Floor Statements

Would the gentleman yield on this?

You know, the committee's put a lot of time on this bill, but after considerable thought, I just thought it would be fair to tell the majority leader that I agree with you 100 percent.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 801, I call up the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic, indeed, piece of legislation, and soon I would ask unanimous consent that you allow me to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin, who may not be able to be here the remainder of the night, and then I will come back to manage the rest of the time.

But I really want to thank Speaker Pelosi for having the broad understanding that this great Nation of ours cannot afford the luxury of having a Republican or Democratic trade policy.

What makes this Nation great is that people perceive us as being a country that will speak when we have any trade agreement, and that when the Democrats took the majority, we certainly did not want a Democratic trade bill. It was so embarrassing to have foreign trade ministers talk to Republicans and talk with the Democrats and saw we're a divided Nation.

She authorized those of us to work with the administration to see whether or not we can bring something that sounded as though it was the United States Congress speaking and being directed to allow them to be the delegations and negotiators.

I can tell you that Jim McCrery played such an important role, along with Wally Herger, and of course, I can't say enough about Sandy Levin being able to work with me and the staffs for the first time in over a decade. And on this issue, as so many other issues, you could not find a difference as we found the Republican staff and the Democratic staff in working not just during the day but working at night, working with the Peruvians and even going over there with some of us, with Mr. Levin and Ms. Schwartz, went to talk with President Garcia and to see the respect and admiration they had with this great country, that they wanted to show their friendship and to have exchanges and to have us a stronger country.

I know that, politically speaking, there are some people that find it very difficult to talk about supporting trade. They made commitments to a lot of people. Therefore, they have to do what they think is best.

It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade. If we just are able to consume everything we manufacture, all the food that we grow, and not be able to have markets abroad, then this is not the great Nation that she is or hopes ever to be. So what we are talking about now is what's good for the country. We have to admit that we have done a terrible job in not recognizing the needs of people who have lost their jobs, lost their families, lost their industry, lost their community, lost their pride.

Mr. McCrery and I, we think that we have been able to convince the administration, as we go before the Business

Roundtable and say our multinationals can't do just what's good for their shareholders, they have to do what's good for America. And if globalization and technology have hurt some of these communities and destroyed their will to want to be able to say that in this great country they have opportunities for themselves or their children, well, treat us just as good as you treat the developing countries. Bring your ideas, bring the technology and the Ways and Means Committee will provide the incentives to make certain that we can get back, and these communities may not be doing the same thing, but God knows they would be able to do something.

Here we have a bill that you don't have to be a trade specialist to know that if people are manufacturing and growing in the United States, and we are dealing with a developing country, and they are not only our friends, but they want to work with us, then we have an opportunity to tear down the trade barriers and to be able to get into their markets as they are able to get into our markets so easily.

And so there are those people that cannot vote for it, but I think that because our great Speaker and the Republican leadership allowed Mr. McCrery and I and Sandy and Wally Herger to negotiate something, it doesn't mean that every trade agreement is going to be one that everyone can agree to. What it does mean is that in every trade agreement, America's trade policy is going to be a part of it. How do you treat human beings? How do you treat child labor? How do you treat American investors? And how do you treat the environment? That's a great step forward.

I would hope, as the Speaker said, that as people are listening to who is calling in, remember the world is calling in. The world is watching how we treat friends, and people all over this country would not want us to believe that we are anti-fair trade and trade that creates jobs.

Some people thought I was being personal when I said don't say this trade agreement loses jobs, this is the only place that people are doing anything, growing anything, can work with people who want to do business with us. It's a great, historic opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that people would want to be a part of this changing thing, where once again people would know that when you do business with the people of the United States, you're not doing business with Democrats because we control the House and Senate, and you're not doing business with Republicans, you're doing business with Americans who want to do the best for them, the best for this great country, to improve our quality of life. We can't do it by party, but we can do it by principle.

I thank you for this opportunity and I would ask consent to yield the balance of this time to Mr. Levin to be able to control until such time as he has to leave.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who is not only one of the best informed members on the Ways and Means Committee on trade, but he has done a heck of a job around this country explaining why this particular free trade agreement is good for America and good for our trading partners, for 3\1/2\ minutes.

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Becerra, an outstanding member of the House leadership as well as an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I thank him for all the fine work he has done.

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Crowley who makes our New York State proud and makes the Ways and Means Committee proud and is a great Member of this great Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have six speakers and it just seems to me that if other people are reserving their time, then I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who not only served well on the committee but was a part of the team that went to Peru with Congressman Levin to make certain that we were able to convince the President, the corporate leaders and the Congress that America was their friend and wanted to do the right things. It is with great pride that I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee and thank him for the support that he's given to us on all of our issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

Well, I am the last speaker, so whatever they want to do they can do. I may have to ask my friend on the other side for a minute or two to close, but I may not. So why don't I reserve and see what happens.

Let me thank my friend Mr. Herger for the great work that he has done.

Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up this debate, I think that we have had tremendous success in what we have done because, regardless of which way the votes have come, isn't it wonderful, Mr. Herger, that we do have a bill on the floor, that Republicans and Democrats are discussing it, and we broke this barrier that because of party label, people could decide how we felt about something?

And I have decided that we have a bigger job to do really than just talk about trade. I really think if the multinationals and the trade ambassadors and the Congress spent more time in feeling the pain of those people who were not the beneficiaries of trade, where people who worked hard for generations and life was always better for their kids and their grandkids, and how depressing it is to see all of that lost and the multinationals not bringing that technology and that innovation to our communities and our towns so that people could get their dignity restored. We have got to do a better job. And whether it's related to trade or whether it's not, when you're out of work and you've lost your dignity, what difference does it make?

And when you hear people say that they campaigned against trade, they campaigned against the indifference of our government to care about working people. They were campaigning against the spear because how could you possibly campaign against trade? You can't campaign against trade. You can't say everything we grow and everything that we manufacture, that we don't want someone to buy it. And you can't say that America can be as stable as it is. Somebody's working. Someone's doing well. But the people who campaign against trade are communities of people who are not doing well, and this country has not done well by them.

So we have got to make an appeal to the multinationals and to our government that they have to not sell trade where it's working; they have to sell trade where it is not working. Because, realistically, no one could have campaigned against the Peruvian agreement. It hadn't been decided. And if you campaign against trade, it's not realistic. But if you campaigned against making America strong and making certain that when you stamp an agreement, you see dignity in that agreement, you see a care for the environment, a care for workers, and you see a concern for those people who are going to be disadvantaged by that agreement. And if they are disadvantaged by anything even other than the agreement, which, as Mr. McCrery said, when we were told by the United States Trade Representative and she said, Mr. Chairman, you know, a lot of people are complaining about loss of jobs. It has nothing to do with trade. And Mr. McCrery said, What difference does it make? As long as they think it is, it's going to be very difficult to sell the question of trade.

So we've got a big job to do. This is only the beginning. And after you have said no, no, no to trade, we have to make certain that those towns come back. And I am not that good at projecting what's going on, but I was telling my dear friend Joe Crowley, I bet you that those who feel the strongest against the Peruvian agreement come from communities who have had a lot of economic pain, and those people who even think it was a bad trade agreement if they were doing good, they would allow a Member to make up their mind what they want to do. And so it means that we have got a long way to go but this is truly a beginning. We now have people expressing themselves and asking more from their government to help Americans that deserve better treatment than they have been getting.

The only thing that bothered me in the debate is the whole idea that the Speaker of this House and the members, Republican and Democrats, on this committee would bring forth a bill that they thought that Americans would suffer. It's one thing to differ with the contents of the bill; it's another thing to think that we are trying to sell CAFTA or NAFTA or bills that the Speaker has constantly been against. And speaker after speaker after speaker said that realistically if you take a look at Peru, how can it do anything except help us? How can it do anything that we're going to sell to them now, notwithstanding the tariff? Imagine how much more we can sell without the tariff? And when they sell, doesn't it mean that we're making it? If they're buying food, doesn't it mean we're growing it? And doesn't it mean in the communities that have it, we'll be doing well?

So let me thank the minority and let me thank the majority. It's been a great debate. Let's get on and say that this Peruvian bill is just the beginning of the cooperation we should expect.

Thank you, Mr. Herger. And thank you, the majority.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of resolutions H. Res. 573, H. Res. 726, and H. Res. 740, which are all related to the situation in Darfur. The continuing genocide in Darfur is an attack on humanity and I would like to take this moment to urge my colleagues in Congress and in the International Community to support ending this genocide.

I am in support of H. Res. 573. This resolution calls for recognizing and commending the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur, Sudan. If it were not for the U.S. public and advocacy groups that have brought awareness of the violence and displacement that has occurred in Darfur, this horrific conflict might have gone unnoticed. Experts estimate some 400,000 people have died and over 2.5 million people within the Darfur region have been made homeless since this conflict began in 2003. Too many people of Darfur are in extreme poverty and they rely heavily on international aid for survival. Refugee camps have experienced atrocities, rape, and physical violence, which is making these supposedly safe havens unsafe. Even humanitarian groups are suffering from deteriorating conditions and attacks, which has caused several NGOs to leave.

I agree with H. Res. 726, which calls on the President of the United States and the international community to take immediate steps to respond to and prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan, eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. During war women are too often the victims of rape and sexual violence, which is often used systematically as a weapon of intimidation, humiliation, terror and ethnic cleansing. Being a victim of rape or sexual violence is one of the worst human rights violations there is. Women in these areas can hopefully be protected if the President of the United States develops within the United States Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development a Women and Girls of Darfur Initiative to improve assistance to victims and potential victims of rape and sexual violence in the areas called for by the resolution.

