Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow at the passing of one of the Dominican commmunity's most beloved young musicians, Wilson Batista.

On June 18, the world lost 29-year-old classical pianist Wilson Batista to a sudden brain aneurism. At the time of his death, he was attending the Manhattan School of Music, where he studied under with internationally recognized pianist Philip Kawin.

Born in the Dominican Republic, but raised in Washington Heights, Wilson came from a

family that worked hard to fund his early music education. Those efforts and Wilson's inherent talents helped turn the child prodigy into an internationally renowned classical pianist.

Eager to listen to the youngster in concert, the excitement over Wilson's early success opened the world of classical music to new fans of all ages and classes. He would go on to amass numerous distinctions, including winning the top prize at the Luis Ferre International Concerto Competition and earning performances at places like New York's Carnegie Hall, Puerto Rico's Centro de Bellas Artes, and el Gran Teatro del Cibao in the Dominican Republic.

While he performed around the world, Wilson was never too far away from New York and his Dominican traditions. He was a shining example of the best that our community can produce and an example to our youth that any dream is possible, in any field or industry.

My heartfelt condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues. Though saddened by not being able to see this young man reach his full potential, we are all blessed to have enjoyed his talent during his brief time here on earth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with my colleagues the achievements of Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza, a young lady whose determination and perseverance have achieved the honor of being Miss Puerto Rico in the Miss Universe pageant and then the big prize, the Miss Universe 2006 title.

Born October 3, 1987, in Cayey, Puerto Rico at 3:47 p.m., this talented young lady of only 18 years of life, brought an incredible joy to the people of Puerto Rico the night of July 23, 2006, after winning the Miss Universe 2006 Pageant, held in Los Angeles, CA.

As a child growing up in Salinas, Zuleyka showed great interest in sports. At five she played football and by seven she was a member of a basketball team. But, her sporting days were over as soon as she won the title of ``Queen of Hearts'' in middle school. Her mother quickly recognized the talent given to her child and enrolled her in an academy for aspiring models. At fourteen, she was the first runner-up in the Miss Puerto Rico Teen Pageant, the same year she became the image of a local fashion magazine.

Zuleyka graduated from high school in Guayama, Puerto Rico, where she was president of the 2004 graduating class and part of the honor roll. Up until the pageant, she lived with her parents, Carmen M. Mendoza and Jerry Rivera, and her younger siblings, Jerry Jesus (12) and Jose Alberto (10), in Parcelas Vazquez, a small community in Salinas, Puerto Rico. Prior to winning the Miss Universe 2006 Pageant she was a freshman at the University of Puerto Rico, majoring in communications.

600 million people in 180 countries around the world witnessed the moment in which Miss Puerto Rico, Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza, was crowned with 120 pearls and 800 diamonds as Miss Universe 2006. She will now live in New York and travel the world in an effort to eradicate AIDS, these being part of her duties as Miss Universe 2006. After the pageant, Zuleyka wishes to fulfill her dream of becoming an actress, while always making the Puerto Rican community proud of her achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit to the Record an opinion editorial from the July 25, New York Times entitled ``Raise Wages, Not Walls'' by former Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J.B. Mitchell in which the columnists openly criticize the current two primary policy approaches to illegal immigration, one being the erection of a wall along the Mexican border and the other being a temporary workers program. The apparent inefficiencies and problems inherent in both approaches have helped confirm that the raising of the minimum wage is the best and most efficient alternative.

It is a mistake to assume that the erection and maintenance of a wall will ever stop the influx of immigrants across American borders. Walls rarely work. Spending billions to erect something akin to the Berlin Wall is simply unnecessary, especially at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed. The approach by the Senate is also not very realistic. It created the temporary workers program, but requires employers first to attempt to recruit Americans to fill job openings. Also, its success is dependent on the creation and distribution of a costly national identification card. The cost for producing such a card for the 150 million people currently in the labor force-- and the millions more who will seek work in the near future--extends to billions of dollars.

The time to raise the minimum wage is now. More States are raising their minimum wages, pushing hourly rates above $8 in some and shrinking the role of the Federal minimum wage, which hasn't gone up since 1997. It is difficult for Americans to work and sustain themselves with this wage. For full-time work, it doesn't even come close to the poverty line for an individual, let alone provide a family with a living wage. As a result, many immigrants are filling in the gaps left over by Americans, often working for minimum and sub-minimum earnings.

The minimum wage has already proven helpful to former welfare recipients who are entering the workforce. A study of a 1999 State minimum wage increase in Oregon found that as many as one-half of the welfare recipients entering the workforce in 1998 were likely to have received a raise due to the increase. After the increase, the real hourly starting wages for former welfare recipients rose to $7.23.

If we want to reduce illegal immigration, we must reduce the number of low paying jobs that fuels it. By raising the minimum wage, more Americans would be more willing to work in what is currently considered low paying jobs, denying them to people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place.

I enter into the Record the New York Times opinion editorial written by Governor Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J.B. Mitchell and commend them for including raising minimum wage to the contentious debate concerning how to approach illegal immigration. I believe raising the minimum wage is by far a more effective way to deal with illegal immigration.

[From the New York Times, July 25, 2006]

Raise Wages, Not Walls

(By Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell)

There are two approaches to illegal immigration currently

being debated in Congress. One, supported by the House,

emphasizes border control and law enforcement, including a

wall along the Mexican border and increased border patrols.

The other, which is supported by the Bush administration and

has been passed by the Senate, relies on employers to police

the workplace. Both proposals have serious flaws.

