Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. There seems to be some confusion as to who the beneficiary is of this special legislation. I suggest to you that if you belong to the one-third of 1 percent of not working families, but families who have inherited an estate that is valued over $3.5 million, or $7 million if you are a couple, that in 2009 you will be the beneficiary. If there is some confusion about the hundreds of millions of people who work every day, and those six million of them that are at minimum wage, then I suggest to you that you will get nothing from this. But if you are in doubt as to whether one side is just making it up as they go along, and the other side has any question about it, I suggest that you go to the Internet, www.house.gov.jct. That is the Joint Committee on Taxation, and you will be able to decide whether you hit the lottery. If your name is not there with the 7,500 families, then you are a loser in this enormously expensive legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the outstanding leader of the Democratic Party and, indeed, our country, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, that was my point, that I am trying to show the significance of taxpayers; taxpayers, where one group is at the minimum wage, and people who, right now 99.7 percent of these people, do not pay taxes on their estate. So clearly we are talking in terms of who is suffering the liability of taxes.

Mr. RANGEL. The germaneness is who is going to pay for this bill that is before us today? And the motion to recommit says that we should consider the millions of people who work every day that don't get this type of relief.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, I will yield to the Chair to determine what is fair and what is equitable as we talk about the lives of working people that pay taxes every day as opposed to having a trillion dollars to be disbursed to people who don't pay taxes.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I respond?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, one may wonder how germane is it when we are considering a bill that 7,500 families will be the beneficiary at the cost of $800 billion, as opposed to what I am raising in the motion to recommit, and that is the lives of 6.6 million working people that really are working at the minimum wage. So there is a difference in how we perceive what we are doing today, whether the hundreds of million of people that work every day should be sacrificed at a cost of close to $1 trillion when, in fact, we are talking about 7,500 families that have not worked for the money but are going to inherit the money. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. Is at this stage a motion to adjourn in order?

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

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the necessity of worldwide cooperation in the battle against HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. Today, the Caribbean nations rank only second to sub- Sahara Africa in prevalence of the HIV virus. However, some countries in the region also have some of the highest per capita incomes among developing countries, which make these countries ineligible for foreign assistance. I would like to submit an article for the Record from the June 13th issue of CaribNews entitled CARlCOM's Need for Universal Access in HIV/ AIDS Fight. In this article, author Tony Best describes the dilemma that many Caribbean countries face when attempting to secure aid for HIV/AIDS programs while possessing high per capita income, thus disqualifying them as priority recipients. The article is based on an address made by CARICOM's lead spokesman on health, Dr. Denzil Douglas' address to a special United Nations High Level meeting on HIV/AIDS. In this address, Dr. Douglas expressed his concern on behalf of the Caribbean community about the criteria established by the international donor community regarding financial support for programs to reduce HIV/AIDS in the region. The main criterion of concern is that the international donor community will not grant middle income nations, such as those in the Caribbean, to collect grants for HIV/AIDS programs. Instead, these countries must apply for loans if they wish to obtain some support. Furthermore, the only way that a middle income country can become eligible for aid is if their HIV prevalence rate rises above five percent. Dr. Douglas opined that this requirement of five percent prevalence rate will only hinder in a successful fight against HIV/AIDS due to the fact that the time wasted in waiting for the five percent mark to be recorded will allow the disease to advance so far that the economic and social costs may be unbearable at that point. For the moment, some countries in the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), and other groups such as the Clinton Foundation and Global Fund have provided some aid to these countries. However, this aid has only resulted in the expansion of retroviral coverage for already infected persons. Thus, the Caribbean region still lags behind in any progress in prevention of HIV incidence. The area has not been able to decrease the number of new cases of HIV, and so CARICOM feels that a social system based on an integrated network of services such as prevention, diagnosis and treatment can provide the best medium for prevailing in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The global community is a vital player in helping create this visionary system of social services. By agreeing to provide aid despite of per capita income, international authorities can further strengthen the partnerships they have with the Caribbean nations and be of utmost benefit in the defeat of HIV/AIDS, not just in the Caribbean, but worldwide. After all, a united effort will prove to be much more successful than minor individual efforts striving towards a common goal. [From the Carib News, June 13, 2006] CARICOM's Need for Universal Access in HIV/AIDS Fight (By Tony Best) Dr. Denzil Douglas, CARICOM's lead spokesman on Health, has called on the international community to make it easier for middle-income Caribbean nations to boost the level of care provided to victims of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. In an address to a special United Nations High Level meeting on HIV/AIDS and in a session with Carib News Editorial Board on Monday morning Dr. Douglas, St. Kitts- Nevis' Prime Minister appealed for a new that would enable donor agencies and institutions to provide help to the region hard hit by HIV/AIDS virus. Many of the countries, he said, were being forced to bear the brunt of the financial burden of providing care to HIV sufferers and information to the general public about the dangers of the disease. ``We are concerned about the criteria established by the international donor community with regard to access to financing for fighting HIV/AIDS,'' he told Carib news editors and community leaders, including Yvonne Graham, Brooklyn Borough President, Michael Flanigan, Citibank Community Relations Director, and Leyland Hazelwood, an international business executive. ``One of the important criteria is that it (international donor community) will not allow middle income countries to have grants,'' he pointed out. ``Rather, you have to go through the process of loans. Also unless the prevalence rates get beyond five per cent, you are not going to be able to access the financing that is required.'' The trouble is that although the Caribbean region may have some of the highest per capita incomes among developing countries, the countries collectively are second only to subSahara Africa when it comes to the prevalence of the HIV virus. But their rates of infection are below the five per cent threshold. Hence they are ineligible for assistance. ``I made the point to the General Assembly of the United Nations that if we are going to wait until we get to five per cent, what is the point,'' he said. ``It is almost foolhardy to wait until the disease has reached a certain level in the population to give us the required assistance. We need the assistance now so that we don't reach there.'' Dr. Douglas, himself a physician, said that if the countries were forced to wait until the five per cent mark was recorded, then they would be faced with unthinkable economic and social consequences. ``If we wait for that stage with our small populations in the region, it can have very, very serious setbacks in the development of the Caribbean, especially in view of the gains we have recorded in the last few years,'' he asserted. The Prime Minister pointed out that several Caribbean countries, especially those in the OECS, Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, were receiving help from Brazil in the form of free medication for HIV sufferers while the Clinton Foundation and Global Fund had ``come on board with assistance.'' As a result, states had been able to slow down the growth in the incidence of the virus, cut the number of deaths and slash mother to child transmission of the virus. ``More still remains to be done and must be done,'' he said. Caricom nations are aiming for ``harmonized international partnership'' that would result in an acceleration of care during the next 15 years. Dr. Douglas' appeals to the international community were designed to ``sustain the harmonized partnership'' and expand care and the dissemination of information, he explained. ``By 2010, we are hoping that our health and social system would form the basis of an improved and integrated network of services, from prevention, diagnosis and treatment to care and support,'' he added. ``The main issue is how we can we sustain the services that we have put in place to prevent and manage the disease. That is a concern.'' A major hurdle in the Caribbean centers on ``the issue of prevention,'' he pointed out. ``We have not been able to scale back the number of new cases that are occurring in the Caribbean region,'' he said. ``While we have been able to manage those who have the disease in terms of providing the necessary anti-retroviral drugs we have not succeeded on the issue of prevention. We believe that if we are to scale back the prevalence we must be able to prevent its spread.