I fully support H. Res. 740. This resolution condemns in the strongest terms the attacks on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan on September 29, 2007. This ambush by Darfur rebels killed ten peacekeepers; seven Nigerian peacekeepers and three other soldiers from Mali, Senegal and Botswana. Several other soldiers were wounded and fifty soldiers are still missing. This attack is considered the worst on AMIS peacekeepers since the deployment in July 2004. It is time to hold the perpetrators of these hateful acts accountable for their inhumane actions.

Madam Speaker, I support these bills because the people of Darfur need help. Too many lives have been taken; too many women have been sexually violated. These bills help send a clear message to the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebel groups that we will not continue to allow these crimes to happen on our watch. It is time to end this genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to throw my endorsement behind a resolution of great import--one that highlights the struggle of Jewish freedom in the former Soviet Union and pays tribute to one of the great civil rights movements of the last century. The will and forbearance of man and woman is best evinced when they are faced with adversity. Victims to a repressive anti-Zionist state that stripped its Jewish citizens of their rights to emigrate, be autonomous, and engage in religious prerogatives, Soviet Jewry channeled the strength of its community into one, harmonious dissenting voice. That takes awe- inspiring courage, and it more than merits our recognition today.

Only two decades have passed since a full quarter of a million of our frustrated brothers and sisters marched on Washington, demonstrating remarkable solidarity in numbers and unmatched political resolve. Only two decades before that, the seeds of focused defiance were being sown, a movement young in age but ripe at heart. And now, four decades later, the legacy of that effort has come to brilliant fruition. A renaissance of Jewish culture has cemented itself in the modern-day consciousness of the Russian people--and that is an exceptionally good thing.

Let us echo that spirit of unity, camaraderie, fraternity, and in one voice, honor their memories that inspire and move us to this day. Mazel Tov, my friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of a true patriot and committed public servant, the late Joseph Crapa. He boasted a litany of high posts and honors to his name, but it was as Chief of Staff to Senator Charles Schumer that he so ably served my native New York. Staffers like Mr. Crapa are the backbone of Capitol Hill, the too-often unsung movers and shakers who work feverishly on behalf of the American people.

Known as a fast-talking guy from Brooklyn, Mr. Crapa's magnetism drew a series of glowing compliments--solid, wise, shrewd. He loved politics and government, but remained loyal to his unwavering moral core. He was an intellectual powerhouse, relentless in his defense of the little guy, but with the practical political know-how to get things done. As the executive director of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, his last post, he agitated for a cause near and dear to his heart: the battle for religious freedom worldwide.

He is today--and always--remembered and appreciated as a man of conviction and a wealth of knowledge.

``Salt-of-the-Earth'' Staffer Crapa Mourned on Hill

Joseph Crapa, the executive director of the U.S. Commission

on International Religious Freedom, died Thursday from cancer

at the age of 63.

Crapa, who had led the commission since 2002, previously

worked for 25 years in various Capitol Hill-related jobs,

including House committee offices, Member offices and in the

Congressional relations shops of several executive branch

agencies.

Immediately before coming to the commission, Crapa worked

as chief of staff to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

``Joe was a pure salt-of-the-earth human being,'' Schumer

wrote in an e-mail. ``To know him was to love him.''

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) noted in a statement

that she knew Crapa during his service in the Senate and the

Clinton administration. She lauded Crapa's ``indomitable

spirit and determination'' during the fight to secure funding

for New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001,

terrorist attacks.

Crapa also served as counsel and staff director in the

office of Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) for 10 years, before

leaving in 1997 to become associate administrator for

congressional and intergovernmental affairs at the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Obey said he was dubious when he first interviewed Crapa

for a job in 1987.

``I thought, `There's no way in God's green earth I can

work with this fast-talking guy from Brooklyn,'' Obey said.

``He was about three times as intense as I was. But his

solidity, wisdom, and shrewdness came through, and we ended

up not only working together for 10 years, but becoming close

friends.''

Obey said Crapa was a ``superb example'' of the importance

of the role staffers play on the Hill.

``There are a lot of people who never serve in elected

office--staffers and people in various agencies--who love

this country, are dedicated to doing things right and to

advancing the cause of regular people,'' Obey said. He said

Crapa ``loved politics, he loved government, he had a moral

core to everything he did. He was an intellectual and, at the

same time, a hard-nosed practicing pol in the best sense of

the word.''

In a statement released by USCIRF on Thursday, Chairman

Michael Cromartie said Crapa ``had an unwavering, principled

commitment to . . . protecting religious freedom worldwide.''

He and Vice Chairwoman Preeta Bansal both commented on

Crapa's ``sharp political instincts,'' which Barisal said

were ``crucial to him in this sensitive area.''

Over the course of his career, Crapa worked as the top

congressional relations official at the EPA, the Department

of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International

Development, and in the No. 2 spot in the Department of

Commerce's congressional relations office.

He also spent time at the Democratic Congressional Campaign

Committee, where he was the executive director of the

Speaker's Club, and as vice president at lobby shop Dutko and

Associates. For 6 years during his time in Obey's office and

at the EPA, Crapa taught part-time as adjunct professor of

government at Georgetown University. He was a John C. Stennis

Congressional fellow in 1995-1996.