As opponents of the House plan have rightly pointed out,

walls rarely work; illegal immigrants will get around them

one way or another. Unless we erect something akin to the

Berlin Wall, which would cost billions to build and police, a

barrier on the border would be monitored by largely symbolic

patrols and easily evaded.

The Senate approach is more realistic but it, too, has

problems. It creates a temporary worker program but requires

employers first to attempt to recruit American workers to

fill job openings. It allows for more border fencing, but

makes no effort to disguise the basic futility of the

enterprise. Instead, it calls on employers to enforce

immigration laws in the workplace, a plan that can only

succeed through the creation and distribution of a costly

national identification card.

A national ID card raises serious questions about civil

liberties, but they are not the sole concern. The cost

estimates for producing and distributing a counterfeit-proof

card for the roughly 150 million people currently in the

labor force--and the millions more who will seek work in the

near future--extend into the billions of dollars. Employers

would have to verify the identity of every American worker,

otherwise the program would be as unreliable as the one in

place now. Anyone erroneously denied a card in this

bureaucratic labyrinth would be unemployable.

There is a simpler alternative. If we are really serious

about turning back the tide of illegal immigration, we should

start by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to

something closer to $8. The Massachusetts legislature

recently voted to raise the state minimum to $8 and

California may soon set its minimum even higher. Once the

minimum wage has been significantly increased, we can begin

vigorously enforcing the wage law and other basic labor

standards.

Millions of illegal immigrants work for minimum and even

sub-minimum wages in workplaces that don't come close to

meeting health and safety standards. It is nonsense to say,

as President Bush did recently, that these jobs are filled by

illegal immigrants because Americans won't do them. Before

we had mass illegal immigration in this country, hotel

beds were made, office floors were cleaned, restaurant

dishes were washed and crops were picked--by Americans.

Americans will work at jobs that are risky, dirty or

unpleasant so long as they provide decent wages and working

conditions, especially if employers also provide health

insurance. Plenty of Americans now work in such jobs, from

mining coal to picking up garbage. The difference is they are

paid a decent wage and provided benefits for their labor.

However, Americans won't work for peanuts, and these days

the national minimum wage is less than peanuts. For full-time

work, it doesn't even come close to the poverty line for an

individual, let alone provide a family with a living wage. It

hasn't been raised since 1997 and isn't enforced even at its

currently ridiculous level.

Yet enforcing the minimum wage doesn't require walling off

a porous border or trying to distinguish yesterday's illegal

immigrant from tomorrow's ``guest worker.'' All it takes is a

willingness by the federal government to inspect workplaces

to determine which employers obey the law.

Curiously, most members of Congress who take a hard line on

immigration also strongly oppose increasing the minimum wage,

claiming it will hurt businesses and reduce jobs. For some

reason, they don't seem eager to acknowledge that many of the

jobs they claim to hold dear are held by the same illegal

immigrants they are trying to deport.

But if we want to reduce illegal immigration, it makes

sense to reduce the abundance of extremely low-paying jobs

that fuels it. If we raise the minimum wage, it's possible

some low-end jobs may be lost; but more Americans would also

be willing to work in such jobs, thereby denying them to

people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. And

tough enforcement of wage rules would curtail the growth of

an underground economy in which both illegal immigration and

employer abuses thrive.

Raising the minimum wage and increasing enforcement would

prove far more effective and less costly than either proposal

currently under consideration in Congress. If Congress would

only remove its blinders about the minimum wage, it may see a

plan to deal effectively with illegal immigration, too.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place a long time, but I do not remember even this close to an election seeing the type of hypocrisy that we see today.

There is only one ship that they would like to see get on the waters, and that is the estate tax relief, and it is only going to provide relief for a fraction of 1 percent, of some 7,500 individuals in the country. That is the wealthiest of the wealthy. Most Americans cannot even dream about getting to the status that they are going to be liable for taxes, and why would they want this? They want this because if you want campaign contributions, you go where the money is, and believe me, this is the cream of the crop of the money that we have in the United States of America.

They know the bill stinks to high heaven. That is why it is not on its own two feet. If this were a great thing for America and democracy, one, we would not wait until midnight to talk about it; and two, we would be so proud of it. The Star Spangled Banner would be here, the lights would be shining and we would talk about estate tax relief.

But it stinks so heavy, they try to sweeten it up by putting other tax bills on it. There must be around 40 extenders here that do good work, and so they say if you want the extenders, you got to buy this stinking rule, but that is not enough. Whatever you do for the corporations or the rich folks, but why hold millions of Americans that cannot get an increase in minimum wage, why would you put them on top of this? Why would you hold them hostage?

And whether or not the bill passes in the other House, do we not have any shame? Are not all of these issues important enough for this august body to take them up one by one?

It is almost like having a child talk about I want so badly to increase the minimum wage for them, and then you put these concrete shoes on them, as you throw them into the ocean alone and not being able to swim.

If you care about poor folks, act like it. Give them a day by themselves. Do not mix their problems up with the richest of the rich of this country. Hypocrisy, I have now seen it all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

You can tell that if it is going to happen after midnight, that the majority just ain't up to something good because everything bad they do, they wait until late at night and then they come.

So you take a look at this bill, and they call it the minimum wage bill. Well, that is good; so why would they wait until after midnight? Or you might take another look at the bill and you see that they are trying to help the poor miners. Well, that doesn't sound like Republicans to me. If they ever got enough religion to help poor miners, they would certainly want to do that in the sunlight. But, no, they wait until after midnight.

