Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Stearns Amendment (#21). The amendment prohibits the Department expending any funds to fulfill Section 203--the Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As a representative of one of the many multiethnic districts in New York, I am fully conscious of the need to provide bilingual assistance to our language minorities and allow all our citizens the chance to participate in the democratic process. Thus far, bilingual election assistance has facilitated voting for over 200,000 Asian Americans nationwide, and caused a 50 percent increase in the Hispanic electorate in the first decade of the adoption of this provision.

The right to vote is a fundamental characteristic of a healthy democracy. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act gives opportunities to enable every American citizen to exercise their right to vote. Unfortunately, despite our laws, many minority voters face impediments to voting. The Stearns Amendment makes Section 203 ineffectual, removing oversight from states and localities who would be free to discriminate against tax-paying American citizens and impeding their right to vote. We can spend billions of dollars to spread democracy in Iraq but we are refusing funding to give our citizens the right to vote.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) objects to the cost incurred to provide bilingual election assistance. The Oversight Hearing of the Voting Rights Act: Section 203--Bilingual Election Assistance, Part II, before the Subcommittee on Constitution, under the House Judiciary committee, revealed that 90 percent of the jurisdictions reported (in a national survey) that bilingual election assistance made up only an average of 3 percent of total election costs. Forty percent of the jurisdictions reported no extra cost for bilingual election assistance, rendering any cost-related objection to implementation of Section 203 groundless.

Eliminating Section 203 is the same as discriminating against our citizens based on their language capability. I urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to disenfranchise American citizens. Let us not return to the era of the Jim Crow laws. As Mr. John Lewis said, ``The arguments of the opponents of Section 203 are suspiciously similar to the arguments once employed for literacy tests to disenfranchise African American voters.'' We cannot allow a repeat of such history.

The VRA, considered by many as the most successful civil rights legislation in the country, has played a vital role in integrating all our citizens in the democratic process. Instead to proposing amendments that weaken this legislation, we must work together to immediately ensure the renewal of its expiring provisions. H.R. 9, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 2006, has come out of the House Judiciary Committee with a favorable voting margin of 33-1, in a rare show of bipartisanship. Let us not delay the efforts to pass this bill that has had such an important and successful effect in safeguarding the right to vote for all our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an article by Alex Vernon, a professor of American Studies in Hendrix College and a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The article titled The Road From My Lai, published in the op-ed section of the June 23, 2006 edition of the New York Times, drew parallels between the massacre at My Lai during Vietnam and the alleged atrocities at Haditha and Hamdania.

A veteran of the first Gulf War, Mr. Vernon has firsthand experience of the atrocities the soldiers can be driven to commit in times of war. He is not making excuses for our forces in Iraq and neither do I. My Lai was a terrible tragedy and the Army's attempt of cover-up, abetted by the Nixon administration, was foiled by the efforts of Ronald Ridenhour, Congressman Morris Udall and journalist Seymour Hersh. We do not want to see a repeat of the My Lai cover-up again.

Sitting here on the Capitol, while we are deciding to continue the occupation in Iraq, our National Guard and Reserve troops are being forced to serve their third or even fourth tour of duty. The heightened tension of war and frustration at the efforts of certain groups of Iraqis to resist American occupation may have driven our troops to commit atrocities that they would never have otherwise committed. As Mr. Vernon stated in the article, the dull and boring hour-long instructions on ethics does nothing to change the situation. ``Who needs to be told not to run a bayonet through a baby?''

Unfortunately regardless of the results of official enquiries and court-martial into the incidents of Haditha and Hamdania, the damage has been done. The verdict is already in; and it is not in the U.S.'s favor. While General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assures us that 99.9 percent of our servicemen and women are behaving humanely, the majority of the Iraqis confess no surprise at learning about the war crimes of the U.S. soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, our armed forces should remember novelist William Eastlake's remarks on My Lai. You cannot transfer the blame on your superior officer; use your own judgment.

And we, the legislators of the nation should keep in mind that in prolonging this needless war, we are amplifying the physical and psychological strains on our soldiers, thereby making room for more Hadithas and Hamdanias.

The Road From My Lai

(By Alex Vernon)

When I went to war as a junior officer in Iraq 15 years

ago, we faced a far different enemy for far less time than

today's troops are dealing with--four days back then, into

our fourth year now. Yet in those first weeks in the desert

before Desert Storm, back when we fully expected Iraq's

several armored divisions to drive into Saudi Arabia and

crush the two divisions we had on the ground, two soldiers

under my command digging a fighting position lost their

heads. One pulled a knife on the other. Fortunately, other

soldiers pulled them apart.

It's impossible to imagine the frustration and stress on

American soldiers in Iraq today--impossible, or maybe it's

simply not something we willingly work to imagine. Then the

news breaks. My first thought on hearing about the alleged

atrocities at Haditha--and of the announcement this week that

murder charges are being brought against eight American

servicemen for killing an Iraqi civilian at Hamdania in

April--was ``Duh.'' If we didn't know this day was coming, we

were fools.

I would like to ask those troops accused of war crimes in

Iraq what they know about My Lai 4, the site of the most

famous American atrocity in Vietnam. In the late 1990's, I

did a brief stint in the Army Reserve commanding a company

whose job was supporting active-duty basic training units. I

recall no mention of My Lai in our classroom instruction.

These days, when I teach a college course on American war

literature, My Lai inevitably comes up. Inevitably, a fair

number of students raise their hands to be reminded, possibly

even introduced, to that dark day in 1968. These young men

and women attend a prestigious liberal arts college and

probably won't find themselves in places like Haditha or

Hamdania. But they should be reasonably expected to know more

about American history than their peers whom we do send with

guns to Haditha and Hamdania.

I am slightly encouraged by our military's new commitment,

announced in the wake of the Haditha reports, to ensure that

coalition forces in Iraq receive training in ethics and

values. But the cynic in me groans. Not another dull,

forgettable one-hour block of instruction on ethics like I

endured in my years of officer training. Who needs to be told

not to run a bayonet through a baby?

According to Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint

Chiefs, such training ``should provide comfort to those

looking to see if we are a nation that stands on the values

we hold dear.'' With all due respect to the general, does he

really think that such training will appease those who

believe the Americans at Haditha and Hamdania, and our

soldiers and agents elsewhere, are guilty of atrocities?

Regardless of the results of official inquiries and

courts-martial, the damage has been done. In the Muslim

(and much of the non-Muslim) court of opinion, the verdict

is already in.

Of course, learning about My Lai is hardly assurance

against similarly criminal behavior; no more than graphic

images of car accidents prevents reckless driving. And

focusing on it today can create other problems. One is that

we allow it to become representative, and to prejudice our

perceptions of all American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam.

The other is that we treat it as singular--an aberration for

that war or for any American wars.

We already feel similar tensions regarding the reports out

of Iraq. While General Pace assures us that ``99.9 percent of

the servicemen and servicewomen'' are behaving properly and

humanely, too many Iraqis report registering no surprise in

learning about the alleged atrocities.

So are we saviors or monsters? The truth, as it always

does, lives somewhere between. Our military is as thoroughly

professional as scrappy guerrilla forces usually are not. But

to pretend our soldiers never mistreat others would be a

gross lie. After an article in The New York Times Magazine

last year about American soldiers accused of drowning an

innocent Iraqi and their battalion commander's cover-up, I

got an e-mail message from one veteran of the current war

that the treatment of that Iraqi differed from the treatment

of others only in degree and result, not in kind.

Apologists for My Lai--and presumably future apologists for

Iraq atrocities--are quick to lecture: That's war, buddy. You

should see what the other guy does. I object to this argument

because it smells like rationalization. It permits us to

accept the unacceptable. It resists aspiring to a better way.

The very idea of ``wartime atrocity'' is a 20th-century

development, the most progressive and hopeful legacy of the

world's bloodiest century.

There is hope. I can't imagine a Haditha or Hamdania

version of ``The Battle Hymn of Lieutenant Calley,'' a

tribute to the officer responsible at My Lai that cracked the

Billboard Top 40 in 1971. Its lyrics ran: ``Sir, I followed

all my orders and I did the best I could. / It's hard to

judge the enemy and hard to tell the good. / Yet there's not

a man among us who would not have understood.''

Despite the calls to prosecute up the chain of command

(indeed, up to President Bush himself) for the alleged crimes

in Iraq, I sense more collective sympathy with the

novelist William Eastlake's remarks to West Point cadets

about My Lai, as quoted in the Encyclopedia of American War

Literature: ``You cannot say after wiping out a village, `My

superior told me to do it.' You're big boys now. Behave

yourselves. Don't blame all your sins on General

Westmoreland.''

Last fall, around the time the Haditha events occurred,

another veteran of the current war, a National Guard second

lieutenant, confessed to me his war crime. His platoon was

searching a home where an Iraqi man was sobbing

uncontrollably for the loss of his brother. ``Would somebody

shut him up?'' the lieutenant shouted, throwing in an

expletive for good measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my fellow colleagues about the contributions of immigrants to America. In an article in the New York Daily News, published June 16, 2006, Mr. Errol Louis told us about the opportunities that America has given immigrants to leap from ``humble, grinding work to middle-class prosperity.''

Idrisul Alam, whose father has been a cook at the Waldorf-Astoria for the past 9 years, is one of the many who was given the chance to make something of herself. She graduated first in her class at the High School of Telecommunication Arts and Technology in Brooklyn, speaks four languages, was an editor of her school newspaper, was a student government officer, and raised money for earthquake victims in Pakistan. She is planning on studying engineering at Columbia University this coming fall.

Idrisul is only one of the 35 high school seniors whose achievements were celebrated in a ceremony at the Sheraton New York last week. Michelle Quach who is heading to University of Pennsylvania, Reuben Rafaelov who is going to St. John's University, Jessica Acosta who is starting classes at Harvard are all shining examples of the triumph of the immigrant experience.

Coming from parents who have had no choice but to perform low rung jobs like bellhops, busboys and housekeepers, because of their lack of language skills, these children symbolize the success of the dreams and wishes of their parents. In light of the controversial national debate on immigration and all the immigrant bashing, we need to remind ourselves what immigrants bring to our society. I congratulate the New York Daily News and Mr. Louis for bringing attention to these heartwarming stories about the immigrant experience and reminding us about the positive aspects of immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the article titled From humble roots, they blossom by Mr. Errol Louis into the Record.

From Humble Roots, They Blossom

(By Errol Louis)

Far away from the speeches and slogans of the national

debate over immigration, a simple, inspiring ceremony at the

Sheraton New

York this week spoke louder than all the posturing and

threats coming from immigrant-bashing politicians these days.

The point of the ceremony was to give plaques,

congratulations--and $8,000 scholarships for college--to 35

graduating high school seniors whose parents are members of

Local 6 of the New York Hotel Trades Council. Local 6

represents the invisible New York army that prepares meals,

cleans rooms and hails cabs for tourists, diplomats,

politicians, movie stars and business titans.

