop in from time to time to be fitted for custom-tailored suits ($800 to $2,200), and to pick up bow ties, cravats and kaleidoscopically colorful gingham and paisley pocket squares. Not every store is so rarefied. Harlemade, which has been at 116th Street for six years, is stocked with books and photographs offering glimpses of the historic area and its architecture. It also sells handbags, dolls and an assortment of T-shirts bearing Harlem logos. ``I was the first to brand Harlem,'' insisted Murphy Heyliger, an owner. ``Since then I've seen other companies realize you can get cool by putting your neighborhood on a shirt.'' Mr. Heyliger is typical of the merchants catering to both residents and visitors drawn to a Harlem that is increasingly perceived as romantic and vibrant enough to draw several thousand tourists on weekends, many of whom place boutique- hopping high on an itinerary that might also include dining at Emperor's Roe or Settepani, and touring the Studio Museum, which exhibits the work of contemporary African-American artists. Despite those attractions, some skeptical local merchants and residents wonder if importing fancy wares to Harlem is not premature. The new boutiques are interspersed with bodegas, hairdressers and discount stores, and not all of the retail landscape looks promising. Stores like N ``may be too early,'' said Minya Quirk, the owner of Brand Pimps, a fashion consulting company, and a Harlem resident. Ms. Quirk also frets that the goods may not be relevant to a local population. ``Harlem residents have a deeply ingrained sense of personal style,'' she said. ``They know what they want, and I think a lot of retailers might underestimate that.'' Not Mr. Ortiz, who argues that his inventory was conceived expressly to appeal to style-driven locals. N offers fashion at prices that vary from $165 for a cotton shirt with grosgrain detailing to $1,000 for a leather coat. Sizes range from 0 to 16. ``We have a market here that has certain needs when it comes to sizing,'' he said. ``We're offering larger sizes mixed in with smaller ones in a very unapologetic way. And we're always making sure we'll accommodate a variety of body types.'' The fashions are often more boldly patterned than those at shops in other neighborhoods. ``They reflect the way our uptown customers would like to wear clothes, and an understanding that this market is more heavily into color,'' Mr. Ortiz said. Harlem shoppers also are serious fragrance consumers, which is evident from the proliferation of shops displaying ever- widening selections of designer scents. That infatuation attracted Laurice Rahme, the entrepreneur behind Bond No. 9, with scents named after New York neighborhoods. Ms. Rahme, who was prescient in branding the area with New Haarlem, a scent introduced in 2004, plans to open a store in Harlem this year. Her flagship is on Bond Street in Lower Manhattan. ``But what happened to retailing and tourism downtown is going to happen uptown,'' she predicted. Bud Konheim, the chief executive of Nicole Miller, a line with hothouse colors and animated prints that are popular at N, is confident that a presence in the neighborhood is healthy for the bottom line. The collection at N is expected to generate $300,000 to $500,000 in its first year, he said. ``Harlem is an undiscovered secret for now, but that won't last,'' Mr. Konheim went on. ``Things are moving too fast.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an article by Alex Vernon, a professor of American Studies in Hendrix College and a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The article titled The Road From My Lai, published in the op-ed section of the June 23, 2006 edition of the New York Times, drew parallels between the massacre at My Lai during Vietnam and the alleged atrocities at Haditha and Hamdania. A veteran of the first Gulf War, Mr. Vernon has firsthand experience of the atrocities the soldiers can be driven to commit in times of war. He is not making excuses for our forces in Iraq and neither do I. My Lai was a terrible tragedy and the Army's attempt of cover-up, abetted by the Nixon administration, was foiled by the efforts of Ronald Ridenhour, Congressman Morris Udall and journalist Seymour Hersh. We do not want to see a repeat of the My Lai cover-up again. Sitting here on the Capitol, while we are deciding to continue the occupation in Iraq, our National Guard and Reserve troops are being forced to serve their third or even fourth tour of duty. The heightened tension of war and frustration at the efforts of certain groups of Iraqis to resist American occupation may have driven our troops to commit atrocities that they would never have otherwise committed. As Mr. Vernon stated in the article, the dull and boring hour-long instructions on ethics does nothing to change the situation. ``Who needs to be told not to run a bayonet through a baby?'' Unfortunately regardless of the results of official enquiries and court-martial into the incidents of Haditha and Hamdania, the damage has been done. The verdict is already in; and it is not in the U.S.'s favor. While General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assures us that 99.9 percent of our servicemen and women are behaving humanely, the majority of the Iraqis confess no surprise at learning about the war crimes of the U.S. soldiers. Mr. Speaker, our armed forces should remember novelist William Eastlake's remarks on My Lai. You cannot transfer the blame on your superior officer; use your own judgment. And we, the legislators of the nation should keep in mind that in prolonging this needless war, we are amplifying the physical and psychological strains on our soldiers, thereby making room for more Hadithas and Hamdanias. The Road From My Lai (By Alex Vernon) When I went to war as a junior officer in Iraq 15 years ago, we faced a far different enemy for far less time than today's troops are dealing with--four days back then, into our fourth year now. Yet in those first weeks in the desert before Desert Storm, back when we fully expected Iraq's several armored divisions to drive into Saudi Arabia and crush the two divisions we had on the ground, two soldiers under my command digging a fighting position lost their heads. One pulled a knife on the other. Fortunately, other soldiers pulled them apart. It's impossible to imagine the frustration and stress on American soldiers in Iraq today--impossible, or maybe it's simply not something we willingly work to imagine. Then the news breaks. My first thought on hearing about the alleged atrocities at Haditha--and of the announcement this week that murder charges are being brought against