Then, of course, there are the extenders that really help schools and research and development. It sounds pretty decent. It does not sound that Republican to me.

There has to be a skunk at this picnic somewhere. And then you take a look and you find out that with all of

the wonderful, spiritual good that they want to do for so many people, the working poor, we find out that there are 7,500 families in this great country that are worth billions of dollars, that they cannot leave this Congress without saying, ``We helped you. You are the people we really love.'' And if you take a look to see, have they sent us letters, these rich people, most of them, saying, ``Hey, try to cut back on the war, try to help us with some health and education project?'' They are not asking for this money. And yet over $800 billion, we are prepared to take away from the Treasury at a time that our country needs it the most but it just cannot stand on its own two feet. So, therefore, we have to find a sweetness for it, and we have enough nerve to believe that someone is going to believe that you have a concern for the minimum wage.

After 9 or 10 years, you wake up at the end of the day, and you bring in the estate tax relief bill that is the real money, and because that sucker is so heavy it cannot get off the ground, you try to spray some perfume on this skunk, and you call it minimum wage, extenders, and help for the miners.

If you had any compassion at all, don't these people deserve to be treated separately? Do they have to be with 7,500 people who are close friends of yours? Should not the working people have a bill of their own just to increase the minimum wage? Should not the miners, their pensions and their health benefits, should they not have a bill of their own during the daytime hours? And certainly the incentives are so popular, why do you have to hold them hostage for where your hearts really belong?

So I knew that you were going to wait until midnight, but no one knew exactly what you were up to. But, hey, it is after midnight, you are on the floor, and you say if you want all of this good medicine, then swallow our pill with it, but if you say no, you say no to what is good. It does not make any sense. But I think the newspapers, television, everyone knows what is going on. You have gotten away with this for a long, long time. But there comes a time when people wake up to what is happening, and even though you have done it in the middle of the night, the sun will rise and people would understand.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the chairman has taken his mask off and brought his sense of honesty to this debate. Yes. Test you. What you are basically saying is that if you want to give some help to these people that have such low wages, we then have to buy, in the same bill, the $800 billion relief that you are giving to 7,500 people. I understand what you are doing.

Why don't you call it the Estate Tax Relief Bill, which is sweetening up, you know, by just giving some of them minimum wage. And you say, if you don't like the rich people, if you don't want to get close to $1 trillion away, then of course vote against the minimum wage.

It is so unfair to call this a package. It is a package for the rich, that just as an afterthought, you throw in minimum wage. But, fortunately, the chairman has said what he is doing. Either you buy it as I put it or forget about it. I think that is so unfair to the working poor people in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Republicans for their honesty in expressing their concern at this late hour for the minimum wage bill. At least we know on the record, they know what the situation is, they know how long it has been since these people have not been able to increase the minimum wage.

It would just seem to me, though, that honesty would dictate that this subject alone, the millions of people that are affected, would warrant that we not put it in any other kind of package, but we deal with it by itself because it deserves to be dealt with by itself.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that you have to really be a politician to understand that when any bill is going to cost $800 billion, and it only has 7,500 people as a beneficiary, I think you can call that controversial. I think you can say that all of the editorials believe it is unfair. People are talking about a Nation at war, a Nation that has a deficit, a Nation that has Katrina, a Nation that does not fund its health system.

They are concerned about the deficit, they are concerned about the war, and they should be concerned about close to a trillion dollars loss in revenue for people that have these large estates.

Now, for those who believe that they should get relief. Good. But why mix the two? Why take the poor folks and hold them hostage because you cannot get enough political support to get what you really want out of this, not help, I mean you are just not known to be concerned about coal miners. It is not my fault.

You are not known to have compassion about working people. It is not my fault. You are known to be concerned about the wealthiest people in our Nation. That is not your fault, you just cannot help yourself.

But why would you bring these things together and just give us one vote? Why do you not give America an opportunity to determine which side you are on? Are you with the minimum wage enough so that you give them a vote to say this is what you believe in, or are you so scared to death politically that you cannot get this 800-trillion-dollar gorilla off the ground that you have to throw in something that sounds compassionate?

I do not know, but I know one thing, it all does not come out of the same committee. So you are not only mixing ideas in terms of tax incentives and giving away money, but what you are doing is taking committees with different jurisdictions, and bringing it together in the middle of the night, and asking people to vote on these things.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair. But I do believe that the American people will be able to determine the difference between our parties. That is what makes our country great. I want to thank you for being able to admit that you just cannot get your package off the ground unless you throw in poor folks' help with it.

I thank the gentleman from California.

For those who have been listening to this debate, you would notice that the Republicans have never talked about one part of this bill. I heard the distinguished chairman of the committee go through all of the things that he requested a ``yes'' for, and he never mentioned the giveaway for the rich in the estate tax repeal.

Everything that he talked about dealt with helping the poor folks get an increase in minimum wage. Well, that is the motion to recommit. I think he mentioned something, other people did, about helping the poor coal miners. That is here. I know he talked about the carefully skilled extension, the tax bills that expire, the extenders for that, and that is in it. And so since he didn't mention the estate tax repeal, a motion to recommit takes it away. And so we can all start reading from the same page and say this is like the Thomas-Rangel bill: it takes care of the poor that are working, the 6 million workers that deserve a pay increase. It takes care of the extenders that are so badly needed that takes care of a lot of kids and tax incentives for disadvantaged workers and school teachers and school renovations. And so it does a lot of these good things.