A great many of these bellhops, busboys and housekeepers

are immigrants. ``You don't have to know how to speak English

to wash dishes, scrub floors, polish silver or clean 14

suites a day, and so hotel jobs have always attracted

immigrants,'' is how Local 6 spokesman John Turchiano puts

it.

Hotels attract men like Idris Alam, who traded in his apron

for a jacket and tie and made his way to the Sheraton to see

his daughter, Idrisul, collect her award. Alam, who has been

a cook at the Waldorf-Astoria for the last nine years, was

quiet, dignified and understated, like the other parents.

Even on this joyous day, they carried themselves the way

they do on the job: with humility and class. There was none

of the silly parental whooping and screaming you normally

hear at graduation ceremonies.

But there was plenty to be happy about. The ceremony

showed, in stunning fashion, how New York creates Americans,

giving immigrants the chance to leap from humble, grinding

work to middle-class prosperity in a single generation.

Reading thumbnail sketches of the extraordinary

achievements of the 35 award winners, it was hard to remember

that they are teenagers, barely out of childhood.

Alam's daughter Idrisul, for instance, finished first in

her class at the High School of Telecommunication Arts and

Technology in Brooklyn. She speaks four languages, helped

edit the school newspaper, was a student government officer

and raised money for earthquake victims in Pakistan. She

plans to study engineering at Columbia University.

Michelle Quach, whose father works at the New York Athletic

Club, is the valedictorian of DeWitt Clinton High School in

the Bronx, captain of the varsity swim team and a volunteer

at the New York Chinese School. She's heading to the

University of Pennsylvania. Reuben Rafaelov, the

valedictorian of Thomas Edison Technical High School in

Queens, will be off to St. John's University in the fall.

Jessica Acosta, whose mother works at the St. Regis,

studied flamenco guitar in Spain and is going to Harvard.

Innis Baah, who hails from Ghana, plans to study business at

Hobart and William Smith College. Nanaba Wallace is on her

way to Yale to study politics.

The national debate on immigration will take a turn in a

few years, when these kids are running Congress, the courts

and whatever else they set their minds to. And make no

mistake about it--these kids will be running the show.

The festivities ended with a ballroom luncheon for the

awardees and their parents--giving the cooks and cleaners a

chance to relax and be served for a change.

On the way out, I asked Alam, the Waldorf cook, how the

food tasted.

``Fantastic,'' he said. ``Fantastic.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an article from the June 8, 2006, Washington Times newspaper entitled ``Prisoners, Public at health risk'' reporting on the findings of the 21-member Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's prisons.

The article discusses the high rates of disease and illnesses among the inmates in the Nation's jails and prison and the subsequent threat this problem poses to communities outside of the prison's scope as inmates are released back into the communities.

Based on data gathered and reported by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prison, more than 1.5 million people are released from jails and prisons nationwide carrying life-threatening contagious diseases, and another 350,000 inmates have serious mental illnesses.

While this article and the report explores the prisons' inability to treat physical and mental illnesses it also examines prison overcrowding, violence and abuse. It addresses the impact of reduced funding for programming, a reduction which directly leads to inactivity and unproductiveness in our prisons. The report reveals that most correctional systems are set up to fail because they are charged with protecting public health and public safety, and reducing human suffering as they strive to care for the sick on a shoestring budget with very little support from the community health care providers and public health authorities.

Mr. Speaker: I enter this article into the Record to send a message that it is imperative that health officials and lawmakers realize that the issue of inadequate health care in our Nations' prisons has to be addressed and rectified sooner rather than later.

[From the Washington Times, June 8, 2006]

Prisoners, Public at Health Risk

(By Jerry Seper)

High rates of disease and illness among inmates in the

Nation's jails and prisons, coupled with inadequate funding

for correctional health care, has put the Nation's 2.2

million prisoners at risk, along with corrections officers

and the public, a report said yesterday.

Every year, according to a report by the 21-member

Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, more

than 1.5 million people are released from jails and prisons

nationwide carrying life-threatening contagious diseases, and

another 350,000 inmates have serious mental illnesses.

``Protecting public health and public safety, reducing

human suffering and limiting the financial cost of untreated

illness depends on adequately funded, good quality

correctional health care,'' the report said. ``Unfortunately,

most correctional systems are set up to fail.

``They have to care for a sick population on shoestring

budgets and with little support from community health-care

providers and public health authorities,'' it said.

The commission, co-chaired by former Attorney General

Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, is based on a lengthy

investigation and hearings, which included testimony from

corrections professionals, prison monitors and litigators,

former prisoners, scholars and others. The inquiry focused on

the ``crucial role of oversight and accountability'' in

creating safe conditions in U.S. prisons and jails, and on

the nature and prevalence of gang violence.

``The questions `who's watching' and `who's responsible'

are at the beginning and end of dealing with all of the

problems we've examined,'' Mr. Katzenbach said.

The report also concluded:

Violence remains a serious problem in the Nation's prisons

and jails, with ``disturbing evidence'' of assaults and

patterns of violence in some U.S. correctional facilities. It

said corrections officers reported a near-constant fear of

being assaulted, and prisoners recounted gang violence, rapes

and beatings.

Violence and abuse are not inevitable, but the majority of

prisons and many jails nationwide hold more people than they

can accommodate safely and effectively, creating a degree of

disorder and tension almost certain to erupt into violence.

Because lawmakers have reduced funding for programming in

the country's prisons and jails, inmates are largely inactive

and unproductive.

The increasing use of high-security segregation is

counterproductive, often causing violence inside facilities

and contributing to recidivism after release. People who pose

no threat and those who are mentally ill are ``languishing

for months or years'' in high-security units and supermax

prisons.

Better safety inside prisons and jails depends on changing

the institutional culture, which cannot be accomplished

without enhancing the corrections professional at all levels.

Because the exercise of power is a defining characteristic of

correctional facilities, there is a constant potential for

abuse.

The report will be presented today at a hearing of the

Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime, corrections and

victims' rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the successful financial restructuring of the North General Hospital, a small community hospital located in Harlem that caters to the neighborhood's vast majority of poor and elderly members. North General Hospital was founded in 1979 and since then, because of the uninsured population it serves who use the hospital for its primary care needs, it had been suffering from severe losses that threatened the hospital's success. However, last year, Dr. Samuel Daniel, North General's Chief Executive and his team launched a plan for a complete transformation that has since proved to be an absolute success.

I would like to enter into the Record an article by Rafael Gerena- Morales from the June 22nd, 2006 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled, How a Harlem Hospital Healed Itself. This article tracks the success of North General Hospital as well as the positive outlook for the future of this promising health care center. According to Gerena- Morales, the strategy pursued by the hospital's Chief Executive and his team has been so successful that the hospital went from a nearly $20 million dollar loss in 2003 to a $2.6 million dollar surplus in 2005.

These achievements are even more appreciated when taking into account the challenges that the hospital has faced since its establishment. North General has always struggled with low government reimbursement rates and it treats a community with a high percentage of uninsured patients who cannot pay their medical bills. Furthermore, the hospital historically provided mainly low-margin routine checkups and physical exams, since it did not possess the resources to pay for high-priced medical specialists.

All this changed when North General began to focus more on treating diseases that afflicted Harlem residents in high rates such as cardiovascular problems, hypertension, obesity, diabetes and infant mortality. By offering surgical procedures to treat these illnesses, North General was able to attract more patients and expand its revenue. Additionally, it began to promote its services at community health fairs, further inviting patients to the small hospital. North General Hospital appealed to the need for emergency care by adding ambulances that brought more Harlem residents to its emergency room.

Another key to success was in the partnership established with Mount Sinai Medical Center located only one mile away from North General Hospital. Mount Sinai is one of New York's most prominent teaching hospitals, and with its alliance, North General has been able to expand the services it offers on campus by gaining access to 16 Mount Sinai specialist doctors who perform vascular surgery, lung biopsies, urology, radiology, and pediatric psychiatry.

All in all, this small community hospital embodies the example of a successful health care institution that truly cares for its own. Surely, the health of Harlem residents will benefit greatly from the achievements of North General Hospital, and this hospital remains a source of hope for other small hospitals hoping to make a difference in their own communities.

[From The Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2006]

How a Harlem Hospital Healed Itself

(By Rafael Gerena-Morales)

Since its founding in 1979, North General Hospital, a small

community hospital in Harlem that caters to the poor and

elderly, had always lost money--until last year.

That's when the hospital's 2-year-old turnaround plan

started to pay off. The strategy was so successful that the

hospital's bottom line swung to a $2.6 million surplus in

2005 from a nearly $20 million loss in 2003. The hospital

anticipates another $2 million surplus this year.

How North General, a 200-bed hospital located in a

predominately black and Latino neighborhood, fixed its

finances ``sounds like a business-school case study,'' says

Liz Sweeney, who covers the New York state hospital industry

for Standard & Poor's, the credit-ratings service.

Struggling with low government reimbursement rates and

mainly providing low-margin routine checkups and physical

exams, Samuel Daniel, North General's chief executive since

2001, says he and his management team plotted a strategy to

tackle a tough question: ``How do we turn the hospital

around?''

Among the answers: North General focused more on treating

ailments that afflicted Harlem residents in high rates,

including cardiovascular problems, hypertension, obesity,

diabetes and infant mortality. It offered additional surgical

procedures that brought in

additional revenue. It promoted its services at neighborhood

fairs and community centers. It struck an alliance with a

nearby prominent medical center that gave North General

patients access to more specialty care.

Running an inner-city hospital has long been financially

draining. Such hospitals lack the money and cutting-edge

equipment to compete against larger hospitals. They lose top

recruits to prominent teaching hospitals. Low-income

communities tend to have a higher percentage of uninsured

patients who can't pay their medical bills or are covered by

government health plans that typically pay less for medical

services than private insurers. And low-income patients

frequently bolt to hospitals in affluent areas when they need

specialty care.

North General faces these obstacles, yet its plan is

working. From 2002 to 2005, the number of patient discharges

jumped 40 percent to nearly 9,000, and is expected to climb

to 9,225 this year, according to the hospital. Outpatient

volume between 2002 and 2005 rose 32 percent to 95,746

visits, and 103,520 visits are expected this year.

During the 3-year period to 2005, North General's revenue

rose 45 percent, boosted by higher patient visits, including

surgical procedure volumes that jumped nearly 20 percent.

This year, North General estimates revenue will rise 2.7

percent to $152 million from $148 million last year. North

General is paid in large part by government health plans,

such as Medicare and Medicaid, and to a lesser extent by

private insurers.

But before offering any new services, North General had to

confront a major problem: attracting higher-skilled surgeons.

``We needed the technical know-how,'' Dr. Daniel says.

The hospital couldn't afford to hire these surgeons, so Dr.

Daniel tried another route: He forged an alliance with the

Mount Sinai Medical Center, one of New York's most prominent

teaching hospitals located just a mile away from North

General. (In addition to his North General duties, Dr. Daniel

is an associate clinical professor of medicine at Mount

Sinai's medical school.)

He approached Mount Sinai's president and CEO, Kenneth L.

Davis, and the two men agreed that both hospitals could

benefit from a collaboration. Within 90 days, the hospitals

reached an agreement that took effect in January of 2004.