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article from the Washington Times by Sebastian Berger titled, World's royals fete Thailand's King. This article describes the celebration of history's longest-reigning monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. The celebration of this king's reign will last 3 days and has included the biggest reunion of royal heads of state in decades. I would like to join these world leaders in celebration and tribute to King Adulyadej and in recognition of the anniversary of his ascent to the throne. King Adulyadej's reign of 60 years has outlived many turbulent times in Thailand and his leadership has survived 17 military coups, 23 different prime ministers and 15 constitutions of Thailand. His soft spoken yet effective manner of advocating for issues important to Thailand has won him admiration and affection from all of his people. Known as the ``Developer King'' to many, Secretary General Kofi Annan visited the King during the celebrations in order to present him with the United Nations Development Program Award. This award presentation was meant to recognize the King's steadfast devotion for improved living circumstances for the Thai people. He initiated many development projects which, throughout 60 years, have created progress and prosperity for the country. So beloved is this sovereign that he has also been nicknamed the ``soul of the nation'' by his people. The King is also well known for his abilities in the artistic field. Because of this, King Adulyadej was granted the title of ``Supreme Artist'' in recognition of his contributions to art and artists in Thailand. So great was his role that the country established ``The Supreme Artist Hall'' to commemorate and display the King's work. His model for sustaining a unified Thailand despite numerous obstacles against progress is a great example for all. With words alone, King Adulyadej ended bloodshed in 1973 and 1992, during times of hostility against military dictatorships. His current appeal for Thai people is a call for unity during a time of national division. Indeed, the entire nation has united in order to pay homage to its beloved ruler and I stand in camaraderie with the Thai people to celebrate and appreciate the example of King Adulyadej.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today enter into the Record, the inaugural address of the Most Honorable Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller, the newly elected Prime Minister of Jamaica. In her inauguration speech Ms. Simpson-Miller pledged to advance the human rights and individual liberties of the people of Jamaica. Acknowledging that the duty of the state is to protect the society as a whole, she condemned sacrificing individual liberties in execution of that duty. She promised to stamp out corruption and criminality by working closely with the Minister of National Security as well as the law enforcement community to reduce the high rate of crime in Jamaica and provide greater security for the people. Pointing out that economic transformation cannot take place without an overhaul of the educational system of Jamaica, Ms. Simpson-Miller pledged to provide access to quality education for youth and children. In light of the high unemployment rate in Jamaica--11.5 percent (2005 estimates)--she promised to create jobs and wealth-earning opportunities for the Jamaican people. She vowed to focus her efforts on developing the communities, strengthening democratic governance, and uplifting the poor. Ms. Simpson-Miller is a champion of the downtrodden and the dispossessed. She is seen as a symbol of the hopes and aspirations of the poor, underprivileged black people, particularly black women of Jamaica. She has really risen through the ranks of the party, coming from a very, very poor section of Jamaica to the highest elected position in the government. She has asserted her commitment to improving the living standards in the destitute communities in Jamaica. As the first woman Prime Minister of Jamaica and a leader of the people, Ms. Simpson-Miller represents the hopes and wishes of many. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ms. Simpson-Miller and praying for her success in achieving her goals for her nation. Inaugural Address by the Hon. Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller, MP, Prime Minister of Jamaica I want to begin by recognizing the source of my strength, Almighty God. Let us stand and pray. Almighty God, in the presence of all here attending; in the presence of the people of this land and everyone else sharing this occasion, I do pay homage to you, in acknowledgement that you are the Sovereign and Supreme Lord God in this island and all the world. As I assume the Office of Prime Minister of all Jamaica, I do so Lord, truly conscious that the glory is yours, and the office, an affirmation of my devotion to you and to all the people of this nation. You laid the foundations of the earth. Lord, lay now, I beseech you, the foundations of the Government, that you have graciously enabled me to lead, so that its purpose be firm, its endeavors right, and its accomplishments blessed. Let it be joy to those through whom you dispense it; bless those who will receive it; and glory to you who give it. Good Lord, let Jamaica find in me, my colleagues, and all who offer governance under our leadership, complete fulfillment of the righteous Government that you have offered to this nation; let it manifest in removal of blight and poverty; the stigma and loss due to crime and violence; let the radiance of it raise a larger assertion of moral strength and rectitude in our public and private sectors. Unite our people with a stronger sense of compassion and love. Use us as the vessel for your purpose, and the people as instruments of your peace, and prosper us that we may know the joy of your presence and experience the pleasure at your right hand. These we ask of you in faith, believing, giving thanks, even so, in the name of your Holy Son, Jesus Christ-- our Lord, and in the name of your Holy Spirit: one God. Amen. Today is a truly historic day in the life of this nation. A girl from Wood Hall in deep rural St. Catherine has become Prime Minister of Jamaica, a true manifestation of the Jamaican Dream. This indicates that any child, regardless of circumstances, can rise to the top. It has been said ``Hope springs eternal in the human breast''. Ladies and gentlemen, if there were a way to quantify the intangible, it would be proven without a shadow of a doubt today that it is the spirit of hope which is most dominant here at King's House; in homes throughout the length and breadth of Jamaica; at the Haile Selassie School and Sam Sharpe Square where people are gathered and, indeed, in many parts of the world where Jamaicans are joining us via the Internet. I come to the Office of Prime Minister with a profound sense of my obligation to the people. Only with the help of Almighty God can I carry this weight of trust and hope that is placed on my shoulders. I will not betray this trust and I will keep hope alive. All across Jamaica there is this hope, this positive expectancy, this hunger to believe that a new day is dawning. You can almost touch it. It is not an expectation that anyone individual can fulfill, but together we can make it. My role as Prime Minister of Jamaica will be to use this high office to facilitate change. Today, I want to commit myself to certain goals. The first pledge to the Jamaican people is to advance human rights and individual liberty. Each individual life is sacred. None is more important than the other. Money should not make one person more important than the other. Learning should not make one person more important than the other, nor should class, colour or gender. We are all equal in the sight of God. While the state has a responsibility to protect the society as a whole, it must never, in the execution of that responsibility, sacrifice individual liberty. We cannot build the harmony and peace that this society so desperately needs unless all Jamaicans know that they will be treated with dignity and respect. We need to recapture our roots: the courtesy, the decency, the good manners and trust which were routinely practised. We need to rekindle those tested and proven values. We must practice them ourselves and demand them from others. I want to continue to lead a process for the recovery and promotion of our best values. I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to work tirelessly to eradicate corruption and extortion. I am committed to their eradication as I am committed to uplifting the poor. I pledge to do everything in my power--with the help of the Almighty and your support to break the power of the criminals. I will be working closely with the Minister of National Security, the Law Enforcement Officers, the Opposition and our 780 identified communities to successfully tackle this problem, in the interest of all Jamaicans, including those in the Diaspora who want to see a peaceful Jamaica. Closely aligned to eliminating criminality and restoring power to communities, is the creation of employment and wealth-earning opportunities for people. Jamaicans do extremely well when given the opportunity. I believe that if we create the right conditions for people to flourish; if as government we see ourselves as facilitators, then we will experience the unleashing of the Jamaican creative spirit that can move this country forward. I pledge to the Jamaican people to foster and facilitate the conditions for employment opportunities and wealth creation. I want to say directly to the private sector both here and overseas that we treasure the gains which have been made through our macro-economic policy and international credibility. It is our intention to build on these hard-won gains of pain and sacrifice. At the same time, we have to find the way while balancing the books to balance people's lives. Indeed, both the World Bank and the IMF have recognized the need for policies which promote equity and poverty alleviation. We must find a way to expand opportunities for all Jamaicans so that they can share the fruits of macro-economic stability. When we think of the achievements of our sports men and women, of our musicians and others in the cultural field, they tell us that together we can make it. Let me recognize the presence today of our athletes, who represented Jamaica at the recent Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, Australia. They earned a record 22 medals, including 10 gold. Thank you for adding golden value to brand Jamaica. We are proud of you. You are an example to all of us. We can use your determination, strength, courage, discipline, perseverance, loyalty to country and pride in being Jamaican as motivation to work together for the advancement of our country. As I said before, together we can make it. I have an abiding faith and confidence in the Jamaican people. They believe in me and I passionately believe in them. Critical to this matter of entrepreneurship, employment expansion and wealth-creation, is education. We will only become a first-class, competitive society if we are an educated, knowledge-based society. We have to build on