Crapa was born Dec. 16, 1943, in Brooklyn, N.Y. He received

his bachelor's degree from St. John's University in New York

City and went on to receive a master's degree from Duke and a

Ph.D. from the University of Arizona; all three degrees were

in British and American literature. He married Barbara Vaskis

in 1967; the couple had one son, Judd, and two grandsons,

Sebastian and Baird.

A memorial service for Crapa is scheduled for 1 p.m. today

at St. Peter's Church on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 781, I call up the bill (H.R. 3920) to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, to extend trade adjustment assistance to service workers and firms, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to our distinguished subcommittee chairman for Trade, Mr. Levin, I first want to thank Mr. McCrery for helping to set the stage for at least the Ways and Means Committee to vote unanimously for the free trade agreement with Peru. This was a record vote, this was a historic vote, and we had every vote on the committee.

I raise that at this time not to curry favor with the Republicans to support this historic piece of legislation before us, but because I know from Mr. McCrery's input and contribution, he recognizes that trade no longer has to be seen as something that is negative to American workers.

Good trade agreements that create jobs should be allowed a vote and not be hurried so that Members are not impeded from the policy and really have an opportunity to study the substance. Without his cooperation and that of the United States Trade Representative and Secretary Treasurer, we would not even have the opportunity to look forward to the bipartisan victory we had in the committee and look forward to on the floor.

A part of that agreement, however, was he and I sharing that when people are without work, without jobs, without hope, when communities are adversely affected because of trade, that our government and our multinationals have a responsibility not just to their shareholders, but to do all that they can to ease the pain, to encourage investment, and to have a climate, whether it is globalization or technology, to know that trade is not always the villain.

And to the extent we are able to improve on many of the things that we have in this bill before us, we do hope that the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act will be just the beginning. That whether it is trade or not, we have a responsibility to the dignity of American workers and their children so that in this great country they can aspire to be working and to have the respect that all Americans would want in terms of being producers.

So to the extent that we had the cooperation of Mr. McCrery in creating the climate, and fully appreciating that we had input from Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee, even though we didn't ask for their votes and accept their amendments, it is this climate that makes our country so great, that makes this Congress so great, and makes me proud to be the Chair and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3920, the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007.

We come here today at a crossroads of sorts.

In recent years, trade policy has been a dividing force, used as a political tool to advance ideologies, rather than a shared sense of purpose that our trade agreements and programs could reflect the broader goals of the American worker.

The legislation before us today offers an opportunity to change that.

In the early months of this Congress, I joined with the Speaker and the House leadership to remind the Administration that the Constitution specifically designates Congress as the branch of government responsible for international commerce.

We agreed that we took that responsibility seriously and we would use our majority to improve American trade policy to better reflect the needs and concerns of our workers, not just our large, multi-national corporations.

The legislation before us today is the next step in developing a new trade policy that more adequately addresses the growing perception that trade is not working for American workers.

The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007 would expand training and benefits for workers while also helping to encourage investment in communities that have lost jobs to increased trade-- particularly in our manufacturing sector.

The growing perception that prior American trade policy ignored the needs of workers here and abroad is a large contributing factor to the declining public support for trade.

For years we have had a program in place--trade adjustment assistance, or TAA--that was supposed to tackle some of the issues and problems workers face as it relates to trade.

Despite the best of intentions, this program did not meet expectations or promises and has failed to keep pace with globalization.

We are here to change that today with the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007.

The bill before us today is a comprehensive policy expanding opportunities for American

workers, industries, and communities to prepare for and overcome the challenges created by expanded trade.

First, the bill significantly expands existing TAA for Workers by: 1) covering service workers and additional manufacturing workers; 2) increasing TAA benefits; 3) making the TAA wage insurance program permanent; 4) improving the TAA health care benefit; and 5) increasing TAA program funding.

Second, the bill includes a package of tax incentives to encourage investment in distressed communities that have lost manufacturing jobs.

Third, recognizing that unemployment insurance (UI) is the gateway to TAA, the bill reforms the unemployment insurance system by creating incentives for States to cover part-time, low-wage, and other workers under State UI laws.

America's ability to compete and win in a global economy is too critical for our trade policy to continue being a partisan issue.

I noticed with great displeasure yesterday's veto threat from the Administration on this bill. To that statement, I would say that the bill before us today passed the Ways and Means Committee with Democratic and Republican support--and I expect it will receive the same from the full House.

The issues contained in this bill are central to the ongoing debate over the Administration's trade policy and if this Administration wishes to address the growing public concern over the direction of its trade policy, it will reconsider this veto threat.

Globalization is here to stay--and we must band together as Democrats and Republicans to shape its benefits for all Americans.

I look forward to today's discussion and I urge you to support H.R. 3920, the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007.