North General pays Mount Sinai an annual $2.7 million and

in return gains access to 16 Mount Sinai doctors who perform

vascular surgery, lung biopsies, and other highly specialized

services on North General's campus. Mount Sinai also provides

specialists in urology, rheumatology, radiology, and

pediatric psychiatry. North General receives the revenue from

these services. In a separate agreement, North General and

Mount Sinai have teamed up to provide free preventive care to

Harlem residents with chronic illnesses in exchange for

higher Medicaid reimbursement rates at its outpatient clinic.

(The arrangement has benefited both Mount Sinai and New York

state.

Contracting these specialists costs less than if the

hospital hired the doctors on its own, says Michael Greene,

North General's chief operating officer. The contract also

gives North General staffing flexibility because it can ask

Mount Sinai to send specialists for extra hours as more

patients come in for these specialty services. This helps

North General control labor costs by linking a doctor's work

hours to patient volumes.

For Mount Sinai, the deal boosts the hospital's revenue and

brings in patients. Last year, North General transferred

roughly 375 patients to Mount Sinai for cardiology,

neurosurgery and obstetrics services. As a teaching hospital

handling complex cases, Mount Sinai ``needs community

hospitals as referral sources,'' Dr. Davis says.

In 2004, North General began offering bariatric, or weight-

loss, surgery, in which a surgeon staples off a section of a

patient's stomach, leaving a tiny pouch that absorbs less

food. Last year, North General performed 109 such surgeries

and it expects to perform 125 this year. Medicare and

Medicaid typically pay North General $10,000 to $12,000 per

bariatric surgery, though a complicated procedure can bring

in as much as $20,000. Last year, the bariatric surgery

program generated $725,000 in revenue and a $25,000 profit,

according to Frank Hagan, North General's chief financial

officer.

Since many emergency-room patients were being sent to

hospitals in other neighborhoods, North General added

ambulances in 2002 and 2004 that brought more Harlem

residents through its emergency room--thus boosting revenue.

Emergency-room visits jumped 16% to nearly 34,450 in 2005

compared with 2002. North General estimates that roughly

eight out of 10 patients who are admitted to the hospital

stem from emergency-room visits.

North General recognized that infant mortality is a health

problem that looms large in the Harlem community. In August

2004, the hospital opened the Women's Health Center in a

separate building that handled nearly 4,000 visits last year.

The center offers a prenatal program with services that

include ultrasound, nutritional counseling and social work.

While the center isn't yet profitable, North General says

female patients who are treated at the center are more

likely to bring family members to North General for other

medical care.

Last year, the hospital expanded its AIDS center and opened

a new cardiac-catheterization laboratory that checks patients

for clogged arteries, a precursor to heart trouble. The

profitable AIDS center, which is promoted in Harlem through

brochures, open-house events and free HIV testing at local

health fairs, handled more than 6,400 visits in 2005 and

projects roughly 7,250 visits this year.

Since opening in December, the catheterization laboratory

has handled 152 visits, and projects 300 cases for 2006.

North General markets the lab's services to primary-care

physicians and cardiologists.

Henock Saint-Jacques, a North General cardiologist, says he

used to refer patients to other hospitals for exams, but he

estimates as many as 30 percent of patients wouldn't make the

trip. ``Those problems started to fade away'' once North

General opened its cardiac lab, he says. ``This has improved

the quality of care.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. In a recent speech on ``Power and Super-Power: Global Leadership in the Twenty- First Century'' at the Century Foundation and Center for American Progress in New York, on the 6th of June, Mr. Brown criticized the U.S. government for its lack of support given to the United Nations. In his speech he claims that the U.S. in the eyes of the rest of the world has ignored our commitment to the U.N., allowing divisive issues such as the Iraq War to break up a partnership which since the founding of the U.N. has mutually benefited the U.S. and the U.N.

Historically, the U.N. was designed through U.S. leadership and other nations who emerged from World War II with the realization that there must be a vehicle to encourage the promotion of peace and provide collective security to all nations with the goal of promoting global values such as human rights and democracy. Today, the U.N. fields 18 peacekeeping operations around the world, from the Congo to Haiti, Sudan to Sierra Leone, Southern Lebanon to Liberia. Unfortunately, the U.N.'s ability to respond to the world's challenges is being weakened without U.S. leadership.

The speech identifies several key issues that have exacerbated the tension between the U.S. and the U.N. First, The U.N. is currently renovating the dilapidated U.N. Headquarters in New York. Ironically, the government not fully supporting this project is the U.S. Also, the U.N. is undergoing specific reform. This reform comes in many forms from the creation of a new Ethics Office and a whistle-blower policy, to the establishment of a new Peacebuilding Commission and Human Rights Council. Although the U.S. championed such reform, our endorsement has provoked more suspicion than support.

The U.N. will play a larger role in maintaining security around the world. No country can afford to neglect the global institutions needed to manage it. As such, the U.S. needs to be more supportive of the U.N. as a vehicle around which an international consensus can be formed to promote peace, social and economic development. America's leaders must again recognize that the U.N. matters. Ultimately, as America continues to address concerns in countries like Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, it should recognize that it needs the U.N. to provide an effective multilateral response that will have international legitimacy and support.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues in the House to encourage more open collaboration and engagement between the U.S. and the U.N.

Speech by U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown

Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today on Power

and Global Leadership. I often get asked to talk about

leadership, but rarely about power. I wonder why.

With that thought as my starting point, I am going to give

what might be regarded as a rather un-U.N. speech. Some of

the themes--that the United Nations is misunderstood and does

much more than its critics allow--are probably not

surprising. But my underlying message, which is a warning

about the serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by

U.S. Administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully

with the U.N., is not one a sitting United Nations official

would normally make to an audience like this.

But I feel it is a message that urgently needs to be aired.

And as someone who has spent most of his adult life in this

country, only a part of it at the U.N., I hope you will take

it in the spirit in which it is meant: as a sincere and

constructive critique of U.S. policy towards the U.N. by a

friend and admirer. Because the fact is that the prevailing

practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a

diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its

domestic critics is

simply not sustainable. You will lose the U.N. one way or

another.

Founders' Vision

Multilateral compromise has always been difficult to

justify in the American political debate: too many speeches,

too many constraints, too few results. Yet it was not meant

to be so. The all-moral-idealism-no-power institution was the

League of Nations. The U.N. was explicitly designed through

U.S. leadership and the ultimate coalition of the willing,

its World War II allies, as a very different creature, an

antidote to the League's failure. At the U.N.'s core was to

be an enforceable concept of collective security protected by

the victors of that war, combined with much more practical

efforts to promote global values such as human rights and

democracy. Underpinning this new approach was a judgement

that no President since Truman has felt able to repeat: that

for the world's one super-Power--arguably more super in 1946

than 2006--managing global security and development issues

through the network of a United Nations was worth the effort.

Yes it meant the give and take of multilateral bargaining,

but any dilution of American positions was more than made up

for by the added clout of action that enjoyed global support.

Today, we are coming to the end of the 10-year term of

arguably the U.N.'s best-ever Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.

But some of his very successes--promoting human rights and a

responsibility to protect people from abuse by their own

Governments; creating a new status for civil society and

business at the U.N.--are either not recognized or have come

under steady attacks from anti-U.N. groups. To take just one

example, 10 years ago U.N. peacekeeping seemed almost

moribund in the aftermath of tragic mistakes in Rwanda,

Somalia and Yugoslavia. Today, the U.N. fields 18

peacekeeping operations around the world, from the Congo to

Haiti, Sudan to Sierra Leone, Southern Lebanon to Liberia,

with an annual cost that is at a bargain bin price compared

to other U.S.-led operations. And the U.S. pays roughly one

quarter of those U.N. peacekeeping costs--just over $1

billion this year. That figure should be seen in the context

of estimates by both the GAO and RAND Corporation that U.N.

peacekeeping, while lacking heavy armament enforcement

capacity, helps to maintain peace--when there is a peace to

keep--more effectively for a lot less than comparable U.S.

operations. Multilateral peacekeeping is effective cost-

sharing on a much lower cost business model and it works.

That is as it should be and is true for many other areas

the U.N. system works in, too, from humanitarian relief to

health to education. Yet for many policymakers and opinion

leaders in Washington, let alone the general public, the

roles I have described are hardly believed or, where they

are, remain discreetly underplayed. To acknowledge an

America reliant on international institutions is not

perceived to be good politics at home.

However, inevitably a moment of truth is coming. Because

even as the world's challenges are growing, the U.N.'s

ability to respond is being weakened without U.S. leadership.

Take the issue of human rights. When Eleanor Roosevelt took

the podium at the U.N. to argue passionately for the

elaboration of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the

world responded. Today, when the human rights machinery was

renewed with the formation of a Human Rights Council to

replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights, and the

U.S. chose to stay on the sidelines, the loss was

everybody's. I hope and believe the new Council will prove

itself to be a stronger and more effective body than its

predecessor. But there is no question that the U.S. decision

to call for a vote in order to oppose it in the General

Assembly, and then to not run for a seat after it was

approved by 170 votes to 4, makes the challenge more

difficult.

More broadly, Americans complain about the U.N.'s

bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable

modern management structures and the political divisions of

the General Assembly here in New York. And my response is,

``guilty on all counts''. But why? In significant part

because the U.S. has not stuck with its project--its

professed wish to have a strong, effective United Nations--in

a systematic way. Secretary Albright and others here today

have played extraordinary leadership roles in U.S.-U.N.

relations, for which I salute them. But in the eyes of the

rest of the world, U.S. commitment tends to ebb much more

than it flows. And in recent years, the enormously divisive

issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have

come to define an unhappy marriage.

As someone who deals with Washington almost daily, I know

this is unfair to the very real effort all three Secretaries

of State I have worked with--Secretary Albright, Secretary

Powell and Secretary Rice--put into U.N. issues. And today,

on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan

to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the U.S. is

constructively engaged with the U.N. But that is not well

known or understood, in part because much of the public

discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely

abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and

Fox News. That is what I mean by ``stealth'' diplomacy: the

U.N.'s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as

it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the

world. Exacerbating matters is the widely held perception,

even among many U.S. allies, that the U.S. tends to hold on

to maximalist positions when it could be finding middle

ground.

We can see this even on apparently non-controversial issues

such as renovating the dilapidated U.N. Headquarters in New

York. While an architectural landmark, the building falls

dangerously short of city codes, lacks sprinklers, is filled

with asbestos and is in most respects the most hazardous

workplace in town. But the only Government not fully

supporting the project is the U.S. Too much unchecked U.N.-

bashing and stereotyping over too many years--manifest in a

fear by politicians to be seen to be supporting better

premises for overpaid, corrupt U.N. bureaucrats--makes even

refurbishing a building a political hot potato.

Making Reform Work

One consequence is that, like the building itself, the

vital renewal of the Organization, the updating of its

mission, its governance and its management tools, is

addressed only intermittently. And when the U.S. does

champion the right issues like management reform, as it is

currently doing, it provokes more suspicion than support.