But how can we refuse to see, pardon the pun, the elephant in the living room? Because it is there, and that elephant is called estate tax repeal. And you can say it any way that you want; if you want to do the good things that are in this bill, package, if you will, you have got to buy that elephant. And we are saying that not all of us are prepared to do it. We can take care of those people who work every day and believe that this Congress should be there for them, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but the Congress.

These people deserve better than waiting until after midnight and taking their destiny and tying it up with an $800 billion elephant to provide relief for the richest in this country. I urge you to support the motion to recommit tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record a column by Air Force Captain F. John Duresky, ``Forgotten Sacrifice,'' which appeared in the July 5, 2006 edition of The Washington Post.

I have spoken out and written for more than three years about the unshared burden of the Iraq war but never as eloquently and with such forceful imagery as Air Force Captain Duresky. One of the ``boots on the ground'' in Iraq, Captain Duresky is among the troops President Bush likes to thank. He is one of the troops who, according to the Hawks willing to feed other people's children into the killing field of Iraq, smile bravely from a hospital bed at Walter Reid and promises that although he has lost both legs, he is happy he served his country and wants nothing more than to go back and join his ``buddies'' still ``in country.''

But Captain Duresky presents a problem for the President. Unlike most of the hawks who have not ventured beyond the safety of the ``green zone'' in Iraq or seen the carnage of the battlefield, Captain Duresky can describe the horror of war with the credibility of one who has been there.

I share Captain Duresky's concern that, to most Americans, the war in Iraq is a fight for other people's children. Disproportionately, these are the children of the poor and minorities who proudly serve but also risk their lives for their chance at a college education, technical training and financial benefits the military affords. For most Americans the Iraq war is little more than another story on the evening news.

I wish to offer some hope to Captain Duresky. To many Americans the war is not only real, but a great moral failure. Many of them are protesting and ``taking to the streets.'' They are lobbying Members of Congress and meeting in their communities to arrange marches and protests. The polls clearly show the American people are unhappy with President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. They want a change of course and they want the troops withdrawn.

The Republican attempt to label any plan to set a date for withdrawal as ``cut and run'' is not working. The Republican attempt to label anyone who questions the President as not supporting the troops is not working. Millions of Americans believe the best way to support the troops is to question the President's failed policies in Iraq and to force him and Secretary Rumsfeld to protect the troops instead of leaving them in as targets in a war where there is no exit plan and no working strategy.

I thank Captain Duresky for his service and his courage in writing ``Forgotten Sacrifice.'' Millions of us have not forgotten his sacrifice and that of the more than 2,500 Americans killed and 18,000 wounded. Nor have we forgotten the daily pain of their families. I will keep Captain Duresky in my prayers and long for his return home.

Air Force Captain Duresky's words have painted an indelible picture for me. I hope my colleagues will benefit as I have from reading ``Forgotten Sacrifice.''

[From The Washington Post, July 5, 2006]

Forgotten Sacrifice

(By F. John Duresky)

A few days ago, as I do every day in Iraq, I listened to

the commander's battle update. The briefer calmly and

professionally described the day's events. Somewhere in Iraq,

on some forgotten, dusty road, an insurgent fighting an

occupying army detonated an improvised explosive device (IED)

under a Humvee, killing an American soldier. The briefer

fielded a question from the general and moved to the next

item in the update.

The day before that, in America, a 15-year-old's incredibly

rich parents planned the biggest sweet 16 party ever. They

will spend more than $200,000 on an opulent event marking a

single year in an otherwise unremarkable life. The soon to-

be-16 girl doesn't know where Iraq is and doesn't care. That

same day an American soldier died in Iraq.

Two days earlier, a 35-year-old man went shopping for home

entertainment equipment. He had the toughest time selecting

the correct plasma screen; he could afford the biggest and

best of everything. In the end, he had it installed by a

specialty store. He spent about $50,000 on the whole system.

He has never met anybody serving in the military nor served

himself, but thinks we should ``turn the whole place into a

parking lot.'' That day, another American soldier died in

Iraq.

Three days earlier, some college students had a great

kegger. There were tons of babes at the party, the music was

awesome. Everybody got totally blitzed, and many missed class

the next day. The young men all registered for the draft when

they were 18, but even though our nation is at war, they

aren't the least bit worried about the draft. It is

politically impossible to conscript young people today, we

are told. That day, another American ``volunteer'' died in

Iraq.

Four days earlier, a harried housewife looked all over town

for the perfect accessory for her daughter's upcoming

recital. Her numerous chores wore her out, but she still

found herself preoccupied. Her oldest son is having trouble

in his first year of college, and he has been talking of

enlisting in the Army. She is terrified that her child will

go off to that horrible war she sees on TV. She and her

husband decide to give their son more money so he doesn't

have to work part-time; maybe that will help with his

studies. That day, another soldier died.

Yesterday millions of Americans celebrated Independence

Day. They attended parties and barbecues. Families came

together from all across the country to celebrate the big

day. Millions of dollars were spent on fireworks. At public

events, there were speeches honoring the people who served

and those who made the ultimate sacrifice. These words mostly

fell on bored ears. While the country celebrated its own

greatness, other Americans were still fighting in Iraq.

Today Americans go back to their normal business. The

politicians in Washington have made sure the sacrifices of

the war are borne by the very smallest percentage of

Americans. They won't even change the tax rates to prevent

deficits from running out of control. Future generations will

pay the cost of this war.

Many Americans feel strongly about the war one way or

another, but they aren't signing up their children for

service or taking the protest to the streets. What can they

do? It is they whom we in the military trust to influence our

leaders in Washington.