the progress already made and intensify our drive to transform Jamaica's education system. Our ability to attract quality foreign direct investments is directly dependent on the quality of our human capital. There can be no economic transformation without educational transformation. I pledge to the people an unyielding commitment to education, including programmes in character education to build a society committed to the highest ethical principles. In this regard, we as political leaders have to set the example. I have had the finest teacher possible in this matter of consensus-building and respect for differences of opinion. I refer to none other than our esteemed former Prime Minister, the Most Hon. P. J. Patterson, to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. I must thank him for his fourteen years of service as Prime Minister of Jamaica. His loyalty and commitment to country, his passion for service, his civility and ability to achieve consensus make him unforgettable. As a team builder, he has shown us that together we can make it. I want to build on his legacy of cooperation. I consider it my duty not only to protect, but to build on the legacies of all my predecessors in the continuing process of nation building. I recognize today the presence of the Most Hon. Edward Seaga, former Prime Minister of Jamaica, and thank him for his contribution to the development of our country. I pledge to ensure that the interests of all our people are protected and that victimization never rears its ugly head in any way under my administration. Unity is a prerequisite for success in Jamaica and is very high on my list of priorities. I say to the Opposition, let us launch a new era of cooperation. Let us work together in the interest of all Jamaicans. Let us put the people's hopes and aspirations before our own interests. A more united, engaged, and spiritually strong nation will provide a good foundation for dynamic integration in the Caribbean Community. Jamaica's commitment to and active involvement in Caricom, has been steadfast and this will continue and, indeed, be expanded during my tenure. In that regard, I am happy and encouraged by the presence of so many of my CARICOM colleagues today. I am also pleased to note the presence of a large delegation from the United States Congress. Our active involvement in the international community will continue, because Jamaica is respected for its enviable tradition of leadership among developing countries. We will maintain respectful and harmonious relations with all states and will work with both the developed and developing nations to build a world of peace, justice and a better quality of life. We will continue to remind the international community that security considerations cannot be divorced from development, and that poverty is the greatest threat to security. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing that can withstand the force of an energized, confident, united, determined and visionary people. The Bible says without vision the people perish. If we embrace one vision--not a PNP or JLP vision, not an uptown or a downtown vision, not an urban or rural vision but one Jamaican vision; then we will deal with our challenges as a nation. Together we can make it. I pledge to the Jamaican people to lead that process. I cannot do it alone. Together we can make it. I want to build a partnership with the Jamaican people. A partnership which will involve the recognition that we all have a responsibility to lift up the poor and the downtrodden; A partnership which will see us giving greater respect to the rights and dignity of the persons with disabilities; A partnership to restore the centrality of family life in Jamaica; A partnership for responsible fatherhood, motherhood and responsible sexual behaviour; A partnership for love, honour and protection of our women; A partnership for love, honour and respect for our men; A partnership for the protection and nurturing of our children, who represent the future and which recognizes that children are the torchbearers of all the good that we must pass on to posterity; A partnership to provide access to quality education for all our children; A partnership for the empowerment of youths through education, training and economic opportunities; A partnership for the development of our communities, for strengthening democratic governance and for truly giving a voice to all the people. A partnership to eradicate crime and drive the criminals from our communities; A partnership to deepen the involvement of Jamaicans in the Diaspora; A partnership in the building of a harmonious, prosperous and vibrant Jamaica, committed to making the Jamaican Dream accessible to every single Jamaican; Together we can make it. A partnership where we recognize that God is supreme. I call upon all Jamaicans to join those who will worship on Friday, Saturday or Sunday to pray for the prosperity of our country and peace in the nation. In these partnerships, I pledge to be accountable to you, the people of Jamaica. I am and will remain your servant. Together we will make it. Today is not only my day. It is Jamaica's day. Indeed, it is the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it, for we are His People. Eternal Father, bless our land, Guard us with thy Mighty Hand.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the record a column by Eugene Robinson entitled Stay the Course? What Course? appearing in The Washington Post Friday, June 16, 2006. Mr. Robinson asks this question more than 3 years after the preemptive invasion of Iraq on false pretenses. I too ask this question as do many of my fellow Americans and my Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives. The President and House Republican leadership have no answer as the so-called ``debate'' on the Global War on Terror on June 15th in the House proved. For 10 long hours, those who listened to the speeches from the Republicans from the floor of the House heard unremitting propaganda with 1983 bomb attacks, the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie Scotland, the first attack on the World Trade Towers, the bombing of the United States embassies in Africa, and over and over again the about the terror attacks by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Not only was a plan for an end of the Iraq war not mentioned all cited these attacks which were cited had nothing to do with Iraq. They had not even a de minimums connection with Iraq or even with the present situation in which we find ourselves. These reminders of past acts of al-Qaeda were merely a piling on of the non-existent connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. So, instead of a plan for bringing our soldiers home from Iraq, the Republicans continued in their unrelenting propaganda answering no genuine questions the American people want answered. I am tired of hearing about ``free democratic elections'' in Iraq and the school houses our troops have painted. We did not go to war to set up free elections in Iraq. I am also tired of hearing how grateful our gravely wounded troops are to have had their legs blown off for the freedom of our country. Republicans should be embarrassed to repeat those stories. Those are not good stories. I wanted to hear the Republican plan to make sure no one else has to lose their legs and their arms and their sight for my ``freedom.'' My freedom is threatened by the PATRIOT Act and a President who believes he can violate the Fourth Amendment at will. My freedom was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. I am also hearing from the party of the endless war in Iraq that the Democrats have no plan. The Democrats made it clear yesterday in our statements last week that the House Democrats' plan is the Murtha Resolution. It was also made clear that the Republicans are afraid to hear a Democratic plan by the Republican majority voting for a Rule for the ``debate'' that did not allow any amendments to the Resolution by the Democrats. The Republican Leadership made this the Rule for the ``debate and pushed it through ignoring the democracy they so applaud when the Iraqis show any faint signs of achieving it. Eugene Robinson wrote in the Post: ``Fresh from his triumphal visit to Baghdad--a place so dangerous he had to sneak in without even telling the Iraq prime minister--George W. Bush is full of new resolve to stay the course in his open-ended ``war on terror. That leaves the rest of us to wonder, in sadness and frustration, just what that course might be and where on earth it can possibly lead.'' Thirty-seven months since the President declared the ``end of major combat'' in Iraq he has given the American people platitudes, rhetoric, slogans, or worse, fear of an ``evil ideology'' and ``evil doers.'' But he has given us no real plan, not even a hint of a plan for the conduct of the war, the reconstruction of the Iraq, the plan to begin the withdrawal of American troops or the metrics by which we can define ``victory'' in Iraq. George W. Bush wanted to be a ``war president'' and whatever acts and whatever lies it took, he became a war president. Now it is apparent he will stay a war president no matter what the American people want. He plainly said the next president would have to find an exit plan so our men and women can finally come home from Iraq. But Bush's war and his need to be a war president have serious consequences. Some of these are pointed out by Eugene Robinson; ``Three desperate suicides at Guantanamo is answered by Rear Adm. Harry Harris's all-about-me lament--'' I believe this . . . was an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.'' He wrote: ``This is a 'war' in which the United States drops two 500-pound bombs with the express intent of assassinating Abu Musab al Zarqawi the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group that wouldn't have existed if Bush hadn't decided to invade.'' If Iraqi civilians are killed in a bomb attack such as the one on the Zarqawi safe house we did not say we were sorry about those civilians. Zarqawi was a ``high value target.'' We said we are sorry that a ``few bad apples'' did bad things at Abu Ghraib prison. Or pardon us if a few soldiers killed civilians in cold blood, but after all we are at war. Mr. Robinson wrote that if the Iraqi government does pardon Iraqis who have killed Americans we will have taught them well. ``They'll be saying `pardon me' just like their American tutors.'' Mr. Robinson reminds us that the jhadists of today were forged fighting Russians in Afghanistan. The next generation are being forged today fighting Americans in Iraq. He also reminds us that Iraq is just one theater in Bush's war. He writes: ``Afghanistan is once again `ablaze' with counterattacks by Taliban.'' Mr. Robinson is right: ``American's popularity in the world continues to fall. But George W. Bush forges ahead, trying vainly to kill a poisonous retrograde ideology with bullets and bombs. His `war' is self-perpetuating, and no one even knows what victory would look like. Long after he's gone, we'll still be looking for a way to end the mess he began.