Last December, for example, largely at U.S. insistence,

instead of a normal two-year budget, Member States approved

only six months' worth of expenditure--a period which ends on

June 30. Developing and developed countries, the latter with

the U.S. at the fore, are now at loggerheads over whether

sufficient reform has taken place to lift that cap, or indeed

whether there should be any links between reform and the

budget. Without agreement, we could face a fiscal crisis very

soon.

There has been a significant amount of reform over the last

18 months, from the creation of a new Ethics Office and

whistle-blower policy, to the establishment of a new

Peacebuilding Commission and Human Rights Council. But not

enough. The unfinished management reform agenda, which the

U.S. sensibly supports, is in many ways a statement of the

obvious. It argues that systems and processes designed 60

years ago for an organization largely devoted to running

conferences and writing reports simply don't work for today's

operational U.N., which conducts multibillion-dollar

peacekeeping missions, humanitarian relief operations and

other complex operations all over the world. The report sets

out concrete proposals for how this can be fixed while also

seeking to address the broader management, oversight and

accountability weaknesses highlighted by the ``oil-for-food''

programme.

One day soon we must address the massive gap between the

scale of world issues and the limits of the institutions we

have built to address them. However, today even relatively

modest proposals that in any other organization would be seen

as uncontroversial, such as providing more authority and

flexibility for the Secretary-General to shift posts and

resources to organizational priorities without having to get

direct approval from Member States, have been fiercely

resisted by the G-77, the main group of developing countries,

on the grounds that this weakens accountability. Hence the

current deadlock.

What lies behind this? It is not because most developing

countries don't want reform. To be sure, a few spoilers do

seem to be opposed to reform for its own sake, and there is

no question that some countries are seeking to manipulate the

process for their own ends with very damaging consequences.

But in practice, the vast majority is fully supportive of the

principle of a better run, more effective U.N.; indeed they

know they would be the primary beneficiaries, through more

peace, and more development. So why has it not so far been

possible to isolate the radicals and build a strong alliance

of reform-minded nations to push through this agenda? I would

argue that the answer lies in questions about motives and

power. Motives, in that, very unfortunately, there is

currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate

countries that anything the U.S. supports must have a secret

agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes

to Washington's ends or weakening the institutions, and

therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real

discussion of whether they make sense or not.

And power, that in two different ways revolves around

perceptions of the role and representativeness of the

Security Council. First, in that there has been a real,

understandable hostility by the wider membership to the

perception that the Security Council, in particular the five

permanent members, is seeking a role in areas not formally

within its remit, such as management issues or human rights.

Second, an equally understandable conviction that those five,

veto-wielding permanent members who happen to be the victors

in a war fought 60 years ago, cannot be seen as

representative of today's world--even when looking through

the lens of financial contributions. Indeed, the so-called G-

4 of Security Council aspirants--Japan, India, Brazil and

Germany--contribute twice as much as the P-4, the four

permanent members excluding the U.S.

Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged exactly this point

on his trip to Washington last month, and it is something

which does need to be addressed. More broadly, the very

reasonable concerns of the full U.N. membership that the

fundamental multilateral principle that each Member State's

vote counts equally in the wider work of the U.N. needs to be

acknowledged and accommodated within a broader framework of

reform. If the multilateral system is to work effectively,

all States need to feel they have a real stake.

New Global Challenges

But a stake in what system? The U.S.--like every nation,

strong and weak alike--is today beset by problems that defy

national, inside-the-border solutions: climate change,

terrorism, nuclear proliferation, migration, the management

of the global economy, the internationalization of drugs and

crime, the spread of diseases such as HIV and avian flu.

Today's new national security challenges basically thumb

their noses at old notions of national sovereignty. Security

has gone global, and no country can afford to neglect the

global institutions needed to manage it. Kofi Annan has

proposed a restructuring of the U.N. to respond to these new

challenges with three legs: development, security and human

rights supported, like any good chair, by a fourth leg,

reformed management. That is the U.N. we want to place our

bet on. But for it to work, we need the U.S. to support this

agenda--and support it not just in a whisper but in a coast

to coast shout that pushes back the critics domestically and

wins over the sceptics internationally. America's leaders

must again say the U.N. matters.

When you talk better national education scores, you don't

start with ``I support the Department of Education''.

Similarly for the U.N. it starts with politicians who will

assert the U.S. is going to engage with the world to tackle

climate change, poverty, immigration and terrorism. Stand up

for that agenda consistently and allow the U.N. to ride on

its coat-tails as a vital means of getting it done. It also

means a sustained inside-the-tent diplomacy at the U.N. No

more ``take it or leave it'', red-line demands thrown in

without debate and engagement.

Let me close with a few words on Darfur to make my point. A

few weeks ago, my kids were on the Mall in Washington,

demanding President Bush do more to end the genocide in

Darfur and President Bush wants to do more. I'd bet some of

your kids were there as well. Perhaps you were, too. And yet

what can the U.S. do alone in the heart of Africa, in a

region the size of France? A place where the Government in

Khartoum is convinced the U.S. wants to extend the hegemony

it is thought to have asserted in Iraq and Afghanistan. In

essence, the U.S. is stymied before it even passes ``Go''. It

needs the U.N. as a multilateral means to address Sudan's

concerns. It needs the U.N. to secure a wide multicultural

array of troop and humanitarian partners. It needs the U.N.

to provide the international legitimacy that Iraq has again

proved is an indispensable component to success on the

ground. Yet, the U.N. needs its first parent, the U.S., every

bit as much if it is to deploy credibly in one of the world's

nastiest neighbourhoods.

Back in Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's day, building a

strong, effective U.N. that could play this kind of role was

a bipartisan enterprise, with the likes of Arthur Vandenberg

and John Foster Dulles joining Democrats to support the new

body. Who are their successors in American politics? Who will

campaign in 2008 for a new multilateral national security?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article by Ruth La Ferla, titled Downtown Comes to Harlem. The article published on June 22, 2006, in the Thursday Styles section of the New York Times, talks about the retail potential of Harlem. Most inner city communities, such as Harlem, possess tremendous undiscovered potential, and provide manifold opportunities for success by large scale business. It is a region of the city that has a greater competitive advantage, according to Michael E. Porter, a professor of Harvard Business School and a leading authority on business strategy. Compared to the suburbs and areas in the other boroughs of the city, the Harlem community is under-serviced and under-retailed. Although the average household income is low, the dense population of the Harlem community represents a buying power that is comparable to that of other parts of the city. Because of its historical and cultural heritage, entrepreneurs in Harlem have an added marketing advantage. As Ms. La Ferla remarks, N, the new fashion emporium in Harlem, ``is the latest in a growing number of retailers to invoke Harlem's multilayered heritage to put their wares on the fashion map.''

Offering a mix of local labels and African American designers like Byron Lars and Tracy Reese with more established, upscale brands, these rarified stores are visible symbols of the rapid gentrification of Harlem. Springing up along and just off Seventh and Lenox Avenues, from about 114th St. to 135th St. stores like Pieces of Harlem, Montgomery, Denim Library, B. Oyama, Harlemade are realizing urban sociologists' prediction of the ``branding'' of Harlem using niche marketing. Meanwhile some longtime residents are fretting that the goods might not be relevant to the local population. The store owners are countering that their inventories were specifically conceived to cater to the locals, simultaneously drawing attention of the tourists.

I want to commend these business owners who are finally utilizing the competitive advantage of Harlem to revive the community. By infusing the legacy of Harlem's glory days with Cab Calloway, Dorothy Dandridge, and Nat King Cole with the modern street-inflected sensibility, these entrepreneurs are marketing Harlem's diversity and culture to revive the elegance of Harlem.

[From the New York Times, June 22, 2006]

Downtown Comes to Harlem

(By Ruth La Ferla)

Talking up N, his new fashion emporium in Harlem, Larry

Ortiz posed a question: ``If we had to put Harlem in a

bottle, what would the scent be?'' He then answered with no

prompting. ``It would obviously be a little retro, a little

1930's.'' An infusion, in short, evocative of Harlem's glory

years, an era of artistic ferment that spawned Cab Calloway,

Dorothy Dandridge and Nat King Cole, fused with a modem

street-inflected sensibility.

For Mr. Ortiz, one of N's three partners, capturing the

essence of the neighborhood is not just rhetoric. To succeed

as a merchant, he maintained, he will need to distill Harlem,

not just in a fragrance but in all of the upscale fashions,

home accessories and cosmetic lines sold at his gracious two-

level store in a town house on 116th Street between Seventh

and Lenox Avenues.

His objective in showcasing brands like Nicole Miller, Hugo

Boss, Marimekko and Jonathan Adler to the increasingly

affluent enclave north of Central Park is partly to cater to

a fashionably hip local population that has until now

traveled downtown in search of popular fashion labels. He is

also the latest in a growing number of retailers to invoke

Harlem's multilayered heritage to put their wares on the

fashion map.

``One of the things that is compelling to us is the idea of

branding Harlem,'' Mr. Ortiz said. It is an idea he hopes to

render concrete by offering a mix of local labels and

African-American designers like Byron Lars and Tracy Reese

with more established, upscale brands. ``It's very important

to push a lot of black designers who wouldn't get the same

attention elsewhere,'' he said.

``This store is not about hip-hop,'' he added emphatically.

At 4,000 square feet, N, which opened in April in Mount

Morris Park, is the largest upscale retailer to descend on

the area. Like N, other newcomers are pointedly distancing

themselves from the brash hip-hop aesthetic and offering

fashion that deliberately summons Harlem's fabled past, along

with current fashion trends being interpreted by downtown

outposts like Scoop, Intermix and Big Drop and also by a

clutch of stylish men's stores.

As well they might. They have arrived in a rapidly

gentrifying neighborhood. Mount Morris Park, a 16-block area

from 118th Street to 124th Street between Fifth and Seventh

Avenues, has the highest concentration of Harlem households

with incomes exceeding $100,000, said Nikoa Evans, a partner

in the store and a former vice president for finance for the

Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, a federal economic

development initiative. Affluent residents pay about $750,000

for a one-bedroom condominium and $2 million for the

traditional brownstones that are in high demand.

But Mount Morris Park, and much of Harlem, remains a

relative bargain for boutique owners, who pay rents varying

from $75 a square foot to as much as $150 on 125th Street,

compared with $700 on prime blocks along Madison Avenue.

Flaunting an aura of exclusivity, the new shops offer a

high-style--and pricey--alternative to the wares on 125th

Street. That crowded, populist thoroughfare is now home to,

among others, a MAC cosmetics store; Atmos, a Japanese-owned

store specializing in hard-to-find sneakers, with a flagship

in the Harajuku district of Tokyo; Old Navy and H & M.

``Harlem is so much more than just 125th Street,'' said

Faith Hope Consolo, the chairwoman of the retail leasing and

sales division at Prudential Douglas Elliman. ``There is so

much retail potential there,'' said Ms. Consolo, who is

scouting sites for several clients. ``The challenge is to

choose the right location.''