At this time I would like unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, who has played such an important role in creating that climate and working with the staff and the members on the other side.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the many urging New York State--and the country, at large--to reform its sentencing. The New York Times editorial, ``Rational Sentencing,'' published October 25, 2007, takes up that challenge, forcefully arguing that draconian measures enacted over 30 years ago have done nothing to curb drug use. They have, however, maintained an inflated prison population, hamstrung the discretions of judges, and burdened the state with exorbitant cost. A failed system demands creative solutions--and it demands that they come speedily.

It is incumbent upon the state to empower judges and end indeterminate sentencing that allows them to set minimums and maximums but little else. It should deal with nonviolent offenders in a sensible, compassionate manner, offering community-based treatment in lieu of jail time. It should restore prison-based education and training programs, ridding jails of their revolving-door culture and arming inmates with marketable skills. It should create a permanent and independent sentencing commission tasked with advising legislators, so that we may never again devolve into an unfair system.

After decades fraught with injustice, smart and widespread reform is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, now that the dust has settled and the parliamentary games have been played and some of the facts that have been distorted have been corrected, we reach the point that at the end of the line the question is going to be: Did you vote for health care for 10 million children and did you vote to support the $35 billion that is necessary to do it?

I don't think that any of the families of the children or the Governors or the agencies that are just waiting to see what is going to happen are very interested in the distortions continuing. It is going to be very, very simple. Which way do you vote, and if you did not vote for the bill, why didn't you?

Now there may be some particular loyalty to the President, but you have to remember that when these voters and people come to you, the President's veto message will not be stapled to you and you will have to, on your own, be able to explain why you thought what he said was true. That's why we rely heavily on some of the President's strongest supporters, Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Chuck Grassley, because as a Democrat, I am kind of used to Republicans beating up on me, but I am not used to them beating up on the Republican leaders in the Senate such as Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley. This is particularly so since the Senate has assumed so much responsibility in putting together this bill which neither you nor I like, but what the heck, we have to play the hand that is dealt.

So remember that just by attacking personalities, it may be like getting into a firing squad that is in a circle and we find everybody shooting at each other. But really, the winners and losers are going to be those children without health coverage and their families who are struggling hard. And ultimately, these kids are really America. It takes so much to take care of some of the illnesses that could be detected.

And as sensitive as the President is to the poor that are smoking and having the tobacco tax increase, tobacco smoking is dangerous for America and for our health system. It is very expensive, and it is a deterrent to children smoking.

So when all of this is done, I don't know how many people are going to ask you why did you vote no. But please remember that many of the reasons that are stated today, the truth will be caught up to the allegations and you will have to have a better answer.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I recognize the chairman of the Health Subcommittee who has worked very hard on the Medicare part and transferred that knowledge to help perfect the SCHIP bill, Chairman Stark, for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to Mr. Lewis, an outstanding member of the committee, the conscience of the House of Representatives from the sovereign State of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rahm Emanuel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the erection of a monument in Savannah, Georgia honoring the more than 500 Haitian soldiers who fought there during the Revolutionary War, and to introduce the accompanying New York CARIB News article, ``Haitians in U.S. Revolution Get Monument,'' published on Oct. 16, 2007. This monument serves as a bronze testament to the oft-forgotten contributions Haitians made in that war.

Around 150 people attended the unveiling of the monument, which depicts four soldiers from that 545-man unit. Theirs was the largest unit in that Savannah battle and believed to be the largest grouping of black soldiers in the war. Soon after returning home, those Haitian veterans channeled that same spirit of rebellion to gain independence from the French in 1804.

In tribute to that integral thread in our American history, and in memory of their sacrifices to the cause of liberty, I submit news of this important symbol into the Record.

Haitians in U.S. Revolution Get Monument

Savannah, Ga.--After 228 years as largely unsung

contributors to American independence, Haitian soldiers who

fought in the Revolution War's bloody siege of Savannah had a

monument dedicated in their honor last Monday.

About 150 people, many of them Haitian-Americans who came

to Savannah for the event, gathered in Franklin Square where

life-size bronze statues of four soldiers now stand atop a

granite pillar 6 feet tall and 16 feet in diameter.

This is a testimony to tell people we Haitians didn't come

from the boat, said Daniel Fils-Aime, chairman of the Miami-

based Haitian American Historical Society. We were here in

1779 to help America win independence. That recognition is

overdue.

In October 1779, a force of more than 500 Haitian free

Blacks joined American colonists and French troops in an

unsuccessful push to drive the British from Savannah in

coastal Georgia.

More than 300 allied soldiers were gunned down charging

British fortifications Oct. 9, making the siege the second-

most lopsided British victory of the war after Bunker Hill.

Though not well known in the U.S., Haiti's role in the

American Revolution is a point of national pride for

Haitians.

After returning home from the war, Haitian veterans soon

led their own rebellion that won Haiti's independence from

France in 1804.

Fils-Aime's group has spent the past seven years lobbying

Savannah leaders to support the monument, which the city

approved in 2005, and raising more than $400,000 in private

donations to pay for it. Fils-Aime said the historical

society still needs $250,000 more to finish two additional

soldier statues.