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Congressional Record a column in the Stirring the Pot segment of the June 20, 2006 edition of the Rollcall periodical newspaper and an article from the June 2006 edition of DiversityInc. The column, entitled ``It's Time for Congress To Open Its Doors to More Diversity'' is authored by Donna Brazile, political strategist, former congressional chief-of-staff, and Chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI). The article, entitled, ``Who Is Worst for Diversity? The United States Senate'', is authored by C. Stone Brown and Mark Lowery. Donna Brazile captures your attention by stating that ``one of the hottest and most illuminating stories to hit the newsstands last week discussed the lack of diversity in the Senate.'' She goes on to address the content of that news story written by C. Stone Brown and Mark Lowery of DiversityInc. Brown and Lowery reported that equal opportunity is sorely missing in action in the Senate. The articles point out that there is one black, three Hispanic, two Asian Americans and fourteen women Senators. This membership does not represent a good cross-section of the Country. While Ms. Brazile's article encourages the Senate to establish a process to open doors to qualified candidates of colors and women it does not exclude the House of Representatives. Take a look at the number of minority chiefs-of-staff and legislative directors for members outside of the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Brown, Lowery and Brazile reveal thought provoking data and information that relates to the issue of diversity in staffing in the Senate and the House. They cleverly summarize the issue by quoting a leading diversity consultant who states if change is to come to diversity in placement of key Congressional positions . . . ``It has to start at the top, with the CEO (Senator), and be made a priority with some accountability.'' Mr. Speaker, I enter this article with the hope that it will impress upon the legislative body the need for sensitivity in including people of color and women in the ``pool'' from which future personnel is chosen. [From the Rollcall, June 20, 2006] It's Time for Congress To Open Its Doors to More Diversity (By Donna Brazile) One of the hottest and most illuminating stories to hit the newsstands last week discussed the lack of diversity in the Senate. In their cover story, DiversityInc writers C. Stone Brown and Mark Lowery discovered that when it comes to ``equal opportunity,'' the Senate is sorely missing in action. With only one black, three Hispanic, two Asian Americans and 14 women Senators, the chamber's membership isn't exactly a good cross-section of the Nation. And furthering that problem, the reporters write, their review of ``people of color'' serving in Senate offices and committees found that senior positions such as chief of staff, legislative director, counsel and even communications director are ``practically reserves for white men and women.'' As a former chief of staff and press secretary for Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), I believe it's time the Senate makes diversity in its ranks a major priority. This investigative report is worth reading because it takes on both major political parties for their lack of significant progress in bringing more diversity to one of the most powerful institutions in America. According to Diversitylnc's investigation, of the 1,000 senior-level staffers, about ``7.6 percent are people of color.'' The report then breaks that down even further: ``2.9 percent are Black, 2.8 percent are Asian American and 1.9 percent are Latino.'' Given the multitude of issues and concerns the Senate addresses each year, it's time every Member take a look inside his or her own office to see if any changes should be made and to figure out a process to open the doors to qualified candidates. (And the House of Representatives should do so, as well. How many minorities are chiefs of staff or legislative directors for Members outside of the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?) When the reporters tried to obtain this important data from some Senate offices, they were greeted with no responses. (The report indicated that repeated calls were made to the Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Majority Leader Bill Frist (R- Tenn.) and even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), but to no avail.) Since most Senators refuse to acknowledge or even discuss this matter, I am sure out of embarrassment, let me do what any former Congressional staffer would do and offer some useful advice in correcting this problem and perception. First, I would take Paul Thornell's advice to urge Senators to ``widen their networks.'' Thornell, a one-time colleague from my days working with Al Gore and a former Senate staffer, said he believes Senators ``can start by committing to interview at least one qualified minority candidate anytime there is an opening at mid and senior level.'' He stated that ``this is the same approach used by the National Football League to hiring head coaches. If they aren't interviewing qualified minority candidates, that guarantees they won't hire them.'' Bottom line, as a leading diversity consultant who works with Fortune 500 companies explained to me: It has to start at the top, with the CEO (Senator), and be made a priority with some accountability. Thornell also suggests that the Senate should hire a diversity consultant to advise them on how best to remedy this problem. When Texaco, Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Denny's or any of the countless other companies that have had problems with diversity issues tried to solve them, did their CEOs just call their peers and ask what to do? No, they hired someone with expertise to give them counsel based on their experience to help them improve on issues surrounding diversity. When I first came to Capitol Hill right out of college, I started as an intern in the office of the late Rep. Gillis Long (D-La.). I so enjoyed being on the Hill and didn't mind sitting at the front desk or running errands (delivering ``Dear Colleague'' letters, etc.) for months because I knew once I was in the door, I could move up the ladder. Today, there is such a gap in the Senate between entry-level positions and senior-level slots (legislative assistant up to chief of staff) that even a strong and competent person who starts as a staff assistant realistically is not going to be considered for a LA position for years and rarely, if ever, for chief of staff. Such evidence suggests that promoting internships as the sole solution is not going to attack the problem. The difference in the House is you can begin as a staff assistant right out of college, the offices are smaller and there are more opportunities in the House. So, you can get on a track that accelerates your career path. Some Senate offices will tell their entry-level staff right away that they won't get promoted to LA from the position of staff assistant. Senators, it's time for some introspection and a deep look at the picture you're sending to others you tell to ``clean up their act.'' It's time for a little bit of humility and some sensitivity to make sure that people of color and women are included in the ``pool'' from which future personnel are chosen. Just remember: We, too, are Americans. We bring a different, and often unique, perspective to the debate, whether it's on privatizing Social Security or predatory lending practices and their impact on communities of color. And many of us would like to have a seat--or even a folding chair--at the table when policies that impact our communities, as well as our Nation, are being brought up on the floor. Just remember, like that of former President Bill Clinton, President Bush's Cabinet looks like America. Why should Senate offices look or behave differently?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a New York Times editorial entitled, ``Emergency in the Emergency Rooms'' into the Record. This article emphasizes the fact that our Nation's emergency rooms and hospitals are seriously ill-equipped to manage major disasters such as the human costs of natural disasters or the occurrence of pandemic influenza. They are also failing to meet the challenge of increased demand by the poor who must use the emergency room for primary care because they cannot afford or do not have health insurance. According to the Institute of Medicine, about 500,000 (five hundred thousand) ambulances are being redirected from full emergency rooms to others far away. Furthermore, patients awaiting admission to the hospital may spend from eight hours to two days in the emergency rooms before a hospital bed becomes available. Not only are our emergency rooms filled past capacity, but they also lack the services of critical specialists such as neurosurgeons, further crippling the ability of hospitals to immediately treat patients in medical crisis. The editorial identifies a few causes for the emergency room crisis. First, the number of people seeking treatment in emergency rooms has increased sharply over the past decade. Also, in the same time period, some 700 hospitals and 425 emergency departments have been forced to close due to cost pressures. More importantly, the result of these situations is serious overcrowding, only worsened by a massive influx of patients who seek routine care in emergency rooms because they are either uninsured or on Medicaid but incapable of finding doctors who agree to treat them. This issue has grave consequences on the United States population as a whole, but it particularly affects the more than 60 million plus uninsured people in the United States, a population that will increase as employers are gradually eliminating health coverage. Ultimately, the United States will suffer greatly at the hands of large scale disasters if we do not improve our preparedness in hospitals and emergency rooms. Some proposals to develop our emergency rooms include an end to diverting seriously ill patients to far away hospitals and alternatively diverting poor patients who congest emergency rooms seeking standard care. Of course, this would necessitate expanding health insurance coverage to the millions of uninsured and offering more primary care clinics and doctors to underserved neighborhoods. However, in the long run, the