Springing up along and just off Seventh and Lenox Avenues,

from about 114th Street to 135th Street, are stores like

Pieces of Harlem, on West 135th Street, a boutique that sells

denim skirts and jackets with Victorian-inspired ruffles and

pearl buttons designed by the owners, Latisha and Colin

Daring. It also carries draped jersey dresses ($354) by

Rachel Roy, who is married to the rap entrepreneur Damon

Dash, and ribbon-trimmed T-shirts ($185) by Gwen Stefani.

Montgomery, on Seventh Avenue, sells handbags, T-shirts and

lingerie emblazoned with the image of Jolinda, a head-wrapped

rag doll that recalls the Southern roots of its designer,

Montgomery Harris, who moved her store from SoHo to Harlem

about three years ago. Ms. Harris is also known for her

whimsically hand-embroidered, one-of-a-kind skirts and

dresses, many in a vintage mood ($400 to $500).

Another new store is Denim Library, on Seventh Avenue, a

repository for premium jeans like People's Liberation,

Citizens for Humanity and Ciano Farmer, all of which are

displayed folded with rear pockets on

view in a series of library shelves, and sell for $130 to

$750. Hats by Bunn, on Seventh Avenue, sells waxed-straw

chapeaus and flat-top felt hats by Bunn, the Trinidad-born

milliner.

Bernard Oyama, the owner of B. Oyama, an elegant old-world

style haberdashery on Seventh Avenue, sells his own designs

of suits, shirts and neckwear, which are displayed amid a

collection of black-and-white photographs of dapper greats

like Miles Davis and Duke Ellington, each a reminder that the

Harlem of the 30's through the 60's was a thriving style

capital.

``The idea was to bring back the sense of quality to

Harlem,'' said Mr. Oyama, a native of Gabon who studied

fashion design in Paris. His store draws locals and, he said,

even greater numbers of clients from the Bronx, Brooklyn and

New Jersey, who drop in from time to time to be fitted for

custom-tailored suits ($800 to $2,200), and to pick up bow

ties, cravats and kaleidoscopically colorful gingham and

paisley pocket squares.

Not every store is so rarefied. Harlemade, which has been

at 116th Street for six years, is stocked with books and

photographs offering glimpses of the historic area and its

architecture. It also sells handbags, dolls and an assortment

of T-shirts bearing Harlem logos.

``I was the first to brand Harlem,'' insisted Murphy

Heyliger, an owner. ``Since then I've seen other companies

realize you can get cool by putting your neighborhood on a

shirt.''

Mr. Heyliger is typical of the merchants catering to both

residents and visitors drawn to a Harlem that is increasingly

perceived as romantic and vibrant enough to draw several

thousand tourists on weekends, many of whom place boutique-

hopping high on an itinerary that might also include dining

at Emperor's Roe or Settepani, and touring the Studio Museum,

which exhibits the work of contemporary African-American

artists.

Despite those attractions, some skeptical local merchants

and residents wonder if importing fancy wares to Harlem is

not premature. The new boutiques are interspersed with

bodegas, hairdressers and discount stores, and not all of the

retail landscape looks promising. Stores like N ``may be too

early,'' said Minya Quirk, the owner of Brand Pimps, a

fashion consulting company, and a Harlem resident.

Ms. Quirk also frets that the goods may not be relevant to

a local population. ``Harlem residents have a deeply

ingrained sense of personal style,'' she said. ``They know

what they want, and I think a lot of retailers might

underestimate that.''

Not Mr. Ortiz, who argues that his inventory was conceived

expressly to appeal to style-driven locals. N offers fashion

at prices that vary from $165 for a cotton shirt with

grosgrain detailing to $1,000 for a leather coat. Sizes range

from 0 to 16.

``We have a market here that has certain needs when it

comes to sizing,'' he said. ``We're offering larger sizes

mixed in with smaller ones in a very unapologetic way. And

we're always making sure we'll accommodate a variety of body

types.''

The fashions are often more boldly patterned than those at

shops in other neighborhoods. ``They reflect the way our

uptown customers would like to wear clothes, and an

understanding that this market is more heavily into color,''

Mr. Ortiz said.

Harlem shoppers also are serious fragrance consumers, which

is evident from the proliferation of shops displaying ever-

widening selections of designer scents. That infatuation

attracted Laurice Rahme, the entrepreneur behind Bond No. 9,

with scents named after New York neighborhoods. Ms. Rahme,

who was prescient in branding the area with New Haarlem, a

scent introduced in 2004, plans to open a store in Harlem

this year. Her flagship is on Bond Street in Lower Manhattan.

``But what happened to retailing and tourism downtown is

going to happen uptown,'' she predicted.

Bud Konheim, the chief executive of Nicole Miller, a line

with hothouse colors and animated prints that are popular at

N, is confident that a presence in the neighborhood is

healthy for the bottom line. The collection at N is expected

to generate $300,000 to $500,000 in its first year, he said.

``Harlem is an undiscovered secret for now, but that won't

last,'' Mr. Konheim went on. ``Things are moving too fast.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House on the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 2006, proposed by the esteemed gentleman from Wisconsin. The bill calls for renewal of certain expiring provisions from the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including Section 203--the bilingual election assistance.

As a representative of one of the many multi-ethnic districts in New York, I fully realize the necessity of providing bilingual assistance to increase voting among language minorities and allow these Americans the chance to participate in the democratic process. According to the existing provisions of Section 203, the bilingual assistance is made available when the population of a language minority group in an electoral district is 10,000. This has facilitated voting for over 200,000 Asian Americans nationwide, and caused a 50 percent increase in the Hispanic electorate in the first decade of the adoption of this provision.

Mr. Speaker, the House has agreed to a bipartisan support of this vitally important reauthorization bill to ensure a clean passage. Had the opportunity allowed, I would have liked to propose an amendment to Section 203, lowering the current threshold to 7,500. The effect of lowering the numerical trigger to 7,500 would remove language barriers for at least 77,955 limited English proficient Asian American citizens to vote, including a significant increase in the electorate of New York City. In the last election, New York only offered bilingual election assistance in Spanish, Chinese and Korean. Keeping in mind the diversity and multiethnic communities in New York, it is vital that we ensure all our constituents have an easier access to the electoral process. I have been a firm supporter of integration and accepting immigrants into American society. What better way to make them comfortable in their American identity and assist in seamless assimilation?

On another note, under the current law, U.S. Census Bureau determines the Section 203 coverage every 10 years. Considering the rapid growth of immigrant communities, particularly in cities like New York, San Francisco (CA), Los Angeles (CA), Philadelphia (PA), Essex County (NJ), Cook County (lL), King County (WA), I believe we should make census determinations every 5 years to decide Section 203 coverage.

According to the 1990 census, the Korean American population in New York was short of 250 persons to gain coverage under Section 203. Although the community reached the numeric trigger by early 1990s, it did not gain coverage until after the 2000 census. More recently, the Vietnamese community in San Diego fell 85 persons short of the numeric trigger following the 2000 census. Surely, by now the community has already surpassed the trigger but will not receive bilingual election assistance until after the 2010 census report is completed.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 with all its subsequent amendment has been immensely successful in expanding access and assistance to racial and ethnic minorities during election. It remains one of the most important civil rights laws in our country. Mr. Speaker, while coming to debate the reauthorization of the expiring provisions in this 109th Congress, we must keep in mind the limitations of the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 2006, and how to make it more effective and allow our citizens access to one of their fundamental rights as guaranteed by the ideals of our nation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must commend the bipartisan effort to renew this legislation and

congrats my colleagues on their success in allowing for the expansion of the provision of until 2032, for 25 years--the longest extension in its history. I must also praise the various civil rights groups who have been extensively campaigning for the renewal of the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the legacy of the recently passed Evelyn Dubrow. In her many years here on Capitol Hill as a delightful yet effective advocate of worker's rights, Ms. Dubrow helped influence progress in civil rights issues across the board. She was best known as the representative for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), however, her work sought to expand the rights of workers for a higher minimum wage, fair trade laws, and family and medical leave. Her forthright style and passionate advocacy won her many friends and admirers in the Congress.

For many members of Congress, she was the ideal example of a successful lobbyist, and her wealth of knowledge benefited all who had the pleasure of crossing Ms. Dubrow's path. Not only was she a model lobbyist, but she was also an exemplary human being who did not take even a penny for granted, spending in a year what some say others spend in telephone bills alone. Hers was a personal style and her winning personality made her welcome in the offices she visited.

Ms. Dubrow's outstanding work was recognized by President Clinton, who in 1999 awarded her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She was also recognized by the Washington Business Review in 1982 as Washington's top 10 lobbyists.

Known affectionately as ``Evy,'' she began her efforts on Capitol Hill as one of very few other female lobbyists in the 50's. In those days, the minimum wage was only $1 an hour, talk of equal pay for men and women was rare, and laws allowed discrimination in housing, hiring, and health care. It was in these areas that ``Evy'' fought hard to produce improvements for all Americans.

Her obituary in the June 22nd edition of The Washington Post honored the life and works of Ms. Evelyn Dubrow. I would like to enter the Obituary into the Record and join the Washington Post as well as my colleagues on the Hill for reflection and appreciation of this great woman's contributions to our country.

[From the Washington Post, June 22, 2006]

Lobbyist Evelyn Dubrow, 95; Worked for ILGWU, Civil Rights

(By Patricia Sullivan)

Evelyn ``Evy'' Dubrow, 95, an indefatigable lobbyist for

garment workers for almost 50 years and the only person on

Capitol Hill allowed to share the congressional doorkeepers'

chairs outside the House chambers, died June 20 of a heart

attack at George Washington University Hospital.

Miss Dubrow, the 4-foot, 11-inch, throaty-voiced

representative for the International Ladies Garment Workers

Union and its successor union from 1956 until about two years

ago, wore out countless pairs of size 4 shoes in the marble

halls of the Capitol, where she advocated for a higher

minimum wage, fair trade laws, family and medical leave

policies and civil rights.

``Everyone knows Evy,'' said one newspaper profile of the

friendly activist. Another said, ``She stands eye-to-eye with

Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich and goes toe-to-toe with the

big boys, whether the late [House Speaker Thomas P.] O'Neill

. . . or Sen. Alan K. Simpson, the 6-foot-7 Republican from

Wyoming.''

``Evelyn Dubrow is the union label,'' Sen. Ernest F.

Hollings (D-S.C.) once said.

``By the accounts of her best friends in Congress, most of

them Northern liberals, she is the model of the effective

lobbyist--persistent but not pushy, knowledgeable and

persuasive but not dogmatic,'' New York Times reporter David

E. Rosenbaum wrote in 1970.

Her longevity gave her knowledge of the institution and an

understanding of when to compromise. ``There's no point

trying to organize an industry if there are no jobs,'' she

said in 1985, explaining why labor supported a protectionist

textile bill. It also gave her a seat just outside the House

chambers; as speaker, O'Neill ordered the doorkeepers to

share their seat with the representative of seamstresses,

hemmers and buttonhole girls. The apparently unprecedented

courtesy lasted until Newt Gingrich won the speakership and

barred lobbyists from the second floor during votes.