As it stands now, the monument features life-size bronze

statues of four soldiers and standing atop a granite pillar 6

feet tall and 16 feet in diameter.

The fourth statue, a drummer boy, depicts a young Henri

Christophe, who served in Savannah as an adolescent and went

to become Haiti's first president--and ultimately king--after

it won independence.

Records show that 545 Haitian soldiers sailed to Savannah

in 1779, making them the largest military unit of the

Savannah battle. The Haitians are also believed to have been

the largest black unit to serve in the American Revolution.

This is a testimony to tell people we Haitians didn't come

from the boat, said Daniel Fils-Aime, chairman of the Miami-

based Haitian American Historical Society, one of the many

Haitian Americans who came to Savannah for the dedication.

We were here in 1779 to help American win independence.

That recognition is overdue.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of a dear friend's life, that of Roger Lee Gore--a man of limitless smiles, generous laughter, and amiable spirit. He toiled in the New York hospitality business for years, serving a 30-year stint as waiter, maitre d', and banquet captain for Hilton Hotel. An ardent voice in his community, he remained a lifelong member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and contributed his time and talents to the Civil Rights Movement. A lover of people with an effortless sunny disposition, he asked that no tears be shed over his blessed life.

Roger was born on August 30, 1944 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to the late Harold Gore and Sadie Gore Graham. Nicknamed ``Ducky,'' he was an early-age churchgoer and hard worker, moonlighting as a caddy and waiter to financially help out the family. In high school, he participated in team football, basketball, and glee club, earning his diploma in 1963.

He travelled the country after school, but settled in New York by the late 1960s as a waiter and bartender at Henry Stampler's Steakhouse. He was a union man, a member of Local Six, Unite, and HERE Hotel unions and chairman of the Elections and Objection Committee. In 1993, he married Lena McPhatter, who later passed in 1998. He then married Noveria Epps in March of 2007. Roger passed away September 30, 2007 and was memorialized in his funeral held October 19, 2007.

Today, we are moved, stirred, sobered by this loss, but we are more so grateful and joyful by the legacy he's left behind.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to take this time to remember the life of Eileen Marie Sweeney.

Eileen Sweeney, a woman whose life, to a remarkable degree, embodied the reverie of the American dream, was a great woman of distinction which reflected her grand Irish heritage.

Born on October 5, 1934, Eileen Sweeney was a long-time community activist who devoted many years to the betterment of Washington Heights and Inwood, For many years, she worked for New York State Assembly Members Edward H. Lehner and Herman D, Farrell, Jr., where she was diligent in resolving constituent issues. While in her office or out in the community, any project she took on merited her full and undivided attention.

Eileen contributed her time and talents to countless civic and charitable endeavors and has always given of herself unstintingly. One of countless examples was her membership to Community Board 12 of Manhattan, where she served as a fierce housing and tenant advocate and protector of her beloved community.

In 1976, she was called upon to serve as a Democratic District Leader for the 71st New York State Assembly District and also as a Delegate of the Democratic National Convention in which nominated then Presidential Candidate, President Jimmy Carter.

As she passed away on January 31, 2006, such a benevolent amalgamation of intellect, steadfastness, and vigor as that demonstrated by Eileen Sweeney over a lifetime of sacrifice and dedication to others, will greatly be missed.

This past weekend, on October 20th, 2007, Eileen was memorialized by those that loved and cherished her with the renaming of the Northwest comer of West 207th Street and Broadway in my district. It is our hope that this act will help preserve the memory of this remarkable woman, not only for the benefit of those who knew her but for all who value the promise of America.

Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and enthusiasm that I rise to congratulate Mount Calvary Baptist Church as they join together in celebration of their 90th Anniversary. They will be celebrating his very momentous and joyous occasion with a banquet held on October 20th, 2007.

The Mount Calvary has a very rich history that has given it life and longevity for the past 90 years. It all began in the late summer of 1916. Mr. Sterling Grayson Jr. along with two other colleagues, Reverend William Lilly and Reverend Young, sat among each other and through conversation, the idea was born in the mind of Mr. Grayson to plan and organize a Missionary Baptist Church. In September of that year, at Thomas Chapel, located at 91 West 134th Street, the idea of the three men came to fruition.

Mr. Sterling Grayson, Jr., who at the time was a college student, turned over the officiating of the church to his father, Reverend Sterling Grayson, Sr. Through names submitted by the new church congregation and pastor, Reverend Grayson Sr.'s submission of Mount Calvary Baptist Church is chosen and he becomes known as the author of the official name of the church on September 27th, 1917. Mount Calvary continues to flourish at its new location of 231 West 142nd Street in my district.

From its modest beginning, Mount Calvary Baptist Church has emerged as a cornerstone of the community. Under the guidance of Reverend Dr. Adolph Roberts, Jr., Mount Calvary continues to thrive, both in terms of spiritual growth as well as practical improvements. The proud members of the church are thankful for the spiritual and emotional leadership he and the previous pastors have provided during the years.