Today, as on every other day in Iraq, American servicemen

are in very real danger. Our country is at war. Mothers,

fathers, wives, husbands and children are worrying about

their loved ones in a faraway land. They all hope he or she

isn't the one whose luck runs out today.

The writer is an Air Force captain stationed in Iraq.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, last Saturday, we lost Tom Manton. Many of you worked with him and knew him as well as we did in the city of New York.

He was the son of Irish immigrants. His family came to this country. He worked as a salesman. He was a policeman for the New York City Police Department. He worked before that as a city councilman.

Most of you knew him when he came to Congress and served so well, and he was followed to the Congress by Joe Crowley. He left the Congress to become the Democratic county leader for the County of Queens and made a name for himself as he sought out black and white, Irish, Asian, Hispanic candidates for one of the most diverse political subdivisions that we have in the city of New York. He is what we call, in New York City, a ``politician's politician,'' who was respected by Republicans as well as Democrats.

We will miss him in the city of New York, but he left a better city than the one that he inherited.

And I would like to yield to my friend and senior Republican in our New York delegation, Mr. Boehlert.

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

Mr. Speaker, Tom Manton was not only a great guy, but for those of us who have been involved in politics, as I said earlier, he truly was a politician's politician. You did not have to ask a question and hear a lot of arguments that you did not understand. Tom would give you a straight answer and save you a lot of time.

But if there was a book written about great Americans or, even more importantly, great New Yorkers and great Americans, Tom Manton really would fit in that profile.

His parents came to the United States from Ireland, and Tom followed the course of not only being a United States Marine but being a dedicated police officer. After that he continued to serve for 14 years in the New York City Council and then succeeded Geraldine Ferraro in the House of Representatives.

All of these things are careers in and of themselves. But to be prepared to be the Democratic county leader of the diverse county that Queens represents really takes an exceptional person, and Tom was just that. So many people have spoken about the opportunities that he has given not only to African Americans, Jews, and gentiles, but the multiracial composition of that great county which we all in the City of New York love, to be able to reach out and to find qualified candidates and to support them so that in Albany and in the city council, that great county would have representatives that are elected really takes the wand of a magician who recognizes that he, too, came from a community, from a family that were strangers at one time to the United States and especially to New York.

I had a very special relationship with Tom when he was in the city council. I enjoyed working with him in the Congress. And even when he became a county leader, he still would reach over the rivers, over the bridges, to find out how he could put together tickets for the city council and bring about some degree of harmony so that, instead of having fights within the Democratic Party, he would find out how could we put together a package which all the boroughs could agree?

I enjoyed working with him. I would want to thank his beautiful wife, Diane, and the members of his family, for sharing this great New Yorker and this great American with us.

Our prayers and support will be with you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an article from the Volume 6 Edition of Africana Heritage magazine which highlights an event hosted by Dr. Cornel West celebrating the music genre of Hip-Hop. This panel based event, held on Monday, April 24th, 2006, was titled ``A Hip-Hop Revolution?'' and it featured expert panelists from the academia, entertainment, and publishing spheres who gathered to address the issue of whether Hip-Hop music had the capability to serve as a tool for revolution.

This event formed part of a four-program series, the ``Leadership Forum Series: Higher Pursuits'' taking place at the Schomburg Museum in Harlem, New York. This particular event that focused on the potential of Hip-Hop to serve as an instrument for social movement shed some light on contemporary perspectives on the evolution of Hip-Hop from a subgroup of African American music born to the New York borough of the Bronx, to one of the most popular genres of music around the world.

To some panelists, the answer to this question was positive. Writer Greg Tate held that Hip-Hop was just a manifestation of black people's way to transform their world. To him, Hip-Hip embodied a culture that produced leaders and prophets ``to get us through the next plateau of our struggles.'' On the other hand, Dr. Imani Perry, associate professor at Rutgers Law School, submitted that ``Hip-Hop doesn't exist as a viable social movement, but its music generates courage.''

Whatever the case may be, facilitator Dr. West concluded and all the panelists agreed that Hip-Hop may perhaps offer the ``soundtrack'' for a movement. However, one should

not look to it for a ``blueprint'' for a revolution when there is a great exemplar from the African-American and African Diasporan history.

[From the Africana Heritage, Apr. 24, 2006]

Cornel West and Panel Talk Hip-Hop Activism

On Monday, April 24, 2006 the Schomburg Center held the

third of four programs in its Leadership Forum Series: Higher

Pursuits hosted and moderated by Dr. Cornel West. The focus

of the discussion was ``A Hip-Hop Revolution?'' and featured

guest panelists Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Assistant Professor of

Urban Education at Temple University; Dr. Imani Perry,

Associate Professor at Rutgers Law School and author of

Prophets of the Hood: Politics and Poetics in Hip-Hop;

Carlito Rodriguez, Producer Consultant at BET News and former

Editor-in-Chief of The Source magazine; Akiba Solomon, Senior

Editor at Vibe Vixen and Co-Editor of Naked: Black Women Bare

All About Their Skin, Hair, Hips, Lips, and Other Body Parts;

and Greg Tate, author of Everything But the Burden: What

White People are Taking from Black Culture and long-time

contributor to the Village Voice.