eight American servicemen for killing an Iraqi civilian at Hamdania in April--was ``Duh.'' If we didn't know this day was coming, we were fools. I would like to ask those troops accused of war crimes in Iraq what they know about My Lai 4, the site of the most famous American atrocity in Vietnam. In the late 1990's, I did a brief stint in the Army Reserve commanding a company whose job was supporting active-duty basic training units. I recall no mention of My Lai in our classroom instruction. These days, when I teach a college course on American war literature, My Lai inevitably comes up. Inevitably, a fair number of students raise their hands to be reminded, possibly even introduced, to that dark day in 1968. These young men and women attend a prestigious liberal arts college and probably won't find themselves in places like Haditha or Hamdania. But they should be reasonably expected to know more about American history than their peers whom we do send with guns to Haditha and Hamdania. I am slightly encouraged by our military's new commitment, announced in the wake of the Haditha reports, to ensure that coalition forces in Iraq receive training in ethics and values. But the cynic in me groans. Not another dull, forgettable one-hour block of instruction on ethics like I endured in my years of officer training. Who needs to be told not to run a bayonet through a baby? According to Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, such training ``should provide comfort to those looking to see if we are a nation that stands on the values we hold dear.'' With all due respect to the general, does he really think that such training will appease those who believe the Americans at Haditha and Hamdania, and our soldiers and agents elsewhere, are guilty of atrocities? Regardless of the results of official inquiries and courts-martial, the damage has been done. In the Muslim (and much of the non-Muslim) court of opinion, the verdict is already in. Of course, learning about My Lai is hardly assurance against similarly criminal behavior; no more than graphic images of car accidents prevents reckless driving. And focusing on it today can create other problems. One is that we allow it to become representative, and to prejudice our perceptions of all American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam. The other is that we treat it as singular--an aberration for that war or for any American wars. We already feel similar tensions regarding the reports out of Iraq. While General Pace assures us that ``99.9 percent of the servicemen and servicewomen'' are behaving properly and humanely, too many Iraqis report registering no surprise in learning about the alleged atrocities. So are we saviors or monsters? The truth, as it always does, lives somewhere between. Our military is as thoroughly professional as scrappy guerrilla forces usually are not. But to pretend our soldiers never mistreat others would be a gross lie. After an article in The New York Times Magazine last year about American soldiers accused of drowning an innocent Iraqi and their battalion commander's cover-up, I got an e-mail message from one veteran of the current war that the treatment of that Iraqi differed from the treatment of others only in degree and result, not in kind. Apologists for My Lai--and presumably future apologists for Iraq atrocities--are quick to lecture: That's war, buddy. You should see what the other guy does. I object to this argument because it smells like rationalization. It permits us to accept the unacceptable. It resists aspiring to a better way. The very idea of ``wartime atrocity'' is a 20th-century development, the most progressive and hopeful legacy of the world's bloodiest century. There is hope. I can't imagine a Haditha or Hamdania version of ``The Battle Hymn of Lieutenant Calley,'' a tribute to the officer responsible at My Lai that cracked the Billboard Top 40 in 1971. Its lyrics ran: ``Sir, I followed all my orders and I did the best I could. / It's hard to judge the enemy and hard to tell the good. / Yet there's not a man among us who would not have understood.'' Despite the calls to prosecute up the chain of command (indeed, up to President Bush himself) for the alleged crimes in Iraq, I sense more collective sympathy with the novelist William Eastlake's remarks to West Point cadets about My Lai, as quoted in the Encyclopedia of American War Literature: ``You cannot say after wiping out a village, `My superior told me to do it.' You're big boys now. Behave yourselves. Don't blame all your sins on General Westmoreland.'' Last fall, around the time the Haditha events occurred, another veteran of the current war, a National Guard second lieutenant, confessed to me his war crime. His platoon was searching a home where an Iraqi man was sobbing uncontrollably for the loss of his brother. ``Would somebody shut him up?'' the lieutenant shouted, throwing in an expletive for good measure.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an article from the June 8, 2006, Washington Times newspaper entitled ``Prisoners, Public at health risk'' reporting on the findings of the 21-member Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's prisons. The article discusses the high rates of disease and illnesses among the inmates in the Nation's jails and prison and the subsequent threat this problem poses to communities outside of the prison's scope as inmates are released back into the communities. Based on data gathered and reported by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prison, more than 1.5 million people are released from jails and prisons nationwide carrying life-threatening contagious diseases, and another 350,000 inmates have serious mental illnesses. While this article and the report explores the prisons' inability to treat physical and mental illnesses it also examines prison overcrowding, violence and abuse. It addresses the impact of reduced funding for programming, a reduction which directly leads to inactivity and unproductiveness in our prisons. The report reveals that most correctional systems are set up to fail because they are charged with protecting public health and public safety, and reducing human suffering as they strive to care for the sick on a shoestring budget with very little support from the community health care providers and public health authorities. Mr. Speaker: I enter this article into the Record to send a message that it is imperative that health officials and lawmakers realize that the issue of inadequate health care in our Nations' prisons has to be addressed and rectified sooner rather than later. [From the Washington Times, June 