Miss Dubrow worked 15-hour days and outlasted almost

everyone. For years, she kept

her age a secret even while spreading her secrets to

successful lobbying: Never beg for votes, don't assume you

know everything and don't threaten anyone.

``She carries no flip phone, beeper or Powerbook,'' the

Baltimore Sun said in 1995. ``[Miss] Dubrow keeps her daily

schedule on a card in her appointment calendar in her purse.

And her yearly expenses are less than what some spend in

telephone bills alone.''

President Bill Clinton awarded her the Presidential Medal

of Freedom in 1999, calling her ``a tiny woman, larger than

life'' who was ``renowned for her grace, candor, and

integrity, [who] has earned the respect of opponents and

allies alike.''

Unapologetically liberal, she had friends among both

Republicans and Democrats, telling Washingtonian magazine in

1997: ``In Washington you should never write off anybody.

You'll be surprised where tomorrow's allies come from.'' .

She came from Paterson, N.J., the daughter of immigrants

from Belarus who found work in factories of New York and New

Jersey. She got her start in labor activism handing out

fliers about the Spanish Civil War in New York's Union

Square. She graduated from New York University's School of

Journalism and joined her first union, the Newspaper Guild,

while working at the Paterson Morning Call newspaper.

She soon moved into full-time union work, as a secretary in

the Textile Workers Union and as an assistant to the

president of the New Jersey Congress of Industrial

Organizations. She was one of the organizers of Americans for

Democratic Action in 1947 and worked for the ADA until 1956.

Legendary labor leader David Dubinsky hired her as lobbyist

for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and sent

her to Washington.

Miss Dubrow was in her mid-forties when she became one of a

mere handful of female lobbyists in Washington. When she

started, the federal minimum wage was $1 an hour, equal pay

was rarely mentioned and the law allowed discrimination in

housing, hiring and health care. She fought long and hard for

improvements in all those areas, and later, against the North

American Free Trade Agreement, which eroded the jobs of

American union members who made clothes.

``When I started this job, we were worried about

sweatshops,'' she told The Washington Post in 1997. ``Today

we're still worried about sweatshops.''

She was named vice president of the ILGWU in 1977, and when

the union merged with another to form UNITE! (United

Needleworkers, Industrial and Textile Employees), she became

vice president and legislative director, then special

assistant to its president. She was a founder of the

Coalition of Labor Union Women.

Miss Dubrow became well recognized off Capitol Hill in

time. In 1971, Ladies' Home Journal named her one of the 75

most important women in America, and in 1982, the old

Washington Business Review called her one of the city's top

10 lobbyists.

Never married, with no immediate family survivors, she

reveled in her many nieces and nephews. She also enjoyed

poker, gin rummy and reading the classics.

In the 1970s, she endured four years of Metro rail

construction in front of her D Street SE home. Her only

complaint about it, she told The Post in 1977: ``Their

construction in front of my house caused my shoes to get

muddy. But for two weeks, every day, one of the workers would

go have them polished and bring them back to me.''

Thank you so much for yielding me time. I think we are getting closer to the truth when the previous speaker spoke out as to why we have an inheritance tax in the first place. And while he talked about World War I, I think he was emphasizing what he called a socialistic type of government, where redistribution of the wealth was the issue rather than the actual resources that are raised.

I am convinced that a large number of people, especially the Republicans in this House, look at this not as a revenue issue but as a policy issue. Oh, yes, they call it the death tax because they think this is a way of packaging something, saying that death should not be a taxable event. But realistically, if you are dead, you certainly are relieved of your taxes. So it is the live people you are talking about; people who have hopes and dreams that they would be able to acquire the inheritances of those that preceded them.

So the real reason, perhaps, of having this tax was to make certain we had a middle class, that you did not find the superwealthy being able to influence the politicians and the Congress. And if that was the reason, and I will have to research it, even though some experts thought there was a social policy reason, if ever there was a time to review this policy, it would be now.

The Joint Economic Committee, which is not Republican or Democrat, has indicated that under existing law, when the estate tax goes to $3.5 million, an estate that would be exempt, and $7 million that would be exempt, they say that we would be talking about only 7,500 actual estates. Now, if this does cost $800 billion, or close to $1 trillion, then what we are arguing about is whether or not 7,500 people could cause us to go into the deficit further by having their benefits restored.

In other words, what we are saying here is that while the Nation is at war,

while we are spending $300 billion or $400 billion, while we have a $9 trillion debt, while we are cutting even the services of veterans and those that are fighting, that philosophically the majority believes that we should shatter the so-called Estate Tax Inheritance Act, the death tax, no matter what the economic expense is.

So we are not doing this for this Congress or this election; we are doing it to change the direction of the United States Government so that the items of resources to pay for education and health care, and even our national defense, are going to be jeopardized because some of you believe that the richest of the rich should be protected from an equitable distribution of tax liability.

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

Mr. Speaker, some may ask, why now are we taking up this bill? Why have we decided, that is, the majority, that at a time that our Nation is at war, when our men and women are dying to bring democracy to Iraq, where there are problems getting the equipment they need to protect themselves, when we cannot provide even our veterans with adequate health care and education opportunities, why now, when we find ourselves with a historic $9 trillion indebtedness, when just the interest of this debt is going to prohibit the Congresses that follow us from doing the things that our great Nation would want to do, why now, when the people that have been hit by Rita and Katrina can't restore their lives, why now, when the poor are increasing in population, are we reaching out to the richest of the rich Americans? Why now would the Republican leadership make this a priority for three- tenths of 1 percent of the American people?

Who are these people? How do they have such a communication with the leadership?

The Joint Economic Committee, which is not Republican and not Democrat, they are just fair, they say under existing law nobody except 7,500 families would be liable for any taxes on an estate.

They call it a ``death tax'' because they know how to play on words. Dead people don't pay taxes. But they can use what they want to get people emotionally involved.

But if there is anyone that is concerned about this Republic and making certain that the economy is sound and that wars that we start are paid for and that old folks are able to be taken care of through a Social Security act, why now would they come with this repeal? Because it is a repeal. It is 80 percent a repeal. It is going to cost more than the original repeal. Why do they want these sound tracks to be able to say that they supported repeal of the death tax?

I am going to tell you why. Because they have a mission. They are so organized that they want to destroy everything that Franklin Delano Roosevelt started. And it is not me that is saying that. It is their voting record that says it. Things that Americans are so proud of.

Social Security, a little cushion for people who worked every day in their lives and all they want is a little help with their security. Privatization, that is what we have to do. Medicare, this is something that we have come to depend on. They want it to implode, the things that they cannot deal with from a political point of view, the third rails, if they will.

If they make certain that there are no resources left for Democrats to handle, they have won. And they don't care how many Republicans lose, because their mission is to destroy every bit of social services by saying how can we pay for it.

So I submit to you that anytime a party is prepared to give $2 trillion of tax cuts because it is going to present economic growth and then go to Communist China to borrow the money, there is something wrong with that picture.

And I am suggesting, too, that these 7,500 beneficiaries, they are not begging for this money. They are not getting calls every day. We certainly don't get them. And they wish they were getting them, but they are not getting them, because most people God has blessed to get into this income status are so satisfied that they believe that they owe this Republic some indebtedness for the freedom and equality and opportunity that they receive.

And so if you have any question about supporting the programs that you are proud of as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, remember one thing: if you get carried with the emotion, one day you will have to explain, why now? Why, when your great country was in so much debt, did you figure that you had to reward 7,500 people? Why now, when your Nation is at war and the GIs will be coming back, those that do, and they ask why can't we get a decent shake and you say because we didn't have the money, we had to give it to the 7,500? Why now, when you take a look at the budgets that we are going to have, either as Republican leadership or Democratic leadership, that we are going to say that the interest that we owe to

foreign countries prevent us from taking care of the things that we have here?

This is not a scheme to reward 7,500 people. This is a scheme to take the resources away from this great Nation that has a commitment to our young and our old for health and education and the things that would really make us a strong Nation. And at the end of the day the fact that they are going to lose the majority won't mean anything because it would be a part of a plan not to perpetuate Republican or, for lack of a better word, leadership, but to destroy a system that Franklin Roosevelt had the hearts and the minds of this great country.

So I submit to you, you can do what sounds like it is the right thing to do because they call it a death tax, but it will be the death of democracy and freedom and the ability to provide the services that are expected of us, not as politicians, but as Americans and Members of Congress. This is going to be a historic vote, and the question is going to be, Which side of this vote did you vote on?

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, if the rich don't want it and the middle class don't want it, why can't we get on with just the minimum-wage increase and put this behind us?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, and that is the best they can do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, an outstanding hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal, 2 minutes.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. There seems to be some confusion as to who the beneficiary is of this special legislation. I suggest to you that if you belong to the one-third of 1 percent of not working families, but families who have inherited an estate that is valued over $3.5 million, or $7 million if you are a couple, that in 2009 you will be the beneficiary.

If there is some confusion about the hundreds of millions of people who work every day, and those six million of them that are at minimum wage, then I suggest to you that you will get nothing from this. But if you are in doubt as to whether one side is just making it up as they go along, and the other side has any question about it, I suggest that you go to the Internet, www.house.gov.jct. That is the Joint Committee on Taxation, and you will be able to decide whether you hit the lottery. If your name is not there with the 7,500 families, then you are a loser in this enormously expensive legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the outstanding leader of the Democratic Party and, indeed, our country, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I respond?

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

parliamentary inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

First of all, when I asked for a vote, you asked for the votes for the ayes. It was my intention, in case we had lost, to ask for a vote on this because a quorum is not present.

What is happening here, and my parliamentary inquiry is, once you took the ayes, we never got an opportunity to find out the nays. So I am in the position now that I cannot challenge the Chair. After you asked for the aye votes, you never asked for the nay votes. How can we determine what the ruling of the Chair is?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Is at this stage a motion to adjourn in order?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article from the Washington Times by Sebastian Berger titled, World's royals fete Thailand's King. This article describes the celebration of history's longest-reigning monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. The celebration of this king's reign will last 3 days and has included the biggest reunion of royal heads of state in decades. I would like to join these world leaders in celebration and tribute to King Adulyadej and in recognition of the anniversary of his ascent to the throne.

King Adulyadej's reign of 60 years has outlived many

turbulent times in Thailand and his leadership has survived

17 military coups, 23 different prime ministers and 15

constitutions of Thailand. His soft spoken yet effective

manner of advocating for issues important to Thailand has won

him admiration and affection from all of his people.

Known as the ``Developer King'' to many, Secretary General

Kofi Annan visited the King during the celebrations in order

to present him with the United Nations Development Program

Award. This award presentation was meant to recognize the

King's steadfast devotion for improved living circumstances

for the Thai people. He initiated many development projects

which, throughout 60 years, have created progress and

prosperity for the country. So beloved is this sovereign that

he has also been nicknamed the ``soul of the nation'' by his

people.