Dr. West gave each of the panelists time to address the

issue of whether Hip-Hop music has any revolutionary

potential. According to Carlito Rodriguez, people often have

a very romantic view about Hip-Hop and its influence, but he

reminded the audience that he grew up in the Bronx during the

music's toddler years and everything about the culture wasn't

necessarily a good thing. ``I don't subscribe to the

revisionist history that everybody and everything in Hip-Hop

was positive. It began with acts like Run-DMC who went from

looking like Parliament Funkadelic to [wearing] street gear.

It soon became `I want that chain, that car' and somewhere

along the line, that became the norm. I think someone has to

make music that caters to me--grown man rap.'' Rodriguez

emphasized that the lyrics today don't really address the

many issues he faces as a man in his late 30s.

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who is currently working on several

book projects regarding Hip-Hop culture, made a very

important distinction. ``The question mark at the end of `A

Hip-Hop Revolution?' is so critical. Is Hip-Hop a

revolutionary form, born out of resistance? Yes. Is it in

content? I'm not sure.'' Dr. Hill added, ``When someone looks

at a rapper like Lil' Kim as a feminist role model, there is

a [disconnect] with the message of Hip-Hop not engaging

listeners in the day-to-day politics of the `hood.' ''

Writer Greg Tate was more optimistic on what the future

could bring as far as leadership. ``I know it has never

really been about Hip-Hop; it has always been [about] black

people's way to transform their world,'' explains Tate. ``The

culture spits [out] the prophets, the leaders, to get us

through the next plateau of our struggles. The future of Hip-

Hop is in a maternity ward somewhere. The answer to the

crisis is a voice we haven't heard before, but because we can

imagine it, it probably exists.''

Dr. Imani Perry believes that a community-based approach

seems more realistic than a creative one. ``Hip-Hop doesn't

exist as a viable social movement, but its music generates

courage. I am more interested in the community providing a

social justice movement.'' Editor and journalist Akiba

Solomon put things rather bluntly: ``my short answer to the

question [about Hip-Hop being revolutionary] is `no.' I've

gone through a lot with Hip-Hop; I compare it to an abusive

marriage. Every time it punches me in my face--it gives me

gifts. Hip-Hop has been used as a euphemism for different

things. It's important that we define what we're talking

about and whom we're talking about. My mid-80s view is that I

think we are talking about predominately black and Latino

youth who come from a certain class or struggle. But I think

a major piece that is missing is that you cannot have an art

form have any social change potential when it objectifies or

minimizes half the population.''

Dr. West offered closing thoughts: ``Latinos and blacks

have so many resources, but they still don't have total

control of it. Hip-Hop is a global phenomenon and it has a

different context in other countries like Bolivia and

Colombia.'' Unlike those countries, Hip-Hop here in the

United States can often be more degrading than it is

uplifting. But one thing that all the panelists, Dr. West

included, agreed on is that society's ills will not be

changed by a song or a performer, but by small pockets of

people doing their best to make a difference. And while Hip-

Hop can sometimes provide the soundtrack to a movement, no

one should look to it for a blueprint, when there is so much

more from African-American and African Diasporan history that

could provide that sort of guidance.

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

Let me agree with the chairman of the committee. This agreement is important not from an economic standpoint, it would have little or no impact on our economy. For political reasons it would be important. For security reasons it would be important.

But I think that most Members would agree that we should have a trade policy that is not a Democratic trade policy or a Republican trade policy. We should have one that reflects the people of the United States of America through the people's House, which is the House of Representatives. And over the years, it appears more and more that the United States Trade Representatives will deal with the majority, but on issues that we think are important we have to deal with the country itself. This is wrong. Whatever divisions we have politically in our country, we ought to keep it on this side of our flag and not have to expose these differences with foreigners.

So often we have Presidents of Peru and Ambassadors from Oman indicating that the majority party has said we can get this out but you have to talk with the Democrats. Well, you shouldn't have to talk with the Democrats, but the United States Trade Representative should have to talk with us and Republicans and members of the committee.

The House, to a large extent, relies on the expertise that is developed by those of us who are privileged to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, and we owe it to our Members to say what is in the trade bill and what is not in the trade bill. But also, in order to give a fair explanation, we should

know what USTR intends to put in the bill.

Now, over the years, all we have said is this: The the details of a bill should be fair, and as far as I am concerned, America should have a fair advantage. We should make certain that we are able to see that our products have access to their markets. But there is also something that I think is a principle that is American, and that is that the basic rights of the workers should be protected. On so many bills the religious leaders, the labor leaders, the farmers, the peasants come to us and say, Please support the bill but please make certain that you have the same type of protections in that bill to protect our rights of assembly, protect our rights to strike, as you have in that bill for intellectual property rights.

We have taken the lowest possible denominator and taken the International Labor Organization regulations. And we have had people say they have no problem with that, but somehow that is never, but never, discussed in our committee even though we have an amendment that deals with the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement that at this very moment is in the hearing room. We are not talking about it. We are debating an amendment. What we should be talking about is what is good for both of these countries and can we walk away from these trade agreements knowing that it is good for America, but we are not driving the workers to the lowest possible denominator; but we would like to be able to say that there are basic protections for the people, especially in developing countries that we do business with.