8, 2006] Prisoners, Public at Health Risk (By Jerry Seper) High rates of disease and illness among inmates in the Nation's jails and prisons, coupled with inadequate funding for correctional health care, has put the Nation's 2.2 million prisoners at risk, along with corrections officers and the public, a report said yesterday. Every year, according to a report by the 21-member Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, more than 1.5 million people are released from jails and prisons nationwide carrying life-threatening contagious diseases, and another 350,000 inmates have serious mental illnesses. ``Protecting public health and public safety, reducing human suffering and limiting the financial cost of untreated illness depends on adequately funded, good quality correctional health care,'' the report said. ``Unfortunately, most correctional systems are set up to fail. ``They have to care for a sick population on shoestring budgets and with little support from community health-care providers and public health authorities,'' it said. The commission, co-chaired by former Attorney General Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, is based on a lengthy investigation and hearings, which included testimony from corrections professionals, prison monitors and litigators, former prisoners, scholars and others. The inquiry focused on the ``crucial role of oversight and accountability'' in creating safe conditions in U.S. prisons and jails, and on the nature and prevalence of gang violence. ``The questions `who's watching' and `who's responsible' are at the beginning and end of dealing with all of the problems we've examined,'' Mr. Katzenbach said. The report also concluded: Violence remains a serious problem in the Nation's prisons and jails, with ``disturbing evidence'' of assaults and patterns of violence in some U.S. correctional facilities. It said corrections officers reported a near-constant fear of being assaulted, and prisoners recounted gang violence, rapes and beatings. Violence and abuse are not inevitable, but the majority of prisons and many jails nationwide hold more people than they can accommodate safely and effectively, creating a degree of disorder and tension almost certain to erupt into violence. Because lawmakers have reduced funding for programming in the country's prisons and jails, inmates are largely inactive and unproductive. The increasing use of high-security segregation is counterproductive, often causing violence inside facilities and contributing to recidivism after release. People who pose no threat and those who are mentally ill are ``languishing for months or years'' in high-security units and supermax prisons. Better safety inside prisons and jails depends on changing the institutional culture, which cannot be accomplished without enhancing the corrections professional at all levels. Because the exercise of power is a defining characteristic of correctional facilities, there is a constant potential for abuse. The report will be presented today at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime, corrections and victims' rights.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the successful financial restructuring of the North General Hospital, a small community hospital located in Harlem that caters to the neighborhood's vast majority of poor and elderly members. North General Hospital was founded in 1979 and since then, because of the uninsured population it serves who use the hospital for its primary care needs, it had been suffering from severe losses that threatened the hospital's success. However, last year, Dr. Samuel Daniel, North General's Chief Executive and his team launched a plan for a complete transformation that has since proved to be an absolute success. I would like to enter into the Record an article by Rafael Gerena- Morales from the June 22nd, 2006 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled, How a Harlem Hospital Healed Itself. This article tracks the success of North General Hospital as well as the positive outlook for the future of this promising health care center. According to Gerena- Morales, the strategy pursued by the hospital's Chief Executive and his team has been so successful that the hospital went from a nearly $20 million dollar loss in 2003 to a $2.6 million dollar surplus in 2005. These achievements are even more appreciated when taking into account the challenges that the hospital has faced since its establishment. North General has always struggled with low government reimbursement rates and it treats a community with a high percentage of uninsured patients who cannot pay their medical bills. Furthermore, the hospital historically provided mainly low-margin routine checkups and physical exams, since it did not possess the resources to pay for high-priced medical specialists. All this changed when North General began to focus more on treating diseases that afflicted Harlem residents in high rates such as cardiovascular problems, hypertension, obesity, diabetes and infant mortality. By offering surgical procedures to treat these illnesses, North General was able to attract more patients and expand its revenue. Additionally, it began to promote its services at community health fairs, further inviting patients to the small hospital. North General Hospital appealed to the need for emergency care by adding ambulances that brought more Harlem residents to its emergency room. Another key to success was in the partnership established with Mount Sinai Medical Center located only one mile away from North General Hospital. Mount Sinai is one of New York's most prominent teaching hospitals, and with its alliance, North General has been able to expand the services it offers on campus by gaining access to 16 Mount Sinai specialist doctors who perform vascular surgery, lung biopsies, urology, radiology, and pediatric psychiatry. All in all, this small community hospital embodies the example of a successful health care institution that truly cares for its own. Surely, the health of Harlem residents will benefit greatly from the achievements of North General Hospital, and this hospital remains a source of hope for other small hospitals hoping to make a difference in their own communities. [From The Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2006] How a Harlem Hospital Healed Itself (By Rafael Gerena-Morales) Since its founding in 1979, North General Hospital, a small community hospital in Harlem that caters to the poor and elderly, had always lost money--until last year. That's when the hospital's 2-year-old turnaround plan started to pay off. The strategy was so successful