Reverend Dr. Adolph Roberts, Jr. was installed as pastor of the church in April of 1983. Though he is dedicated to his congregants, he has never limited his time and love for his family. Reverend Dr. Adolph Roberts, Jr. and his wife of 43 years, Victoria, have one son, Anthony and three grandchildren, He is a scholar and a veteran of the Korean War, where he served with the 82nd Airborne Infantry Division.

The 90th Anniversary Worship Service and Celebration Week began on Monday, October 15th, 2007, with the Friendship Baptist Church Family and Pastor James A. Kilgore. On Saturday, October 20th, 2007, there will be an evening of love and appreciation at the Alhambra Ballroom Banquet in my district where Reverend Dr. James Forbes will be the guest speaker. The celebration banquet will include with church services on Sunday, October 21, 2007, with the Mount Calvary Baptist Church Family of Savannah, Georgia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me in honoring and congratulating Mount Calvary Baptist Church on their historic 90th Anniversary. Their constant dedication, commitment, and spiritual guidance is worthy of the highest commendation.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to ask my colleagues to take a moment to honor one of my local institutions, Linkage House Home for the Elderly, for 10 years of outstanding service.

Linkage House is the result of a shared vision of four local East Harlem organizations: the Greater Emmanuel Baptist Church, Union Settlement Association, the Community Association of East Harlem Triangle, and Mount Sinai Medical Center. That vision recognized that the ability to stay in one's home--or ``aging in place''--is the overwhelming choice of many older Americans. However, to do so, these venerable residents need assistance from informal support systems, access to formal health services & social services, and meaningful, productive roles integrated within an affordable living environment.

Opening in May 1997 at 309 East 118th Street, the institution was the result of nine years of planning and organizing by a number a people. Under the leadership of Dr. Robert Butler and Dr. Gary Rosenberg, funds and technical assistance were found to design and implement the project. Union Settlement, under the leadership at that time of Eugene Sklar, provided invaluable experience in designing and implementing services for older people living in the community. Community activist Petra Allende, Union Settlement Association's Sally Yarmolinksy and Mount Sinai's Glenn Williams--all of them members of the original Linkage House Board and who have unfortunately since passed away--were also vital to making this project a reality.

Today, Linkage House stands as a testament to hard work and commitment of all these men and women. It encourages socialization and shared activities, providing a cross section of comprehensive and integrated services that include an on-site full time social work services coordinator, resident- developed shared living spaces and an on-site physical exercise room that offers aerobics, Tai Chi, and walkings programs.

Linkage House is also a laboratory for learning. It is the site for Union Settlement's GED classes, a social work student internship site, and a community based education site for federally funded Geriatric Education Center (GEC) that trains community providers of service to older adults. The ``Meet the Doctor'' program provides interaction between physicians who are Geriatric Fellows, Internal Medicine residents, and older adults. Medical student studies and surveys of the use of complementary and alternative medicine by older adults are also conducted here.

That is why I am more than happy to congratulate Linkage House Home for the Elderly on their 10th Anniversary. Their tireless commitment and resilient efforts on behalf of our senior citizens is a model that we can all follow not just in East Harlem, but around the nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. After my 2 minutes, I ask unanimous consent to turn the remaining time to Chairman Stark to be able to yield to other people as he sees fit.

Madam Speaker, let me stand in a sense of bipartisanship, especially to my Republican friends, and remind you that come the next election, President Bush is going to be there at his ranch in Texas, and he will not be with you at the polls.

I say that because by that time the truth will have caught up with the message that the President is giving and most of you are using to sustain the President's veto.

Let me get to the one that I'm most familiar with, this $83,000 ability of people to enjoy SCHIP. No one is more familiar with this than I am. It was the great State of New York that exercised its request for a waiver to ask the President of the United States whether or not a family of four would be allowed to buy in, even though they were making $83,000. And guess what, under existing law, not new law, the President of the United States says, hell, no, you can't do it.

So we've got to emphasize over and over again, you could ask for it for $1 million because it's not an entitlement, it's a block grant, and the Governors can ask for anything they want over 200 percent over poverty, and the President, Republican or Democrat or whoever she might be, will be able to say, no, you're not going to be able to do it. So knock that out.

And for all of the people that are upset with immigrants, legal or illegal,

we're just going to put in big letters so that by the time November gets here that in the bill that the President has vetoed it says no illegal alien can receive the benefits of the bill.

And since you're so against adults receiving benefits, the bill is eliminating adults.

So if you can't be with us today, try to think of yourself in November, and maybe we can work out something.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in favor of the harmonization of the Caribbean economy, and in that spirit, introduce the article, ``Jamaicans To New Government In Kingston: Do Not Change Regional Course On Caribbean Single Market, It's Vital.'' The article--written by Tony Best and published in New York CARIB News on Sept. 19, 2007-- highlights the optimism of Jamaicans in the Diaspora that the island nation's new government will keep pace with the area's push towards economic integration.

The ambitious move promises to augment the production and trade of goods and services, engender products of better quality and prices, bolster the service sectors of transportation and communication, and elevate standards of living. The article conjectures that the integration of the Caribbean's air transportation may already be top priority, as the area's tourism nears consolidation.