So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have to be respected. We may be in the minority, but we should not be excluded in participating in discussions with the United States Trade Representatives. And the United States Trade Representatives should not send us to foreign representatives in order to see what we can get in the bill. They are supposed to be our negotiators the same way they are the majority party's negotiators. That does not happen. I do believe that it should.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the senior member of the Trade Subcommittee, who has put in hours of work on this, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the traveling exhibition created by the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, a branch organization of the New York Public Library, in conjunction with the UNESCO Slave Route Project to mark the United Nation's General Assembly's resolution proclaiming 2004 as the International Year to Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its Abolition. To reach a wider audience the Schomburg Center has created versions in French, Portuguese, Spanish, as well as in English. The online version of the exhibition is available on the Schomburg Center website. (http://www.nypl.org/research/sc/sc.html)

The exhibition, titled Lest We Forget: The Triumph Over Slavery, is a celebration of the extraordinary human capacity to overcome oppression and injustice. Its tour through Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America and Europe, is a reminder of a heritage that binds people of all races and color, across national and religious boundaries.

Lest We Forget shows us the images of downtrodden degraded people who were stripped of their humanity and culture who were forced to live their lives as mindless, agendaless pawns in vicious, all-powerful systems of human degradation. The transatlantic slave trade was brutal, vicious, denigrating and horrific. It is a representation of one of the most consistent assaults on human dignity and self-worth in the history of mankind.

We see a different kind of slavery today. Guest-workers, lured from third world countries with false promises, are forced to work in hazardous work conditions with very little wages in countries where oftentimes they do not even speak the language. They have virtually no rights as foreign workers and are sometimes forbidden by law to form unions. These modern-day slaves have no recourse but to follow the directives of their employers to exploit their helplessness. The United Nations defines an enslaved person as one whose movement and decision- making abilities are curtailed so that he/she does not have the ability to choose his employer. With this in mind, it is doubly important for us to recall the brutal reality of slavery and systematic degradation of human dignity; and take action in order to eliminate this modern-day slavery.

I commend the Schomburg Center for creating this remarkable presentation, and the UNESCO for making it accessible across the globe. Their cooperation and collaboration has made the exhibition a resounding success, and I hope to see this cooperation repeated and expanded in finding the resolution to the problem of slavery in today's world.

Traveling With A Global Appeal

To mark the United Nations International Year to

Commemorate the Struggle Against Slavery and its Abolition in

2004. UNESCO commissioned the Schomburg Center to create a

traveling version of its exhibition Lest We Forget: The

Triumph Over Slavery. The exhibition highlighted the

extraordinary capacity of human beings to confront and

transcend oppression, and to overcome state-sanctioned

injustice.

The traveling version of Lest We Forget has toured in

Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Europe.

Travelling to countries such as Cameroon, South Africa, Cape

Verde, Mali, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Senegal, The Bahamas,

Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Brazil, Sweden, France, Finland,

and Norway. To help ensure that the exhibition did indeed

reach a wider audience the Schomburg created versions in

English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.

Just as Lest We Forget tells a portion of the story about

people of the African Diaspora, so too does In Motion: The

African-American Migration Experience, which originally

opened at the Schomburg Center in February 2005. In Motion

traces 13 different migration patterns of African Americans

over 500 years. As part of the Schomburg

Center's ever-expanding Traveling Exhibition Program, In

Motion opened at the Lyric Theater in the historic

``Overtown'' district of Miami, Florida at the beginning of

Black History Month.

Miami Mayor Manny Diaz opened the exhibition with a

reception and Schomburg Center Chief Howard Dodson was on

hand for the unveiling. The exhibition's Miami host Dr.

Dorothy Fields, Founder of the Black Archives, History and

Research Foundation of South Florida, Inc, knew In Motion

would be perfect for her city. ``Miami is a city of many

people from so many different countries. As soon as you walk

in the information about the Haitian migration experience is

right there, strategically in the center [of the theater],''

said Dr. Fields. ``In Motion: The African-American Migration

Experience explains that we are all different branches of the

same tree.''

To guarantee that the exhibition would have a lasting

effect, Dr. Fields and her colleagues signed a contract with

the county to do a Black History bus tour, which began at the

Lyric Theater, this resulted in more than 9,000 visitors in

one month. And they even devoted the entire month of May to

bring school children to see and learn from the exhibition,

and offered two days of teacher workshops with In Motion

Project Content Manager Sylviane Diouf, so that educators

could prepare their students for the experience ahead of

time.

In Motion is set to run at the Lyric Theater until the end

of May, Miami's Haitian American Month, but Dr. Fields has

confirmed that her organization has plans to expand on In

Motion, by providing the Schomburg Center with primary

sources on the African Diaspora in Miami to develop another

exhibition.

With traveling exhibitions like Lest We Forget and In

Motion, the resources of the Schomburg Center reach far

beyond its structure to educate and inspire scores of people

around the world.

Traveling dates: Lest We Forget

When: May 19-July 19, 2006.

Where: Esmeraldas International Center for Afro-Amerindian

Cultural Diversity and Human Development, Esmeraldas,

Ecuador.

Organizer: UNESCO Quito's Office.

In Motion: The African-American Migration Experience

When: October 2, 2006-March 9, 2007.

Where: National Heritage Museum, 33 Marrett Road,

Lexington, MA 02421

For more information about the Traveling Exhibition

Program, please visit www.schomburgcenter.org, or contact Mei

TeiSing Smith at [email protected], or by calling (212) 491-

2204.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity.

I stand in strong support of this resolution. Some may say, well, how could you be against the war and supporting this? Well, I think it is good historic sense, it is good moral sense, that any sovereign nation that gets attacked should have the opportunity and be given support for defending herself.

Clearly, when we went into Iraq, we had no clue as to who the terrorists were. They certainly were not in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

But here we have a nation that has been invaded. People have come into their country, killed their soldiers, kidnapped their soldiers, and rain rockets on them, and the surprising thing that we find here is that we find something to that. As an American, I cannot imagine the hostility I would feel and the support I would give in retaliation if something like that happened to our country.