that the hospital's bottom line swung to a $2.6 million surplus in 2005 from a nearly $20 million loss in 2003. The hospital anticipates another $2 million surplus this year. How North General, a 200-bed hospital located in a predominately black and Latino neighborhood, fixed its finances ``sounds like a business-school case study,'' says Liz Sweeney, who covers the New York state hospital industry for Standard & Poor's, the credit-ratings service. Struggling with low government reimbursement rates and mainly providing low-margin routine checkups and physical exams, Samuel Daniel, North General's chief executive since 2001, says he and his management team plotted a strategy to tackle a tough question: ``How do we turn the hospital around?'' Among the answers: North General focused more on treating ailments that afflicted Harlem residents in high rates, including cardiovascular problems, hypertension, obesity, diabetes and infant mortality. It offered additional surgical procedures that brought in additional revenue. It promoted its services at neighborhood fairs and community centers. It struck an alliance with a nearby prominent medical center that gave North General patients access to more specialty care. Running an inner-city hospital has long been financially draining. Such hospitals lack the money and cutting-edge equipment to compete against larger hospitals. They lose top recruits to prominent teaching hospitals. Low-income communities tend to have a higher percentage of uninsured patients who can't pay their medical bills or are covered by government health plans that typically pay less for medical services than private insurers. And low-income patients frequently bolt to hospitals in affluent areas when they need specialty care. North General faces these obstacles, yet its plan is working. From 2002 to 2005, the number of patient discharges jumped 40 percent to nearly 9,000, and is expected to climb to 9,225 this year, according to the hospital. Outpatient volume between 2002 and 2005 rose 32 percent to 95,746 visits, and 103,520 visits are expected this year. During the 3-year period to 2005, North General's revenue rose 45 percent, boosted by higher patient visits, including surgical procedure volumes that jumped nearly 20 percent. This year, North General estimates revenue will rise 2.7 percent to $152 million from $148 million last year. North General is paid in large part by government health plans, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and to a lesser extent by private insurers. But before offering any new services, North General had to confront a major problem: attracting higher-skilled surgeons. ``We needed the technical know-how,'' Dr. Daniel says. The hospital couldn't afford to hire these surgeons, so Dr. Daniel tried another route: He forged an alliance with the Mount Sinai Medical Center, one of New York's most prominent teaching hospitals located just a mile away from North General. (In addition to his North General duties, Dr. Daniel is an associate clinical professor of medicine at Mount Sinai's medical school.) He approached Mount Sinai's president and CEO, Kenneth L. Davis, and the two men agreed that both hospitals could benefit from a collaboration. Within 90 days, the hospitals reached an agreement that took effect in January of 2004. North General pays Mount Sinai an annual $2.7 million and in return gains access to 16 Mount Sinai doctors who perform vascular surgery, lung biopsies, and other highly specialized services on North General's campus. Mount Sinai also provides specialists in urology, rheumatology, radiology, and pediatric psychiatry. North General receives the revenue from these services. In a separate agreement, North General and Mount Sinai have teamed up to provide free preventive care to Harlem residents with chronic illnesses in exchange for higher Medicaid reimbursement rates at its outpatient clinic. (The arrangement has benefited both Mount Sinai and New York state. Contracting these specialists costs less than if the hospital hired the doctors on its own, says Michael Greene, North General's chief operating officer. The contract also gives North General staffing flexibility because it can ask Mount Sinai to send specialists for extra hours as more patients come in for these specialty services. This helps North General control labor costs by linking a doctor's work hours to patient volumes. For Mount Sinai, the deal boosts the hospital's revenue and brings in patients. Last year, North General transferred roughly 375 patients to Mount Sinai for cardiology, neurosurgery and obstetrics services. As a teaching hospital handling complex cases, Mount Sinai ``needs community hospitals as referral sources,'' Dr. Davis says. In 2004, North General began offering bariatric, or weight- loss, surgery, in which a surgeon staples off a section of a patient's stomach, leaving a tiny pouch that absorbs less food. Last year, North General performed 109 such surgeries and it expects to perform 125 this year. Medicare and Medicaid typically pay North General $10,000 to $12,000 per bariatric surgery, though a complicated procedure can bring in as much as $20,000. Last year, the bariatric surgery program generated $725,000 in revenue and a $25,000 profit, according to Frank Hagan, North General's chief financial officer. Since many emergency-room patients were being sent to hospitals in other neighborhoods, North General added ambulances in 2002 and 2004 that brought more Harlem residents through its emergency room--thus boosting revenue. Emergency-room visits jumped 16% to nearly 34,450 in 2005 compared with 2002. North General estimates that roughly eight out of 10 patients who are admitted to the hospital stem from emergency-room visits. North General recognized that infant mortality is a health problem that looms large in the Harlem community. In August 2004, the hospital opened the Women's Health Center in a separate building that handled nearly 4,000 visits last year. The center offers a prenatal program with services that include ultrasound, nutritional counseling and social work. While the center isn't yet profitable, North General says female patients who are treated at the center are more likely to bring family members to North General for other medical care. Last year, the hospital expanded its AIDS center and opened a new cardiac-catheterization laboratory that checks patients for clogged arteries, a precursor to heart trouble. The profitable AIDS center, which is promoted in Harlem through brochures, open-house events and free HIV testing at local health fairs, handled more than 6,400 visits in 2005 and projects roughly 7,250 visits this year. Since opening in December, the catheterization laboratory has handled 152 visits, and projects 300 cases for 2006. North General markets the lab's services to primary-care physicians and cardiologists. Henock Saint-Jacques, a North General cardiologist, says he used to refer patients to other hospitals for exams, but he estimates as many as 30 percent of patients wouldn't make the trip. ``Those problems started to fade away'' once North General opened its cardiac lab, he says. ``This has improved the quality of care.