addressing of the emergency room crisis will cost the United States much, much less than the consequences. [From the New York Times, June 21, 2006] Emergency in the Emergency Rooms The nation's emergency rooms have been stretched thin for at least a decade or more, but a new analysis suggests that they have reached a breaking point. Their plight underscores how dreadfully unprepared we are to cope with a major disaster like pandemic influenza or mass casualties from a terrorism attack. The crisis in emergency medical care was laid bare in three reports issued last week by the Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences. Half a million times a year ambulances are diverted from emergency rooms that are full and sent to others farther away. Emergency room patients who need admission to the hospital often spend eight hours or more--sometimes even two days or more--on gurneys in the hallways, waiting for a hospital bed to open up. Some emergency rooms lack the services of key specialists, such as neurosurgeons, who shy away from emergency room duty because many uninsured patients can't pay and their malpractice premiums would skyrocket because of the risky nature of emergency cases. What is not known is how many people die as a result of delays in treatment or inadequate care under chaotic conditions. No measurement system tracks such data. The emergency room crisis has many causes, none of them easily or cheaply resolved. The number of people seeking treatment in emergency rooms has jumped sharply over the past decade or so, from 90 million in 1993 to 114 million in 2003. Over the same period, cost pressures forced the closing of some 700 hospitals, almost 200,000 hospital beds and 425 emergency departments. The result is severe crowding, exacerbated by a huge influx of poor people seeking routine care who are either uninsured or on Medicaid but unable to find doctors willing to treat them. By law, emergency rooms must accept all patients, whether they have insurance or not. The institute's experts have many proposals for easing the situation, ranging from new regional systems to improve the flow of patients to the most appropriate and least crowded emergency rooms to an infusion of money to cover unpaid emergency care and to bolster preparedness for large-scale disasters. The most important change would be to stop diverting seriously ill ambulance patients and divert instead the poor patients who clog emergency rooms seeking routine care. That would require extending health coverage to the uninsured and providing more primary care clinics and doctors in poor neighborhoods.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend President Bush for his support of the resolution that acknowledges the contributions of Caribbean peoples in America and declares June as Caribbean Heritage Month. I also would like to congratulate the Honorable Barbara Lee for her efforts in bringing about this initiative, receiving 81 co-sponsors and getting this monumental legislation passed in both chambers of Congress. As one of the co-sponsors, I am extremely proud to be a part of the effort to recognize the Caribbean-Americans nationwide who have been a colorful thread of our Nation's fabric. This proclamation recognizes the millions of Caribbean peoples in the United States for their contributions to American society since its foundation. As a representative of a large Caribbean constituency, I have always felt the need to advocate on behalf of this distinctive community while educating others that Caribbean cultures have influenced our educational and political structures as well as popular culture. Since 1619, immigrants from the Caribbean islands began to populate America, bringing with them elements of cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. I appreciate the emphasis that this resolution places on shedding light on our Nation's history as many great political thinkers, such as President Alexander Hamilton, were born in the Caribbean. This little known fact was largely unheard of because of the taboos, discrimination and racism that existed in our country's past. Today, as our Nation's third border, Caribbean nations and our relations with them are fundamental to our interdependent successes in sharing medical advancements, fighting terrorism and promoting diversity appreciation. In celebration of Caribbean Heritage month, this June, I will promote participation in local festivities. I am glad to support activities such as parades, carnivals and festivals that are being held in my district and nationwide in true Island fashion and flair.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Nicholas D. Kristof discussing the merits of U.S. foreign aid. In the article, titled Foreign Aid Has Flaws. So What?, published in the June 13, 2006 edition of the New York Times, Mr. Kristof demands a dialogue to increase the effectiveness of our foreign aid. It is good to see the subject of foreign aid being addressed in the New York Times editorial pages because there needs to be public education about the benefits of foreign aid for the poor and also for the United States. Eradicating global poverty is the first objective of the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals. With that in mind we must recognize the need for increasing the effectiveness of the money that is provided through foreign assistance programs every year. Mr. Kristof initiates his point by acknowledging the central reality that ``helping people can be much harder than it looks.'' For example, food assistance lowers prices in the markets of the recipient countries and continues the impact by discouraging local farmers from planting the next season. Economists have argued that aid can have adverse effects on a country's economic system. It pushes up the local exchange rates, discouraging local manufacturing; it breeds foreign assistance dependency by cutting down room for internal development of industries and opportunities. At the same time our aid saves lives. ``For pennies [we] can vaccinate a child and save his/her life. For only $5, [we] can buy a mosquito net and save several people from malaria.'' In Darfur we haven't done nearly enough to establish permanent peace and stability, but our aid has kept thousands of people alive. Keeping these facts in mind, my dear colleagues, I ask you all to join me in taking constructive steps to increase both the amount of U.S. foreign aid and the efficiency in distributing it to nations that are in dire need of assistance. We, as representatives of the most powerful nation of the world, must lead the way and work with international organizations that can share this burden with us. [From The New York Times, June 13, 2006] Foreign Aid Has Flaws. So What? (By Nicholas D. Kristof) Don't tell anyone, but a dirty little secret within the foreign aid world is that aid often doesn't work very well. Now that truth has been aired (and sometimes exaggerated) in a provocative new book by William Easterly, ``The White Man's Burden.'' Mr. Easterly, a former World Bank official who is now an economics professor at New York University, has tossed a hand grenade at the world's bleeding hearts--and, worst of all, he makes some valid points. Let me say right off that stingy Republicans should not read this book. It might inflame their worst suspicions. But the rest of us should read it, because there is a growing constituency for fighting global poverty, and we need to figure out how to make that money more effective. I disagree with many of Professor Easterly's arguments, but he's right about one central reality: helping people can be much harder than it looks. When people are chronically hungry, for example, shipping in food can actually make things worse, because the imported food lowers prices and thus discourages farmers from planting in the next season. (That's why the United Nations, when spending aid money, tries to buy food in the region rather than import it.) On one of my last trips to Darfur, I had dinner at a restaurant in Nyala called K2. Out back were 18 big white S.U.V.'s belonging to the U.N. and aid groups; that amounted to nearly $1 million worth of vehicles, in a country where people are starving. The aid workers are struggling heroically in a dangerous and difficult place, and I don't begrudge them reliable vehicles. But something seems wrong when international agencies are more successful at maintaining S.U.V.'s than clinics. (One reason is that budgeting is often done annually, and one of the ways to spend a grant in a single year is to buy a vehicle.) It's well-known that the countries that have succeeded best in lifting people out of poverty (China, Singapore, Malaysia) have received minimal aid, while many that have been flooded with aid (Niger, Togo, Zambia) have ended up poorer. Thus many economists accept that aid doesn't generally help poor countries grow, but argue that it does stimulate growth in poor countries with good governance. That was the conclusion of a study in 2000 by Craig Burnside and David Dollar. Professor Easterly repeated that study, using a larger pool of data, and--alas--found no improvement even in countries with good governance. Saddest of all, Raghuram Rajan and Arvind Subramanian of the International Monetary Fund have found that ``aid inflows have systematic adverse effects on a country's competitiveness.'' One problem is that aid pushes up the local exchange rate, discouraging local manufacturing. Mr. Subramanian also argues that aid income can create the same kinds of problems as oil income--that famous ``oil curse''-- by breeding dependency and undermining local institutions. All these findings can be pretty shattering to a bleeding- heart American. But cheer up. Some other studies indicate that aid does improve growth (economists don't agree about this any more than they agree about anything else). And whatever the impact on economic growth rates, aid definitely does something far more important: it saves lives. For pennies, you can vaccinate a child and save his or her life. For $5 you can buy a family a large mosquito net and save several people from malaria. For $250, you can repair a teenage girl's fistula, a common childbirth injury, and give her a life again. The Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank, has published a terrific book, ``Millions Saved,'' demonstrating how health projects have saved lives. Eradicating smallpox and reducing river blindness have improved the lives of more people for less money than almost any investment imaginable. In Darfur, we haven't done nearly enough. But our aid shipments have kept alive hundreds of thousands of people. For my whole adult life, I've sponsored children through Plan USA, and in visiting my ``adopted'' child in places like the Philippines and Sudan, I've seen how the kids' lives are transformed by American sponsors. Aid is no panacea, but it is a lifesaver. So let's not shy away from a conversation about the effectiveness of aid. The problems are real, but so are the millions of people alive today who wouldn't be if not for aid. In the end, if we have tough conversations about foreign aid, then I believe Americans will acknowledge the challenges--and then, clear-eyed, agree to dig more deeply than ever, for that is simply the best way we have of asserting our own humanity.