What amazes me, however, is that for the first time people have recognized that the terrorists are not just after the United States and Israel. The terrorists are after every decent thing that we believe in, and at long last the Governments of Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia has seen that these terrorists, that somehow we found out that they believe that not being at war with Israel is the same as being at peace with Israel, but recognize in that area some of the Arab countries that we give support to, economic and trade support, still held hostile the people in Israel and resented the right for Israel to exist.

I think this is a great opportunity to bring those Arab nations together, to

let them know that they are just as vulnerable for the people that they have supported, and even though the animosity seems to be going toward Israel, is toward them, is toward the United States, is toward everything that we believe.

So, if we do have crown princes and kings and Presidents unable to go to the ranch and discuss whatever they do, and if Israel does not come up as a place where they teach hatred and anti-Semitism, why not take advantage of this opportunity to tell the Arab countries in the region that this is the time for all of us to come together not just in a willing coalition, but in a coalition for peace, and to make certain that we cut this cancer out not just because of Israel, but because of the free world?

The Hamas and the Hezbollah have to really cut this cancer out of our society now, and it gives us an excellent opportunity to bring the friends of the United States and the so-called friends of Israel together to see whether or not we can make certain that these people are not a threat to Israel and not a threat to the neighboring countries and not a threat to the great United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of illegal trafficking of small arms and light weapons which is responsible for the death of approximately 1,000 people every day worldwide. As U.N. Secretary General Kori Annan reminded us in the U.N. conference on curtailing small arms and light weapons, ``these weapons may be small, but they cause mass destruction.''

The United States objects to any international regulation on arms trade and is opposed to a blanket ban on governments selling arms to `non-state actors,' i.e. rebel groups, on the grounds that the oppressed have the right to defend themselves against tyrannical and genocidal governments. Unfortunately our policy also leaves the door open for terrorists groups to get their hands on weaponry. The U.S. government is loathe to sacrifice the liberty of the oppressed people worldwide in exchange for a possible security risk (terrorist threat) to the United States, but has no qualms in forfeiting the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens in return for security.

Furthermore, the United States is the leading producer of arms in the world, meaning we, more than any other country engage in arms trade with other governments, as well as `nonstate actors.' We, as the superpower of the global system, must take the leading role in eliminating illicit arms trafficking which supplies armaments to brutal civil wars and organized crime networks and thereby causing massive casualties worldwide, everyday.

The United Nations has adopted a non-binding agreement program of action in its conference on ``illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects,'' held in July 9-20, 2001. It encourages nations to ensure manufacturers use markings on small arms and light weapons make tracing illegal arms easier. It also encourages implementation of procedures to monitor legal sales, transfer and stockpiling of small arms and light weapons

and urges governments to make illegal manufacture, trade and possession a criminal offense.

The U.S. policy should be to support the U.N.'s Program of Action and try to make the resolution of the conference binding to the member states. We already have strict regulatory policies in arms trade within our borders. We need to expand those policies internationally with the assistance of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record, the article by Warren Hoge, titled With caveats. U.S. Backs Session at U.N. on curtailing Illegal Arms, published in the June 28, 2006 edition of the New York Times, reporting on the U.N. Small Arms & Light Weapons Review Conference 2006.

[From the New York Times, June 28, 2006]

With Caveats, U.S. Backs Session at U.N. on Curtailing Illegal Arms

(By WARREN HOGE)

United Nations, June 27.--The Bush administration gave its

backing on Tuesday to a United Nations conference on

curtailing the international flow of illegal arms, but warned

delegates against adopting measures that would restrict

individual possession of weapons.

``The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our

citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no

infringement of those rights,'' Robert G. Joseph, under

secretary of state for arms control and international

security affairs, told the General Assembly. ``Many millions

of American citizens enjoy hunting and the full range of

firearms sports, and our work will not affect their rights,''

he said.

He also said Washington would object to any steps to

establish international regulation of ammunition or to ban

governments from selling arms to rebel groups, known in

diplomatic jargon as ``nonstate actors.''

``While we will of course continue to oppose the

acquisition of arms by terrorist groups,'' he said, ``we

recognize the rights of the oppressed to defend themselves

against tyrannical and genocidal regimes and oppose a blanket

ban on nonstate actors.''

The two-week conference, which began Monday, is intended to

improve ways of curbing the $1 billion black market in the

manufacture and distribution of small arms and light weapons

that supply brutal civil wars and organized crime networks

and end up killing an estimated 1,000 people every day

worldwide.

Secretary General Kofi Annan reminded the gathering that

``these weapons may be small, but they cause mass

destruction.'' He urged member countries to toughen existing

laws governing arms deals.

Steps that Mr. Joseph said the United States would support

included the marking and tracing of weapons, controls on

transfers, certification of the ultimate recipients,

effective management of national stockpiles and destruction

of illicit and government-declared surplus weapons.

Mr. Annan said the conference was not contemplating a

global ban on gun ownership. ``Nor do we wish to deny law-

abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with

their national laws,'' he said.

He seemed to be referring to a campaign by the National

Rifle Association, which has charged in mass mailings that

the United Nations is plotting to take away Americans' guns

through a treaty banning ownership.

John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United

Nations, confirmed that he had received hundreds of the form

letters. Asked why all three citizen delegates from the

United States to the conference were prominent members of the

gun lobby group, he said he made it a practice not to comment

on the activities of nongovernmental organizations.