[From the New York CARIB News, Sept. 19, 2007]

Jamaicans to New Government in Kingston: Do Not Change Regional Course

on Caribbean Single Market, It's Vital

(By Tony Best)

Keep Jamaica on course with the rest of the Caribbean as

the island-nations and coastal states move forward with the

plan for economic integration.

That appeal to the new administration in Kingston led by

Prime Minister Bruce Golding has come from Jamaicans in New

York who believe it would be a mistake for the Jamaica Labor

Party Administration to show a lack of enthusiasm for

Jamaica's vital role in the efforts designed to launch the

Single Market and Economy.

It was a course set for Jamaica by successive Governments

formed by the People's National Party led by Michael Manley,

P.J. Patterson and more recently Portia Simpson-Miller and it

should be embraced by the Jamaica Labor Party's

administration.

At the same time, Jamaicans are urging the new Prime

Minister and his cabinet to continue working closely with the

Jamaican Diaspora in North America and elsewhere so that the

country would continue to reap maximum benefits from the

human, financial, cultural and other resources if nationals

living and working abroad. ``Historically, the JLP was never

a very warm supporter of Caribbean unity, Caricom if you

will, and this goes back to the time of the West Indies

Federation,'' the Rev. Patrick Perrin, Pastor of Hanson Place

Central United Methodist Church in downtown Brooklyn told the

New York Carib News.

``But when I begin to look at the new persons on the scene

within the JLP government, many of the new leaders that they

have, I believe I don't have to have that fear,'' added

Pastor Perrin. ``I think the new blood, they are probably

more broad-minded. The economists, political scientists and

others who have gone through the University of the West

Indies, which is an integrative kind of force and studied and

worked with persons in the other territories, would have this

broad view. They would have a feeling of the Caribbean, as

distinct from the narrow, nationalistic, isolationist type of

policy.''

``I believe the new leadership would probably be more open

to an integrated Caribbean,'' he added. ``We can expect a

display of courage from the new Prime Minister, looking at

the way he dealt with his own party by not being afraid to

leave when he couldn't agree with certain things. That's a

good sign if strong leadership that bodes well for Jamaica.''

For instance, the Methodist Minister believes the new

government place the question of integration of air

transportation high on its list of priorities.

``It should be a part of the general integrative package

because Caribbean tourism is becoming more and more

integrated,'' he said. ``We have to take a broad look at some

of the institutions that we have and decide what's best for

our interest. What I do know is the Caribbean needs an

integrated Caribbean airline. It should consider putting all

of the airlines together and make it work, that would be the

road to take. We need to look at how we integrate air travel

in the entire Caribbean.''

The Methodist Minister, head of the Hanson Place church for

the past decade, also said Jamaicans abroad were ready and

eager to work with the new administration in much the same

that they had linked arms with the PNO Government for the

good of their birthplace.

``Jamaicans in the Diaspora are interested in the welfare

of their country, regardless if the political party that

formed the government and the new government must continue to

harness that nationalism and interest,'' Perrin insisted.

Hyacinth Spence, a Jamaican community activist who is also

President of the New York chapter of the Mico Old Students

Association said that any lukewarm attitude to Caribbean

integration that Golding and the JLP displayed in recent

years when they were in the opposition was unlikely to become

government policy towards the rest of the Caribbean.

``He has to improve with his relations with the rest of the

Caribbean,'' Spence said of Golding. ``You can't be a

separatist. You can't separate Jamaica from the rest of the

Caribbean because Jamaica plays an important part in regional

affairs and development. So, if before he had lukewarm

feelings while in the opposition, Golding would have to

change them, based on the negotiations, the discussions, the

meetings in which they have to come to table and

participate'' as the government of Jamaica.

In essence, she insisted, when in the opposition

politicians say things to motivate followers and criticize

Governments but once in power reality sets in.

``You have to keep the country in line with good relations,

progressive relations, encourage development because you have

to build, cement relations and make things better,'' she

added.

Turning to the Diaspora, Spence expects Jamaicans to

continue support for their country regardless of the party in

office.

``We in the Diaspora have to make a determined effort to

continue to support Jamaica in all the ways we can,'' was the

way she put it. ``It doesn't matter which party is in

power.''

Wellington Sharpe, an educator and politician in Brooklyn

agreed.

``We must give the government a chance to see what they are

going to do,'' he said. ``We must continue to support our

country. When a person in the opposition, and I have seen it

over and over, their positions are different from when they

have to make decisions as a government. It becomes a

different thing when they have to make decisions on things

that affect an entire country. Mr. Golding's statements may

have seemed lukewarm to regional integration but my hope is

that it was simply an opposition stand and not a true

philosophy in terms of leadership.''

That's why he is taking a wait-and-see attitude when it

comes to Jamaica's approach to the rest of the Caribbean and

the CSME.

``When the decisions have to be made we would see the true

Bruce Golding,'' he said.