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention Part II of the testimony of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) when they testified before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee on May 23, 2006. The purpose of the testimony given was to share with the Subcommittee important measures to improve our nation's child protective services. It is my hope that my colleagues will find this information useful as well as informative as we focus on legislation that addresses the needs and care of our children. CWLA Policy Recommendations on Proposed Legislation The Reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families-- Of most immediate importance for this Committee is the reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program (PSSF) beyond FY 2006, PSSF supports four vital services that address four different types of families in need: those in need of basic support services to strengthen the family and keep them whole, families being reunified, families we are trying to preserve, and adoptive families in need of support. As you review some of the key needs included in this testimony, the Subcommittee can see how the issues of prevention, aftercare, permanency and stability and maintaining families are all addressed by these categories, CWLA believes these services and families should continue to be the target for PSSF in a reauthorization bill: Family Support Services (FSS) were developed to respond to the concerns, interests, and needs of families within a community. Family Support Services are targeted to families with difficulties and concerns related to the proper functioning of the family and care of the children. The focus of the program is on prevention. The services address the need to improve the well-being of a child, family functioning, and the parent's ability to provide for the family, before they are in crisis. In order to reach families in need of assistance, family support programs work with outside community organizations such as schools and child welfare agencies. The aim is to provide temporary relief to families and to teach them how to better nurture their children. Involvement in these services is voluntary. Types of services include parent education, child care relief, and selfhelp groups. Reunification is the first permanency option states consider for children entering care. Yet, in many ways, it is the most challenging option to achieve in a plan-based, permanent way. We know that forty-eight percent of, or 246,650, children in care on September 30, 2003 had a case plan goal of reunification with their parents or other principal caretaker. At the same time, 151,770 children, or 55 percent of those children who left care in 2003, were returned to their parent's or caretaker's home. Successful permanency through reunification requires many things, including skilled workers, readily available supportive and treatment resources, clear expectations and service plans, and excellent collaboration across involved agencies. Reunification also requires culturally appropriate support and treatment services for families and the critical need for after care or postpermanency services to ensure that safety and permanency are maintained following reunification. Family Preservation Services (FPS) are comprehensive, short-term, intensive services for families delivered primarily in the home and designed to prevent the unnecessary out-of-home placement of children or to promote family reunification. The services are intended to protect a child in a home where allegations of child abuse or neglect have occurred, prevent subsequent abuse or neglect, prevent placement of a child, or reduce the stay for a child in out- of-home care. Families in need of family preservation services are usually referred by public welfare agencies. Services are provided within 24 hours of referral and the family's involvement is voluntary. These services respond to families on a 24-hour basis, including services such as family therapy, budgeting, nutrition, and parenting skills. Adoption support is an important need as the number of adoptions have increased. There is still more work to be done. Services may include information and referral, case management services, support groups and a range of other services. Of the 523,085 children in foster care in 2003, approximately 119,000 were waiting to be adopted, with 68,000 of these children being free for adoption (parental rights had been terminated). Of the children waiting, 40 percent were black non-Hispanic, 37 percent were white non-Hispanic, 14 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent were of undetermined ethnicity.In 2003, the median age of children waiting to be adopted was 8.7 years; 3 percent of the children waiting to be adopted were younger than 1 year; 32 percent were ages 1 to 5; 28 percent were ages 6 to 10; 30 percent were 11 to 15; and 6 percent were 16 to 18. Use Of $40 Million PSSF Increase--CWLA supports the extension of the $40 million in mandatory funding that was included in the Deficit Reduction Act and we want to work with the Subcommittee and members of Congress to see that PSSF is at a minimum fully funded at the level of $505 million as adopted by this Subcommittee in 2001. We feel there a need for more. As indicated earlier in our testimony, forty percent of children substantiated as abused or neglected do not receive follow up services. We also feel it bears repeating that there is need for more reunification, adoption and other support services than PSSF attempts to address. To truly reach the goal of safe and stable families this country needs to go much further in its funding and priority of the entire child welfare system. CWLA recognizes that the Subcommittee and members of Congress see the $40 million in mandatory funding as an opportunity to address some additional issues in the child welfare field. If that is the decision of the Congress we strongly urge you to make this the first step in a comprehensive strategy over the next few years to more fully address the needs of these children. The draft legislation includes a workforce element tied to caseworker visits. CWLA supports regular and on-going visits to children in care. In the child welfare field visitation is not an isolated service or stand-alone intervention. Rather it is part of a larger case planning process. To reach this visitation goal we need a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the child welfare workforce. We would not want a system of care where too few workers with very high caseloads are simply meeting an outcome measure of numbers. Rather each state should be assisted in implementing a long term workforce strategy that sets goals around reduced workforce turnover, higher education levels, adequate case loads, initial training and on-going training, adequate supervision and the proper partnerships with educational institutions and other partners in workforce development. For each state this will be different so we would urge the Subcommittee to craft legislation around such a flexible allocation of funding and planning that will work with states to develop outcomes and provide related data that can demonstrate progress toward a comprehensive workforce strategy or goals. Again, this is a long-term strategy that requires federal, state and local partnerships. It should also be recognized that $40 million for fifty states may limit the kind of progress we all seek in advancing this goal. In addition, it will be difficult to determine how this designation of $40 million will supplement and not supplant current state efforts since it will overlap with Title IV-E Administrative funding used for these critical purposes but we do highlight that additional resources are needed. Possible Improvements--Access For Tribal Communities--In your reauthorization, CWLA suggests that the Subcommittee include the recommendations being proposed by the National Indian Child Welfare Association, National Congress of American Indians and the Association of American Indian Affairs. Their joint proposal would set the reserved amounts of funding for tribal governments at 3 percent in both the mandatory and discretionary funding. A consortium of tribal governments could also apply for the funding and we endorse an authorization of a tribal court improvement program. Better Data--As part of the application process, states submit information on how they intend to allocate their PSSF funding. This information should be collected and included in an annual report by HHS. We also urge the Subcommittee to include legislative language that would direct HHS to work with states to determine how to compile an annual report that would provide information on how funds are actually spent and would include information on families and children served. The annual reports by HHS on the Social Services Block Grant have only been issued since 1998, yet they have provided a stronger picture of why that funding is important to so many human service programs. Mentoring of Children of Prisoners--We commend the Committee for including the reauthorization of the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program in this legislation. Mentoring for this population is an effective way to engage at-risk children and youth, provides connections to caring adults, and perhaps most importantly, builds relations among family members during and after incarceration. We know there are many areas in the country today where children of prisoners are not able to access this mentoring service due to lack of availability. Expansion is necessary and the Committee is to be commended for focusing on this. We urge the committee to carefully consider the following issues as this new initiative is implemented. Currently there are 218 federally funded sites around the country where this mentoring is taking place, involving thousands of children. It would be tragic for these children to have their mentoring disrupted or ended prematurely. We urge the Committee to include provisions to allow these efforts to continue. Researchers and mentoring experts have concluded that children facing multiple developmental risks benefit