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my fellow colleagues about the contributions of immigrants to America. In an article in the New York Daily News, published June 16, 2006, Mr. Errol Louis told us about the opportunities that America has given immigrants to leap from ``humble, grinding work to middle-class prosperity.'' Idrisul Alam, whose father has been a cook at the Waldorf-Astoria for the past 9 years, is one of the many who was given the chance to make something of herself. She graduated first in her class at the High School of Telecommunication Arts and Technology in Brooklyn, speaks four languages, was an editor of her school newspaper, was a student government officer, and raised money for earthquake victims in Pakistan. She is planning on studying engineering at Columbia University this coming fall. Idrisul is only one of the 35 high school seniors whose achievements were celebrated in a ceremony at the Sheraton New York last week. Michelle Quach who is heading to University of Pennsylvania, Reuben Rafaelov who is going to St. John's University, Jessica Acosta who is starting classes at Harvard are all shining examples of the triumph of the immigrant experience. Coming from parents who have had no choice but to perform low rung jobs like bellhops, busboys and housekeepers, because of their lack of language skills, these children symbolize the success of the dreams and wishes of their parents. In light of the controversial national debate on immigration and all the immigrant bashing, we need to remind ourselves what immigrants bring to our society. I congratulate the New York Daily News and Mr. Louis for bringing attention to these heartwarming stories about the immigrant experience and reminding us about the positive aspects of immigration. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the article titled From humble roots, they blossom by Mr. Errol Louis into the Record. From Humble Roots, They Blossom (By Errol Louis) Far away from the speeches and slogans of the national debate over immigration, a simple, inspiring ceremony at the Sheraton New York this week spoke louder than all the posturing and threats coming from immigrant-bashing politicians these days. The point of the ceremony was to give plaques, congratulations--and $8,000 scholarships for college--to 35 graduating high school seniors whose parents are members of Local 6 of the New York Hotel Trades Council. Local 6 represents the invisible New York army that prepares meals, cleans rooms and hails cabs for tourists, diplomats, politicians, movie stars and business titans. A great many of these bellhops, busboys and housekeepers are immigrants. ``You don't have to know how to speak English to wash dishes, scrub floors, polish silver or clean 14 suites a day, and so hotel jobs have always attracted immigrants,'' is how Local 6 spokesman John Turchiano puts it. Hotels attract men like Idris Alam, who traded in his apron for a jacket and tie and made his way to the Sheraton to see his daughter, Idrisul, collect her award. Alam, who has been a cook at the Waldorf-Astoria for the last nine years, was quiet, dignified and understated, like the other parents. Even on this joyous day, they carried themselves the way they do on the job: with humility and class. There was none of the silly parental whooping and screaming you normally hear at graduation ceremonies. But there was plenty to be happy about. The ceremony showed, in stunning fashion, how New York creates Americans, giving immigrants the chance to leap from humble, grinding work to middle-class prosperity in a single generation. Reading thumbnail sketches of the extraordinary achievements of the 35 award winners, it was hard to remember that they are teenagers, barely out of childhood. Alam's daughter Idrisul, for instance, finished first in her class at the High School of Telecommunication Arts and Technology in Brooklyn. She speaks four languages, helped edit the school newspaper, was a student government officer and raised money for earthquake victims in Pakistan. She plans to study engineering at Columbia University. Michelle Quach, whose father works at the New York Athletic Club, is the valedictorian of DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx, captain of the varsity swim team and a volunteer at the New York Chinese School. She's heading to the University of Pennsylvania. Reuben Rafaelov, the valedictorian of Thomas Edison Technical High School in Queens, will be off to St. John's University in the fall. Jessica Acosta, whose mother works at the St. Regis, studied flamenco guitar in Spain and is going to Harvard. Innis Baah, who hails from Ghana, plans to study business at Hobart and William Smith College. Nanaba Wallace is on her way to Yale to study politics. The national debate on immigration will take a turn in a few years, when these kids are running Congress, the courts and whatever else they set their minds to. And make no mistake about it--these kids will be running the show. The festivities ended with a ballroom luncheon for the awardees and their parents--giving the cooks and cleaners a chance to relax and be served for a change. On the way out, I asked Alam, the Waldorf cook, how the food tasted. ``Fantastic,'' he said. ``Fantastic.