The King is also well known for his abilities in the

artistic field. Because of this, King Adulyadej was granted

the title of ``Supreme Artist'' in recognition of his

contributions to art and artists in Thailand. So great was

his role that the country established ``The Supreme Artist

Hall'' to commemorate and display the King's work.

His model for sustaining a unified Thailand despite

numerous obstacles against progress is a great example for

all. With words alone, King Adulyadej ended bloodshed in 1973

and 1992, during times of hostility against military

dictatorships. His current appeal for Thai people is a call

for unity during a time of national division. Indeed, the

entire nation has united in order to pay homage to its

beloved ruler and I stand in camaraderie with the Thai people

to celebrate and appreciate the example of King Adulyadej.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today enter into the Record, the inaugural address of the Most Honorable Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller, the newly elected Prime Minister of Jamaica.

In her inauguration speech Ms. Simpson-Miller pledged to advance the human rights and individual liberties of the people of Jamaica. Acknowledging that the duty of the state is to protect the society as a whole, she condemned sacrificing individual liberties in execution of that duty. She promised to stamp out corruption and criminality by working closely with the Minister of National Security as well as the law enforcement community to reduce the high rate of crime in Jamaica and provide greater security for the people.

Pointing out that economic transformation cannot take place without an overhaul of the educational system of Jamaica, Ms. Simpson-Miller pledged to provide access to quality education for youth and children. In light of the high unemployment rate in Jamaica--11.5 percent (2005 estimates)--she promised to create jobs and wealth-earning opportunities for the Jamaican people. She vowed to focus her efforts on developing the communities, strengthening democratic governance, and uplifting the poor.

Ms. Simpson-Miller is a champion of the downtrodden and the dispossessed. She is seen as a symbol of the hopes and aspirations of the poor, underprivileged black people, particularly black women of Jamaica. She has really risen through the ranks of the party, coming from a very, very poor section of Jamaica to the highest elected position in the government. She has asserted her commitment to improving the living standards in the destitute communities in Jamaica.

As the first woman Prime Minister of Jamaica and a leader of the people, Ms. Simpson-Miller represents the hopes and wishes of many. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ms. Simpson-Miller and praying for her success in achieving her goals for her nation.

Inaugural Address by the Hon. Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller, MP, Prime

Minister of Jamaica

I want to begin by recognizing the source of my strength,

Almighty God. Let us stand and pray. Almighty God, in the

presence of all here attending; in the presence of the people

of this land and everyone else sharing this occasion, I do

pay homage to you, in acknowledgement that you are the

Sovereign and Supreme Lord God in this island and all the

world. As I assume the Office of Prime Minister of all

Jamaica, I do so Lord, truly conscious that the glory is

yours, and the office, an affirmation of my devotion to you

and to all the people of this nation. You laid the

foundations of the earth. Lord, lay now, I beseech you, the

foundations of the Government, that you have graciously

enabled me to lead, so that its purpose be firm, its

endeavors right, and its accomplishments blessed. Let it be

joy to those through whom you dispense it; bless those who

will receive it; and glory to you who give it.

Good Lord, let Jamaica find in me, my colleagues, and all

who offer governance under our leadership, complete

fulfillment of the righteous Government that you have offered

to this nation; let it manifest in removal of blight and

poverty; the stigma and loss due to crime and violence; let

the radiance of it raise a larger assertion of moral strength

and rectitude in our public and private sectors. Unite our

people with a stronger sense of compassion and love. Use us

as the vessel for your purpose, and the people as instruments

of your peace, and prosper us that we may know the joy of

your presence and experience the pleasure at your right hand.

These we ask of you in faith, believing, giving

thanks, even so, in the name of your Holy Son, Jesus Christ--

our Lord, and in the name of your Holy Spirit: one God.

Amen.

Today is a truly historic day in the life of this nation. A

girl from Wood Hall in deep rural St. Catherine has become

Prime Minister of Jamaica, a true manifestation of the

Jamaican Dream. This indicates that any child, regardless of

circumstances, can rise to the top.

It has been said ``Hope springs eternal in the human

breast''.

Ladies and gentlemen, if there were a way to quantify the

intangible, it would be proven without a shadow of a doubt

today that it is the spirit of hope which is most dominant

here at King's House; in homes throughout the length and

breadth of Jamaica; at the Haile Selassie School and Sam

Sharpe Square where people are gathered and, indeed, in many

parts of the world where Jamaicans are joining us via the

Internet.

I come to the Office of Prime Minister with a profound

sense of my obligation to the people. Only with the help of

Almighty God can I carry this weight of trust and hope that

is placed on my shoulders. I will not betray this trust and I

will keep hope alive.

All across Jamaica there is this hope, this positive

expectancy, this hunger to believe that a new day is dawning.

You can almost touch it. It is not an expectation that anyone

individual can fulfill, but together we can make it.

My role as Prime Minister of Jamaica will be to use this

high office to facilitate change. Today, I want to commit

myself to certain goals.

The first pledge to the Jamaican people is to advance human

rights and individual liberty. Each individual life is

sacred. None is more important than the other. Money should

not make one person more important than the other. Learning

should not make one person more important than the other, nor

should class, colour or gender. We are all equal in the sight

of God.

While the state has a responsibility to protect the society

as a whole, it must never, in the execution of that

responsibility, sacrifice individual liberty. We cannot build

the harmony and peace that this society so desperately needs

unless all Jamaicans know that they will be treated with

dignity and respect.

We need to recapture our roots: the courtesy, the decency,

the good manners and trust which were routinely practised. We

need to rekindle those tested and proven values. We must

practice them ourselves and demand them from others. I want

to continue to lead a process for the recovery and promotion

of our best values.

I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to work tirelessly

to eradicate corruption and extortion. I am committed to

their eradication as I am committed to uplifting the poor.

I pledge to do everything in my power--with the help of the

Almighty and your support to break the power of the

criminals. I will be working closely with the Minister of

National Security, the Law Enforcement Officers, the

Opposition and our 780 identified communities to successfully

tackle this problem, in the interest of all Jamaicans,

including those in the Diaspora who want to see a peaceful

Jamaica.

Closely aligned to eliminating criminality and restoring

power to communities, is the creation of employment and

wealth-earning opportunities for people. Jamaicans do

extremely well when given the opportunity. I believe that if

we create the right conditions for people to flourish; if as

government we see ourselves as facilitators, then we will

experience the unleashing of the Jamaican creative spirit

that can move this country forward.

I pledge to the Jamaican people to foster and facilitate

the conditions for employment opportunities and wealth

creation.

I want to say directly to the private sector both here and

overseas that we treasure the gains which have been made

through our macro-economic policy and international

credibility. It is our intention to build on these hard-won

gains of pain and sacrifice.

At the same time, we have to find the way while balancing

the books to balance people's lives. Indeed, both the World

Bank and the IMF have recognized the need for policies which

promote equity and poverty alleviation.

We must find a way to expand opportunities for all

Jamaicans so that they can share the fruits of macro-economic

stability. When we think of the achievements of our sports

men and women, of our musicians and others in the cultural

field, they tell us that together we can make it.

Let me recognize the presence today of our athletes, who

represented Jamaica at the recent Commonwealth Games in

Melbourne, Australia. They earned a record 22 medals,

including 10 gold.

Thank you for adding golden value to brand Jamaica. We are

proud of you. You are an example to all of us. We can use

your determination, strength, courage, discipline,

perseverance, loyalty to country and pride in being Jamaican

as motivation to work together for the advancement of our

country.

As I said before, together we can make it.

I have an abiding faith and confidence in the Jamaican

people. They believe in me and I passionately believe in

them.

Critical to this matter of entrepreneurship, employment

expansion and wealth-creation, is education. We will only

become a first-class, competitive society if we are an

educated, knowledge-based society. We have to build on the

progress already made and intensify our drive to transform

Jamaica's education system.

Our ability to attract quality foreign direct investments

is directly dependent on the quality of our human capital.

There can be no economic transformation without educational

transformation. I pledge to the people an unyielding

commitment to education, including programmes in character

education to build a society committed to the highest ethical

principles.

In this regard, we as political leaders have to set the

example. I have had the finest teacher possible in this

matter of consensus-building and respect for differences of

opinion. I refer to none other than our esteemed former Prime

Minister, the Most Hon. P. J. Patterson, to whom I owe a

great debt of gratitude.

I must thank him for his fourteen years of service as Prime

Minister of Jamaica. His loyalty and commitment to country,

his passion for service, his civility and ability to achieve

consensus make him unforgettable. As a team builder, he has

shown us that together we can make it.

I want to build on his legacy of cooperation. I consider it

my duty not only to protect, but to build on the legacies of

all my predecessors in the continuing process of nation

building. I recognize today the presence of the Most Hon.

Edward Seaga, former Prime Minister of Jamaica, and thank him

for his contribution to the development of our country.

I pledge to ensure that the interests of all our people are

protected and that victimization never rears its ugly head in

any way under my administration. Unity is a prerequisite for

success in Jamaica and is very high on my list of priorities.

I say to the Opposition, let us launch a new era of

cooperation. Let us work together in the interest of all

Jamaicans. Let us put the people's hopes and aspirations

before our own interests.

A more united, engaged, and spiritually strong nation will

provide a good foundation for dynamic integration in the

Caribbean Community. Jamaica's commitment to and active

involvement in Caricom, has been steadfast and this will

continue and, indeed, be expanded during my tenure. In that

regard, I am happy and encouraged by the presence of so many

of my CARICOM colleagues today. I am also pleased to note the

presence of a large delegation from the United States

Congress. Our active involvement in the international

community will continue, because Jamaica is respected for its

enviable tradition of leadership among developing countries.

We will maintain respectful and harmonious relations with all

states and will work with both the developed and developing

nations to build a world of peace, justice and a better

quality of life. We will continue to remind the international

community that security considerations cannot be divorced

from development, and that poverty is the greatest threat to

security.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing that can withstand

the force of an energized, confident, united, determined and

visionary people. The Bible says without vision the people

perish. If we embrace one vision--not a PNP or JLP vision,

not an uptown or a downtown vision, not an urban or rural

vision but one Jamaican vision; then we will deal with our

challenges as a nation. Together we can make it.

I pledge to the Jamaican people to lead that process. I

cannot do it alone. Together we can make it. I want to build

a partnership with the Jamaican people. A partnership which

will involve the recognition that we all have a

responsibility to lift up the poor and the downtrodden; A

partnership which will see us giving greater respect to the

rights and dignity of the persons with disabilities; A

partnership to restore the centrality of family life in

Jamaica; A partnership for responsible fatherhood, motherhood

and responsible sexual behaviour; A partnership for love,

honour and protection of our women; A partnership for love,

honour and respect for our men; A partnership for the

protection and nurturing of our children, who represent the

future and which recognizes that children are the

torchbearers of all the good that we must pass on to

posterity; A partnership to provide access to quality

education for all our children; A partnership for the

empowerment of youths through education, training and

economic opportunities; A partnership for the development of

our communities, for strengthening democratic governance and

for truly giving a voice to all the people. A partnership to

eradicate crime and drive the criminals from our communities;

A partnership to deepen the involvement of Jamaicans in the

Diaspora; A partnership in the building of a harmonious,

prosperous and vibrant Jamaica, committed to making the

Jamaican Dream accessible to every single Jamaican; Together

we can make it. A partnership where we recognize that God is

supreme. I call upon all Jamaicans to join those who will

worship on Friday, Saturday or Sunday to pray for the

prosperity of our country and peace in the nation. In these

partnerships, I pledge to be accountable to you, the people

of Jamaica. I am and will remain your servant. Together we

will make it.