more from mentoring than other children; however, they require a higher quality of mentoring program and are more likely to be adversely affected by poor quality mentoring. We urge the Committee to examine carefully the expertise and background of all potential national entities specific to mentoring children of prisoners. New trainings, techniques and curricula, have recently been developed. Whatever entity is chosen will need to be fully knowledgeable of these tools and prepared to make them available. IV-B Part 1 Child Welfare Services--CWLA appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts to better align the IV-B Part 1, Child Welfare Services program with that of PSSF. This can add clarity to the understanding of funding sources although it is unclear to what extent IV-B 1 funds are spent on adoption, foster care and child care on an annual basis. In practical terms, since federal Title IV-E funds cover half or less than half of the children in foster care, it is also unclear that this change in statute will result in any increase in funding for services covered under IV-B part 1 or PSSF. Inevitably states must pick up the cost of foster care for children ineligible for IV-E by relying on other federal funds, state funds, local funds or a combination of all three. CWLA also appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts at updating the state plan requirements. In addition we suggest the requirement to include a description of efforts to address the overrepresentation of children of color in the child welfare system. These children represent African American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races. Conclusion--CWLA appreciates the opportunity to offer our testimony and comments to the Subcommittee in regard to this reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. As this legislation moves forward we look forward to a continued dialogue with the Subcommittee and Members of Congress. We also hope that this reauthorization serves as a building block for future efforts that will create a comprehensive reform that results in reduced numbers of children being abused and neglected and safer and permanent families for those children who do come into contact with the child welfare system.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the majority has seen fit to bring to this floor a political statement where if you vote against it, you are voting against our troops; and if you vote for it, of course you are supporting the President's policy. But being a politician, I can understand that. We cannot say enough about the courage and the dedication of our young people, the volunteers and the National Guards people that are putting their lives on the line each and every day. Tragically, we reached a point that we passed the 2,500 mark in terms of loss of life, and tens of thousands are permanently maimed. When we laud them, as we have heard, as supporting the President's policy, I really think this is so unfair, and why? Because with our fighting men and women, when that flag goes up, they salute it not because of a President's policy, but because of respecting their oath to the Commander in Chief. When I was in Korea, I do not remember any of the soldiers that were in combat questioning the wisdom of Commander in Chief President Truman. They never asked did the Congress declare war. They never asked why were we involved in a civil war between the North Koreans and the South Koreans. They never thought that the North Koreans were going to invade our communities. I tell you that our fighting men and women today are not saying that they challenge the Commander in Chief. They do not ask whether there were weapons of mass destruction. They do not ask whether or not Saddam Hussein was a part of al Qaeda. They do not ask those political questions, and neither did I when I was a sergeant in the infantry. But I am not a sergeant in the infantry now. I am a Member of the United States Congress, a Member of this House of Representatives, and each one of us has the right to challenge any direction, not of the Commander in Chief, but the President of the United States. That is the most patriotic thing we can do because, in doing that, whether it is Vietnam, whether it is Korea, or whether it is Iraq, we are protecting as best we see it, the lives and the safety of the men and women that have volunteered. Let us face it, they did not volunteer to knock off Saddam Hussein. They volunteered because they were looking for a better way of life, the same way I did when I volunteered in 1948, and you can see where they come from. It does not take away from their patriotism, but they did not take a poli-sci course in terms of how do you bring peace in the Middle East. I mean, they were not there looking for Saddam Hussein. They were looking for a better opportunity, which I guess they received. They come from our inner cities. They come from our rural areas. They come from the areas of high unemployment. But when they get in the military, they are patriots who do not challenge the policies of a President or Commander in Chief. So they are not advocates. They are patriots.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an article, entitled The Changing Face of HIV/AIDS Epidemic, by Tony Best, published in the June 6, 2006 edition of New York Carib News, in the CaribHEALTH section. Mr. Best recalls the first time, twenty five years ago when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control informed the world about a disease that claimed the lives of five homosexual men in California. From then on, this mysterious disease became known as the ``gay cancer'' and was considered as an immediate sentence for death. Since then, HIV/AIDS has been responsible for over 25 million deaths worldwide, and the Caribbean Islands have had nothing short of a personal encounter with the disease, as HIV/AIDS claimed 20,000 lives in the region. The most affected countries in the Caribbean have consistently been Haiti, the Bahamas, Guyana, Barbados, Jamaica, Grenada, and Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. Best quotes U.S. HIV/AIDS expert Dr. Wayne Greaves as stating that ``Looking back on what has happened in the 25 years, the picture is still not a bright one.'' Despite all the innovative treatments that now prolong the lives of HIV/AIDS patients, there is still no cure or even a drug that prevents HIV in the first place. Another very noteworthy point that Mr. Best emphasizes is that HIV/ AIDS, while first distinguished as a homosexual, white, male disease, has now become blind to sexual orientation, gender, and race as it is alarmingly spreading and infecting increasing numbers of Blacks and heterosexual women. Although current census places Blacks as accounting for 12 per cent of the U.S. population, they also account for a whopping 51 per cent of the new HIV cases in the nation. Furthermore, the diagnosed HIV cases for women have tripled since first cases in 1985. Mr. Best cites possible theories that may explain these surprising shifts in HIV infection such as low rate of uncircumcised Black males compared with whites, the large Black prison population, and poverty. In essence, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has completely transformed in nature with regards to who is primarily infected by the disease. Akin to the shift in the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic exists the fact that the HIV virus is able to mutate so easily, making it virtually impossible for scientists to develop a vaccine against the disease. Nevertheless, Mr. Best cites Dr. Greaves as commenting that while the cure to HIV is a ``far way off,'' in the meanwhile, scientist can still continue to develop medications that can prolong life. This point is well taken in light of the fact that there is no cure for diabetes and hypertension, and yet, science has been able to treat people with these diseases to the point where the public no longer sees them as terminal conditions. Dr. Greaves underscores education and access to beneficial drugs as key elements in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Twenty-Five Years After the First Cases--the Changing Face of HIV/AIDS Epidemic (Tony Best) To some, it was the disease from hell, the ``gay cancer,'' that brought death. To others, it was an unfathomable plague whose origins were first believed to be in Haiti. That was a discredited medical theory scarred a nation, forcing millions from the Caribbean country to fight back to clear their name. To yet another group, the lethal virus that terrorized communities in North America, Europe, the Caribbean and Latin America, is still wreaking havoc, especially in Africa, but much less so in North America and the Caribbean. The disease: HIV/AIDS. Twenty five years after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control first told the world in a 1981 report about the deaths of five homosexuals in California from a rare form of pneumonia, few countries, if any have been spared the ferocity if this deadly disease. Some 25 million deaths later, at least 20,000 of them in Haiti, the Bahamas, Guyana, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, and their neighbors, the world is grappling with the devastation HIV/ AIDS has left behind. The Bahamas and Barbados, for instance, are considered success stories in dealing with it, have had more than its fair share of deaths. ``Looking back on what has happened in the 25 years, the picture is still not a bright one,'' said Dr. Wayne Greaves, a Caribbean scientist and an HIV/AIDS expert in the U.S. For one thing, asserts Dr. Greaves who heads a research laboratory at a large U.S. pharmaceutical firm, ``we can argue it is brighter than before, because there are newer and more effective drugs.'' Even more important, scientists know how to block some, not all, infections that attack the immune functions within the body. Still, there is no drug, which prevents HIV infection in the first place. ``From the epidemiological standpoint it is particularly disconcerting, particularly among Blacks and Hispanics,'' he said. ``In the early days of the epidemic, 95 per cent of the total cases were among men. Two-thirds of those cases were among Caucasians. Blacks made up 20 per cent of the cases. Today, although Blacks account for 12 per cent of the U.S. population they account for 51 per cent of the new HIV cases. For women, the story today isn't very good. The cases diagnosed in the U.S. have increased dramatically among women, tripling among women. From eight per cent in 1985 women accounted for 29 percent of all the cases. It is even higher today.'' The hard part is that the pattern of the diseases in Caribbean countries mirrors the trend in the U.S. Globally, more