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the legacy of the recently passed Evelyn Dubrow. In her many years here on Capitol Hill as a delightful yet effective advocate of worker's rights, Ms. Dubrow helped influence progress in civil rights issues across the board. She was best known as the representative for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), however, her work sought to expand the rights of workers for a higher minimum wage, fair trade laws, and family and medical leave. Her forthright style and passionate advocacy won her many friends and admirers in the Congress. For many members of Congress, she was the ideal example of a successful lobbyist, and her wealth of knowledge benefited all who had the pleasure of crossing Ms. Dubrow's path. Not only was she a model lobbyist, but she was also an exemplary human being who did not take even a penny for granted, spending in a year what some say others spend in telephone bills alone. Hers was a personal style and her winning personality made her welcome in the offices she visited. Ms. Dubrow's outstanding work was recognized by President Clinton, who in 1999 awarded her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She was also recognized by the Washington Business Review in 1982 as Washington's top 10 lobbyists. Known affectionately as ``Evy,'' she began her efforts on Capitol Hill as one of very few other female lobbyists in the 50's. In those days, the minimum wage was only $1 an hour, talk of equal pay for men and women was rare, and laws allowed discrimination in housing, hiring, and health care. It was in these areas that ``Evy'' fought hard to produce improvements for all Americans. Her obituary in the June 22nd edition of The Washington Post honored the life and works of Ms. Evelyn Dubrow. I would like to enter the Obituary into the Record and join the Washington Post as well as my colleagues on the Hill for reflection and appreciation of this great woman's contributions to our country. [From the Washington Post, June 22, 2006] Lobbyist Evelyn Dubrow, 95; Worked for ILGWU, Civil Rights (By Patricia Sullivan) Evelyn ``Evy'' Dubrow, 95, an indefatigable lobbyist for garment workers for almost 50 years and the only person on Capitol Hill allowed to share the congressional doorkeepers' chairs outside the House chambers, died June 20 of a heart attack at George Washington University Hospital. Miss Dubrow, the 4-foot, 11-inch, throaty-voiced representative for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and its successor union from 1956 until about two years ago, wore out countless pairs of size 4 shoes in the marble halls of the Capitol, where she advocated for a higher minimum wage, fair trade laws, family and medical leave policies and civil rights. ``Everyone knows Evy,'' said one newspaper profile of the friendly activist. Another said, ``She stands eye-to-eye with Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich and goes toe-to-toe with the big boys, whether the late [House Speaker Thomas P.] O'Neill . . . or Sen. Alan K. Simpson, the 6-foot-7 Republican from Wyoming.'' ``Evelyn Dubrow is the union label,'' Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) once said. ``By the accounts of her best friends in Congress, most of them Northern liberals, she is the model of the effective lobbyist--persistent but not pushy, knowledgeable and persuasive but not dogmatic,'' New York Times reporter David E. Rosenbaum wrote in 1970. Her longevity gave her knowledge of the institution and an understanding of when to compromise. ``There's no point trying to organize an industry if there are no jobs,'' she said in 1985, explaining why labor supported a protectionist textile bill. It also gave her a seat just outside the House chambers; as speaker, O'Neill ordered the doorkeepers to share their seat with the representative of seamstresses, hemmers and buttonhole girls. The apparently unprecedented courtesy lasted until Newt Gingrich won the speakership and barred lobbyists from the second floor during votes. Miss Dubrow worked 15-hour days and outlasted almost everyone. For years, she kept her age a secret even while spreading her secrets to successful lobbying: Never beg for votes, don't assume you know everything and don't threaten anyone. ``She carries no flip phone, beeper or Powerbook,'' the Baltimore Sun said in 1995. ``[Miss] Dubrow keeps her daily schedule on a card in her appointment calendar in her purse. And her yearly expenses are less than what some spend in telephone bills alone.'' President Bill Clinton awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999, calling her ``a tiny woman, larger than life'' who was ``renowned for her grace, candor, and integrity, [who] has earned the respect of opponents and allies alike.'' Unapologetically liberal, she had friends among both Republicans and Democrats, telling Washingtonian magazine in 1997: ``In Washington you should never write off anybody. You'll be surprised where tomorrow's allies come from.'' . She came from Paterson, N.J., the daughter of immigrants from Belarus who found work in factories of New York and New Jersey. She got her start in labor activism handing out fliers about the Spanish Civil War in New York's Union Square. She graduated from New York University's School of Journalism and joined her first union, the Newspaper Guild, while working at the Paterson Morning Call newspaper. She soon moved into full-time union work, as a secretary in the Textile Workers Union and as an assistant to the president of the New Jersey Congress of Industrial Organizations. She was one of the organizers of Americans for Democratic Action in 1947 and worked for the ADA until 1956. Legendary labor leader David Dubinsky hired her as lobbyist for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and sent her to Washington. Miss Dubrow was in her mid-forties when she became one of a mere handful of female lobbyists in Washington. When she started, the federal minimum wage was $1 an hour, equal pay was rarely mentioned and the law allowed discrimination in housing, hiring and health care. She fought long and hard for improvements in all those areas, and later, against the North American Free Trade Agreement, which eroded the jobs of American union members who made clothes. ``When I started this job, we were worried about sweatshops,'' she told The Washington Post in 1997. ``Today we're still worried about sweatshops.'' She was named vice president of the ILGWU in 1977, and when the union merged with another to form UNITE! (United Needleworkers, Industrial and Textile Employees), she became vice president and legislative director, then special assistant to its president. She was a founder of the Coalition of Labor Union Women. Miss Dubrow became well recognized off Capitol Hill in time. In 1971, Ladies' Home Journal named her one of the 75 most important women in America, and in 1982, the old Washington Business Review called her one of the city's top 10 lobbyists. Never married, with no immediate family survivors, she reveled in her many nieces and nephews. She also enjoyed poker, gin rummy and reading the classics. In the 1970s, she endured four years of Metro rail construction in front of her D Street SE home. Her only complaint about it, she told The Post in 1977: ``Their construction in front of my house caused my shoes to get muddy. But for two weeks, every day, one of the workers would go have them polished and bring them back to me.