Today is not only my day. It is Jamaica's day. Indeed, it

is the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad

in it, for we are His People.

Eternal Father, bless our land, Guard us with thy Mighty

Hand.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the necessity of worldwide cooperation in the battle against HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. Today, the Caribbean nations rank only second to sub- Sahara Africa in prevalence of the HIV virus. However, some countries in the region also have some of the highest per capita incomes among developing countries, which make these countries ineligible for foreign assistance.

I would like to submit an article for the Record from the June 13th issue of CaribNews entitled CARlCOM's Need for Universal Access in HIV/ AIDS Fight. In this article, author Tony Best describes the dilemma that many Caribbean countries face when attempting to secure aid for HIV/AIDS programs while possessing high per capita income, thus disqualifying them as priority recipients.

The article is based on an address made by CARICOM's lead spokesman on health, Dr. Denzil Douglas' address to a special United Nations High Level meeting on HIV/AIDS. In this address, Dr. Douglas expressed his concern on behalf of the Caribbean community about the criteria established by the international donor community regarding financial support for programs to reduce HIV/AIDS in the region. The main criterion of concern is that the international donor community will not grant middle income nations, such as those in the Caribbean, to collect grants for HIV/AIDS programs. Instead, these countries must apply for loans if they wish to obtain some support. Furthermore, the only way that a middle income country can become eligible for aid is if their HIV prevalence rate rises above five percent.

Dr. Douglas opined that this requirement of five percent prevalence rate will only hinder in a successful fight against HIV/AIDS due to the fact that the time wasted in waiting for the five percent mark to be recorded will allow the disease to advance so far that the economic and social costs may be unbearable at that point. For the moment, some countries in the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), and other groups such as the Clinton Foundation and Global Fund have provided some aid to these countries. However, this aid has only resulted in the expansion of retroviral coverage for already infected persons.

Thus, the Caribbean region still lags behind in any progress in prevention of HIV incidence. The area has not been able to decrease the number of new cases of HIV, and so CARICOM feels that a social system based on an integrated network of services such as prevention, diagnosis and treatment can provide the best medium for prevailing in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The global community is a vital player in helping create this visionary system of social services. By agreeing to provide aid despite of per capita income, international authorities can further strengthen the partnerships they have with the Caribbean nations and be of utmost benefit in the defeat of HIV/AIDS, not just in the Caribbean, but worldwide. After all, a united effort will prove to be much more successful than minor individual efforts striving towards a common goal.

[From the Carib News, June 13, 2006]

CARICOM's Need for Universal Access in HIV/AIDS Fight

(By Tony Best)

Dr. Denzil Douglas, CARICOM's lead spokesman on Health, has

called on the international community to make it easier for

middle-income Caribbean nations to boost the level of care

provided to victims of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

In an address to a special United Nations High Level

meeting on HIV/AIDS and in a session with Carib News

Editorial Board on Monday morning Dr. Douglas, St. Kitts-

Nevis' Prime Minister appealed for a new that would enable

donor agencies and institutions to provide help to the region

hard hit by HIV/AIDS virus. Many of the countries, he said,

were being forced to bear the brunt of the financial burden

of providing care to HIV sufferers and information to the

general public about the dangers of the disease.

``We are concerned about the criteria established by the

international donor community with regard to access to

financing for fighting HIV/AIDS,'' he told Carib news editors

and community leaders, including Yvonne Graham, Brooklyn

Borough President, Michael Flanigan, Citibank Community

Relations Director, and Leyland Hazelwood, an international

business executive.

``One of the important criteria is that it (international

donor community) will not allow middle income countries to

have grants,'' he pointed out. ``Rather, you have to go

through the process of loans. Also unless the prevalence

rates get beyond five per cent, you are not going to be able

to access the financing that is required.''

The trouble is that although the Caribbean region may have

some of the highest per capita incomes among developing

countries, the countries collectively are second only to

subSahara Africa when it comes to the prevalence of the HIV

virus. But their rates of infection are below the five per

cent threshold. Hence they are ineligible for assistance.

``I made the point to the General Assembly of the United

Nations that if we are going to wait until we get to five per

cent, what is the point,'' he said. ``It is almost foolhardy

to wait until the disease has reached a certain level in the

population to give us the required assistance. We need the

assistance now so that we don't reach there.''

Dr. Douglas, himself a physician, said that if the

countries were forced to wait until the five per cent mark

was recorded, then they would be faced with unthinkable

economic and social consequences.

``If we wait for that stage with our small populations in

the region, it can have very, very serious setbacks in the

development of the Caribbean, especially in view of the gains

we have recorded in the last few years,'' he asserted.

The Prime Minister pointed out that several Caribbean

countries, especially those in the OECS, Organization of

Eastern Caribbean States, were receiving help from Brazil in

the form of free medication for HIV sufferers while the

Clinton Foundation and Global Fund had ``come on board with

assistance.''

As a result, states had been able to slow down the growth

in the incidence of the virus, cut the number of deaths and

slash mother to child transmission of the virus. ``More still

remains to be done and must be done,'' he said.

Caricom nations are aiming for ``harmonized international

partnership'' that

would result in an acceleration of care during the next 15

years.

Dr. Douglas' appeals to the international community were

designed to ``sustain the harmonized partnership'' and expand

care and the dissemination of information, he explained.

``By 2010, we are hoping that our health and social system

would form the basis of an improved and integrated network of

services, from prevention, diagnosis and treatment to care

and support,'' he added. ``The main issue is how we can we

sustain the services that we have put in place to prevent and

manage the disease. That is a concern.''

A major hurdle in the Caribbean centers on ``the issue of

prevention,'' he pointed out. ``We have not been able to

scale back the number of new cases that are occurring in the

Caribbean region,'' he said. ``While we have been able to

manage those who have the disease in terms of providing the

necessary anti-retroviral drugs we have not succeeded on the

issue of prevention. We believe that if we are to scale back

the prevalence we must be able to prevent its spread.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the record a column by Eugene Robinson entitled Stay the Course? What Course? appearing in The Washington Post Friday, June 16, 2006.

Mr. Robinson asks this question more than 3 years after the preemptive invasion of Iraq on false pretenses. I too ask this question as do many of my fellow Americans and my Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives. The President and House Republican leadership have no answer as the so-called ``debate'' on the Global War on Terror on June 15th in the House proved.

For 10 long hours, those who listened to the speeches from the Republicans from the floor of the House heard unremitting propaganda with 1983 bomb attacks, the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie Scotland, the first attack on the World Trade Towers, the bombing of the United States embassies in Africa, and over and over again the about the terror attacks by al-Qaeda on 9/11.

Not only was a plan for an end of the Iraq war not mentioned all cited these attacks which were cited had nothing to do with Iraq. They had not even a de minimums connection with Iraq or even with the present situation in which we find ourselves. These reminders of past acts of al-Qaeda were merely a piling on of the non-existent connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. So, instead of a plan for bringing our soldiers home from Iraq, the Republicans continued in their unrelenting propaganda answering no genuine questions the American people want answered.

I am tired of hearing about ``free democratic elections'' in Iraq and the school houses our troops have painted. We did not go to war to set up free elections in Iraq. I am also tired of hearing how grateful our gravely wounded troops are to have had their legs blown off for the freedom of our country. Republicans should be embarrassed to repeat those stories.

Those are not good stories. I wanted to hear the Republican plan to make sure no one else has to lose their legs and their arms and their sight for my ``freedom.'' My freedom is threatened by the PATRIOT Act and a President who believes he can violate the Fourth Amendment at will. My freedom was never threatened by Saddam Hussein.

I am also hearing from the party of the endless war in Iraq that the Democrats have no plan. The Democrats made it clear yesterday in our statements last week that the House Democrats' plan is the Murtha Resolution. It was also made clear that the Republicans are afraid to hear a Democratic plan by the Republican majority voting for a Rule for the ``debate'' that did not allow any amendments to the Resolution by the Democrats. The Republican Leadership made this the Rule for the ``debate and pushed it through ignoring the democracy they so applaud when the Iraqis show any faint signs of achieving it.

Eugene Robinson wrote in the Post: ``Fresh from his triumphal visit to Baghdad--a place so dangerous he had to sneak in without even telling the Iraq prime minister--George W. Bush is full of new resolve to stay the course in his open-ended ``war on terror. That leaves the rest of us to wonder, in sadness and frustration, just what that course might be and where on earth it can possibly lead.''

Thirty-seven months since the President declared the ``end of major combat'' in Iraq he has given the American people platitudes, rhetoric, slogans, or worse, fear of an ``evil ideology'' and ``evil doers.'' But he has given us no real plan, not even a hint of a plan for the conduct of the war, the reconstruction of the Iraq, the plan to begin the withdrawal of American troops or the metrics by which we can define ``victory'' in Iraq.

George W. Bush wanted to be a ``war president'' and whatever acts and whatever lies it took, he became a war president. Now it is apparent he will stay a war president no matter what the American people want. He plainly said the next president would have to find an exit plan so our men and women can finally come home from Iraq.

But Bush's war and his need to be a war president have serious consequences. Some of these are pointed out by Eugene Robinson; ``Three desperate suicides at Guantanamo is answered by Rear Adm. Harry Harris's all-about-me lament--'' I believe this . . . was an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.'' He wrote: ``This is a 'war' in which the United States drops two 500-pound bombs with the express intent of assassinating Abu Musab al Zarqawi the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group that wouldn't have existed if Bush hadn't decided to invade.'' If Iraqi civilians are killed in a bomb attack such as the one on the Zarqawi safe house we did not say we were sorry about those civilians. Zarqawi was a ``high value target.'' We said we are sorry that a ``few bad apples'' did bad things at Abu Ghraib prison. Or pardon us if a few soldiers killed civilians in cold blood, but after all we are at war.

Mr. Robinson wrote that if the Iraqi government does pardon Iraqis who have killed Americans we will have taught them well. ``They'll be saying `pardon me' just like their American tutors.''

Mr. Robinson reminds us that the jhadists of today were forged fighting Russians in Afghanistan. The next generation are being forged today fighting Americans in Iraq. He also reminds us that Iraq is just one theater in Bush's war. He writes: ``Afghanistan is once again `ablaze' with counterattacks by Taliban.''

Mr. Robinson is right: ``American's popularity in the world continues to fall. But George W. Bush forges ahead, trying vainly to kill a poisonous retrograde ideology with bullets and bombs. His `war' is self-perpetuating, and no one even knows what victory would look like. Long after he's gone, we'll still be looking for a way to end the mess he began.''