than three million died in 2004 and of the 40 million who succumbed to the disease since 1981, Africa accounted for half of them. In sub-Sahara Africa alone 25.8 million are living with HIV, a 75 per cent jump in the last decade. Sub- Sahara Africa has the world highest rate of infection followed by the Caribbean. In Asia, 8.3 million are living with the disease, an increase of almost 300 per cent since 1981. Indeed, 25 per cent of the new worldwide cases were in Asia last year. In Latin America and the Caribbean an estimated 2.1 million now have the disease, a 75 per cent increase from 1995. ``What is really very troubling in the United States is the high rate of infection among Black men, who are having sex with other men and many are also having sex with women,'' said Dr. Greaves. ``'This is really very troubling.'' How come such growing infections among Black men? ``It's not really quite clear what's happening,'' Greaves said. For instance, the causes range from a lack of knowledge about their own HIV status and then having sex with other people; low rate of uncircumcised Black males compared with whites; the prevalence of sex workers in Africa and the Caribbean; and the large Black prison population; to mistrust of the medical community; poverty and conspiracy theories. ``In summary, we are now talking about a different epidemic than the one first reported in 1981,'' Greaves, explained. ``It is more heterosexual transmission than before; less homosexual; transmission through injection drug use remains the same; and a lot more women infected than in the early days of the epidemic.'' But what about treatment? If there is a bright spot, it is that HIV positive individuals are living longer, many are leading normal lives, and infection is no longer seen as a death sentence, and that's true if you are in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, New York, Nassau or Port of Spain where retroviral drugs. ``I am optimistic from the medical and scientific standpoint in terms of the new medicines and drugs but I am not optimistic at all about the behavioral response to the messages which have been put out there in the public arena,'' he said. On the horizon, some promising categories of drugs. One is entry-inhibitors, which block the virus from being able to enter the cells of the body, thus causing infections. The other is an enzymes used by the virus to infect the cell. By blocking the enzymes scientists interrupt the process of the virus multiplying and causing destruction of the cell, spawning new viruses. ``These are being developed and they look very promising,'' he reported. ``If these successes continue, they would be useful additions to the existing drugs that we use to treat AIDS.'' Unfortunately, though, current research is unlikely to lead to a class of drugs anytime soon that would prevent infection. In essence, a cure is a far way off. The problem is that the HIV virus is able to mutate so easily that scientists have been virtually unable to develop a vaccine that stimulates the right antibodies or cells that would prevent infection. ``In the meantime, though, we will continue to develop better drugs and we can still prolong life,'' Greaves said. ``We may not be able to cure the infection but we can keep people alive.'' After all, there's no cure for diabetes and hypertension but ``'we have effective drugs where people can go living virtually a normal life span,'' he says. Dr. Greaves gives several Caribbean nations high marks for their efforts in fighting HIV through education and the provision of drugs to victims.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article by Mr. Kofi A. Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations. In the article, titled In Praise of Migration, published in the Wall Street Journal on June 6, 2006, Mr. Annan extols the benefits of transnational migration for both the country of origin and the receiving country. In receiving countries migrants perform essential tasks that residents are unwilling to undertake. Generally they pay more to the state in taxes than they take out in welfare and other benefits. ``Nearly half the increase in the number of migrants aged 25 or over in industrialized countries was made up of highly skilled people'' who have added talent and dexterity to our economy by strengthening the workforce. Migrants strengthen the economy of their country of origin as well. ``Migrants sent remittances, which totaled around $232 billion last year, $167 billion of which went to developing countries--greater in volume than current levels of official aid from all donor countries combined''--that are vital contributions to economy of the nation of origin. Migrants also encourage investment in their country of origin and are generally willing to supervise and direct these endeavors, leading to increased trade relations. Irregular or undocumented migrants are most vulnerable to smugglers, traffickers, and other forms of manipulation. If the host government chooses to criminalize those who assist these people in the name of humanity, they will completely be at the mercy of such exploitations. Essentially, we are throwing them to the wolves with the proposed House passed immigration bill. While immigration is not without drawbacks, I condemn the inhumane policies proposed by the bill passed by the House. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2006] In Praise of Migration--Nations That Welcome Immigrants Are the Most Dynamic in the World (By Kofi A. Annan) Ever since national frontiers were invented, people have been crossing them--not just to visit foreign countries, but to live and work there. In doing so, they have almost always taken risks, driven by a determination to overcome adversity and to live a better life. Those aspirations have always been the motors of human progress. Historically, migration has improved the well-being, not only of individual migrants, but of humanity as a whole. And that is still true. In a report that I am presenting tomorrow to the U.N. General Assembly, I summarize research which shows that migration, at least in the best cases, benefits not only the migrants themselves but also the countries that receive them, and even the countries they have left. How so? In receiving countries, incoming migrants do essential jobs which a country's established residents are reluctant to undertake. They provide many of the personal services on which societies depend. They care for children, the sick and the elderly, bring in the harvest, prepare the food, and clean the homes and offices. They are not engaged only in menial activities. Nearly half the increase in the number of migrants aged 25 or over in industrialized countries in the 1990s was made up of highly skilled people. Skilled or unskilled, many are entrepreneurs who start new businesses--from round-the-clock delis to Google. Yet others are artists, performers and writers, who help to make their new hometowns centers of creativity and culture. Migrants also expand the demand for goods and services, add to national production, and generally pay more to the state in taxes than they take out in welfare and other benefits. And in regions like Europe, where populations are growing very slowly or not at all, younger workers arriving from abroad help to shore up underfunded pension systems. All in all, countries that welcome migrants and succeed in integrating them into their societies are among the most dynamic--economically, socially and culturally--in the world. Meanwhile, countries of origin benefit from the remittances that migrants send home, which totaled around $232 billion last year, $167 billion of which went to developing countries--greater in volume than current levels of official aid from all donor countries combined, though certainly not a substitute. Not only do the immediate recipients benefit from these remittances, but also those who supply the goods and services on which the money is spent. The effect is to raise national income and stimulate investment. Families with members working abroad spend more on education and health care at home. If they are poor--like the family in the classic Senegalese film, ``Le Mandat''-- receiving remittances may introduce them to financial services, such as banks, credit unions and microfinance institutions. More and more governments understand that their citizens abroad can help development, and are strengthening ties with them. By allowing dual citizenship, permitting overseas voting, expanding consular services and working with migrants to develop their home communities, governments are multiplying the benefits of migration. In some countries, migrant associations are transforming their communities of origin by sending collective remittances to support small- scale development projects. Successful migrants often become investors in their countries of origin, and encourage others to follow. Through the skills they acquire, they also help transfer technology and knowledge. India's software industry has emerged in large part from intensive networking among expatriates, returning migrants and Indian entrepreneurs both at home and abroad. After working in Greece, Albanians bring home new agricultural skills that allow them to increase production. And so on. Yes, migration can have its downside--though ironically some of the worst effects arise from efforts to control it: It is irregular or undocumented migrants who are most vulnerable to smugglers, traffickers and other forms of exploitation. Yes, there are tensions when established residents and migrants are adjusting to each other, especially when their beliefs, customs or level of education are very different. And yes, poor countries suffer when some of their people whose skills are most needed--for instance health-care workers from southern Africa--are ``drained'' away by higher salaries and better conditions abroad. But countries are learning to manage those problems, and they can do so better if they work together and learn from each other's experience. That is the object of the ``high- level dialogue'' on migration and development that the General Assembly is holding this September. No country will be asked or expected to yield control of its borders or its policies to anyone else. But all countries and all governments can gain from discussion and the exchange of ideas. That's why I hope the September dialogue will be a beginning, not an end. As long as there are nations, there will be migrants. Much as some might wish it otherwise, migration is a fact of life. So it is not a question of stopping migration, but of managing it better, and with more cooperation and understanding on all sides. Far from being a zero-sum game, migration can be made to yield benefits for all.