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House on the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 2006, proposed by the esteemed gentleman from Wisconsin. The bill calls for renewal of certain expiring provisions from the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including Section 203--the bilingual election assistance. As a representative of one of the many multi-ethnic districts in New York, I fully realize the necessity of providing bilingual assistance to increase voting among language minorities and allow these Americans the chance to participate in the democratic process. According to the existing provisions of Section 203, the bilingual assistance is made available when the population of a language minority group in an electoral district is 10,000. This 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. Mr. Speaker, the House has agreed to a bipartisan support of this vitally important reauthorization bill to ensure a clean passage. Had the opportunity allowed, I would have liked to propose an amendment to Section 203, lowering the current threshold to 7,500. The effect of lowering the numerical trigger to 7,500 would remove language barriers for at least 77,955 limited English proficient Asian American citizens to vote, including a significant increase in the electorate of New York City. In the last election, New York only offered bilingual election assistance in Spanish, Chinese and Korean. Keeping in mind the diversity and multiethnic communities in New York, it is vital that we ensure all our constituents have an easier access to the electoral process. I have been a firm supporter of integration and accepting immigrants into American society. What better way to make them comfortable in their American identity and assist in seamless assimilation? On another note, under the current law, U.S. Census Bureau determines the Section 203 coverage every 10 years. Considering the rapid growth of immigrant communities, particularly in cities like New York, San Francisco (CA), Los Angeles (CA), Philadelphia (PA), Essex County (NJ), Cook County (lL), King County (WA), I believe we should make census determinations every 5 years to decide Section 203 coverage. According to the 1990 census, the Korean American population in New York was short of 250 persons to gain coverage under Section 203. Although the community reached the numeric trigger by early 1990s, it did not gain coverage until after the 2000 census. More recently, the Vietnamese community in San Diego fell 85 persons short of the numeric trigger following the 2000 census. Surely, by now the community has already surpassed the trigger but will not receive bilingual election assistance until after the 2010 census report is completed. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 with all its subsequent amendment has been immensely successful in expanding access and assistance to racial and ethnic minorities during election. It remains one of the most important civil rights laws in our country. Mr. Speaker, while coming to debate the reauthorization of the expiring provisions in this 109th Congress, we must keep in mind the limitations of the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 2006, and how to make it more effective and allow our citizens access to one of their fundamental rights as guaranteed by the ideals of our nation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must commend the bipartisan effort to renew this legislation and congrats my colleagues on their success in allowing for the expansion of the provision of until 2032, for 25 years--the longest extension in its history. I must also praise the various civil rights groups who have been extensively campaigning for the renewal of the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendment Act.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield for 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. What is the time? I think I would want the majority to catch up in terms of the time gap.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. First of all, when I asked for a vote, you asked for the votes for the ayes. It was my intention, in case we had lost, to ask for a vote on this because a quorum is not present. What is happening here, and my parliamentary inquiry is, once you took the ayes, we never got an opportunity to find out the nays. So I am in the position now that I cannot challenge the Chair. After you asked for the aye votes, you never asked for the nay votes. How can we determine what the ruling of the Chair is?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some may ask, why now are we taking up this bill? Why have we decided, that is, the majority, that at a time that our Nation is at war, when our men and women are dying to bring democracy to Iraq, where there are problems getting the equipment they need to protect themselves, when we cannot provide even our veterans with adequate health care and education opportunities, why now, when we find ourselves with a historic $9 trillion indebtedness, when just the interest of this debt is going to prohibit the Congresses that follow us from doing the things that our great Nation would want to do, why now, when the people that have been hit by Rita and Katrina can't restore their lives, why now, when the poor are increasing in population, are we reaching out to the richest of the rich Americans? Why now would the Republican leadership make this a priority for three- tenths of 1 percent of the American people? Who are these people? How do they have such a communication with the leadership? The Joint Economic Committee, which is not Republican and not Democrat, they are just fair, they say under existing law nobody except 7,500 families would be liable for any taxes on an estate. They call it a ``death tax'' because they know how to play on words. Dead people don't pay taxes. But they can use what they want to get people emotionally involved. But if there is anyone that is concerned about this Republic and making certain that the economy is sound and that wars that we start are paid for and that old folks are able to be taken care of through a Social Security act, why now would they come with this repeal? Because it is a repeal. It is 80 percent a repeal. It is going to cost more than the original repeal. Why do they want these sound tracks to be able to say that they supported repeal of the death tax? I am going to tell you why. Because they have a mission. They are so organized that they want to destroy everything that Franklin Delano Roosevelt started. And it is not me that is saying that. It is their voting record that says it. Things that Americans are so proud of. Social Security, a little cushion for people who worked every day in their lives and all they want is a little help with their security. Privatization, that is what we have to do. Medicare, this is something that we have come to depend on. They want it to implode, the things that they cannot deal with from a political point of view, the third rails, if they will. If they make certain that there are no resources left for Democrats to handle, they have won. And they don't care how many Republicans lose, because their mission is to destroy every bit of social services by saying how can we pay for it. So I submit to you that anytime a party is prepared to give $2 trillion of tax cuts because it is going to present economic growth and then go to Communist China to borrow the money, there is something wrong with that picture. And I am suggesting, too, that these 7,500 beneficiaries, they are not begging for this money. They are not getting calls every day. We certainly don't get them. And they wish they were getting them, but they are not getting them, because most people God has blessed to get into this income status are so satisfied that they believe that they owe this Republic some indebtedness for the freedom and equality and opportunity that they receive. And so if you have any question about supporting the programs that you are proud of as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, remember one thing: if you get carried with the emotion, one day you will have to explain, why now? Why, when your great country was in so much debt, did you figure that you had to reward 7,500 people? Why now, when your Nation is at war and the GIs will be coming back, those that do, and they ask why can't we get a decent shake and you say because we didn't have the money, we had to give it to the 7,500? Why now, when you take a look at the budgets that we are going to have, either as Republican leadership or Democratic leadership, that we are going to say that the interest that we owe to foreign countries prevent us from taking care of the things that we have here? This is not a scheme to reward 7,500 people. This is a scheme to take the resources away from this great Nation that has a commitment to our young and our old for health and education and the things that would really make us a strong Nation. And at the end of the day the fact that they are going to lose the majority won't mean anything because it would be a part of a plan not to perpetuate Republican or, for lack of a better word, leadership, but to destroy a system that Franklin Roosevelt had the hearts and the minds of this great country. So I submit to you, you can do what sounds like it is the right thing to do because they call it a death tax, but it will be the death of democracy and freedom and the ability to provide the services that are expected of us, not as politicians, but as Americans and Members of Congress. This is going to be a historic vote, and the question is going to be, Which side of this vote did you vote on? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the rich don't want it and the middle class don't want it, why can't we get on with just the minimum-wage increase and put this behind us? Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has a unanimous consent request. (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like our Democratic whip, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to be given 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, and that is the best they can do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, an outstanding hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal, 2 minutes. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the conscience of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Lewis, the gentleman from Georgia, for 2 minutes.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to a leader in the United States Congress and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a Member who really understands this problem.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much for yielding me time. I think we are getting closer to the truth when the previous speaker spoke out as to why we have an inheritance tax in the first place. And while he talked about World War I, I think he was emphasizing what he called a socialistic type of government, where redistribution of the wealth was the issue rather than the actual resources that are raised. I am convinced that a large number of people, especially the Republicans in this House, look at this not as a revenue issue but as a policy issue. Oh, yes, they call it the death tax because they think this is a way of packaging something, saying that death should not be a taxable event. But realistically, if you are dead, you certainly are relieved of your taxes. So it is the live people you are talking about; people who have hopes and dreams that they would be able to acquire the inheritances of those that preceded them. So the real reason, perhaps, of having this tax was to make certain we had a middle class, that you did not find the superwealthy being able to influence the politicians and the Congress. And if that was the reason, and I will have to research it, even though some experts thought there was a social policy reason, if ever there was a time to review this policy, it would be now. The Joint Economic Committee, which is not Republican or Democrat, has indicated that under existing law, when the estate tax goes to $3.5 million, an estate that would be exempt, and $7 million that would be exempt, they say that we would be talking about only 7,500 actual estates. Now, if this does cost $800 billion, or close to $1 trillion, then what we are arguing about is whether or not 7,500 people could cause us to go into the deficit further by having their benefits restored. In other words, what we are saying here is that while the Nation is at war, while we are spending $300 billion or $400 billion, while we have a $9 trillion debt, while we are cutting even the services of veterans and those that are fighting, that philosophically the majority believes that we should shatter the so-called Estate Tax Inheritance Act, the death tax, no matter what the economic expense is. So we are not doing this for this Congress or this election; we are doing it to change the direction of the United States Government so that the items of resources to pay for education and health care, and even our national defense, are going to be jeopardized because some of you believe that the richest of the rich should be protected from an equitable distribution of tax liability.