Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Congressional Record a column in the Stirring the Pot segment of the June 20, 2006 edition of the Rollcall periodical newspaper and an article from the June 2006 edition of DiversityInc.

The column, entitled ``It's Time for Congress To Open Its Doors to More Diversity'' is authored by Donna Brazile, political strategist, former congressional chief-of-staff, and Chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI). The article, entitled, ``Who Is Worst for Diversity? The United States Senate'', is authored by C. Stone Brown and Mark Lowery.

Donna Brazile captures your attention by stating that ``one of the hottest and most illuminating stories to hit the newsstands last week discussed the lack of diversity in the Senate.'' She goes on to address the content of that news story written by C. Stone Brown and Mark Lowery of DiversityInc. Brown and Lowery reported that equal opportunity is sorely missing in action in the Senate.

The articles point out that there is one black, three Hispanic, two Asian Americans and fourteen women Senators. This membership does not represent a good cross-section of the Country.

While Ms. Brazile's article encourages the Senate to establish a process to open doors to qualified candidates of colors and women it does not exclude the House of Representatives. Take a look at the number of minority chiefs-of-staff and legislative directors for members outside of the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Brown, Lowery and Brazile reveal thought provoking data and information that relates to the issue of diversity in staffing in the Senate and the House. They cleverly summarize the issue by quoting a leading diversity consultant who states if change is to come to diversity in placement of key Congressional positions . . . ``It has to start at the top, with the CEO (Senator), and be made a priority with some accountability.''

Mr. Speaker, I enter this article with the hope that it will impress upon the legislative body the need for sensitivity in including people of color and women in the ``pool'' from which future personnel is chosen.

[From the Rollcall, June 20, 2006]

It's Time for Congress To Open Its Doors to More Diversity

(By Donna Brazile)

One of the hottest and most illuminating stories to hit the

newsstands last week discussed the lack of diversity in the

Senate. In their cover story, DiversityInc writers C. Stone

Brown and Mark Lowery discovered that when it comes to

``equal opportunity,'' the Senate is sorely missing in

action.

With only one black, three Hispanic, two Asian Americans

and 14 women Senators, the chamber's membership isn't exactly

a good cross-section of the Nation. And furthering that

problem, the reporters write, their review of ``people of

color'' serving in Senate offices and committees found that

senior positions such as chief of staff, legislative

director, counsel and even communications director are

``practically reserves for white men and women.''

As a former chief of staff and press secretary for Del.

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), I believe it's time the

Senate makes diversity in its ranks a major priority.

This investigative report is worth reading because it takes

on both major political parties for their lack of significant

progress in bringing more diversity to one of the most

powerful institutions in America. According to Diversitylnc's

investigation, of the 1,000 senior-level staffers, about

``7.6 percent are people of color.'' The report then breaks

that down even further: ``2.9 percent are Black, 2.8 percent

are Asian American and 1.9 percent are Latino.'' Given the

multitude of issues and concerns the Senate addresses each

year, it's time every Member take a look inside his or her

own office to see if any changes should be made and to figure

out a process to open the doors to qualified candidates.

(And the House of Representatives should do so, as well.

How many minorities are chiefs of staff or legislative

directors for Members outside of the Congressional Black

Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?)

When the reporters tried to obtain this important data from

some Senate offices, they were greeted with no responses.

(The report indicated that repeated calls were made to the

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-

Tenn.) and even Sen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), but to no avail.) Since most

Senators refuse to acknowledge or even discuss this matter, I

am sure out of embarrassment, let me do what any former

Congressional staffer would do and offer some useful advice

in correcting this problem and perception.

First, I would take Paul Thornell's advice to urge Senators

to ``widen their networks.'' Thornell, a one-time colleague

from my days working with Al Gore and a former Senate

staffer, said he believes Senators ``can start by committing

to interview at least one qualified minority candidate

anytime there is an opening at mid and senior level.'' He

stated that ``this is the same approach used by the National

Football League to hiring head coaches. If they aren't

interviewing qualified minority candidates, that guarantees

they won't hire them.''

Bottom line, as a leading diversity consultant who works

with Fortune 500 companies explained to me: It has to start

at the top, with the CEO (Senator), and be made a priority

with some accountability.

Thornell also suggests that the Senate should hire a

diversity consultant to advise them on how best to remedy

this problem. When Texaco, Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Denny's or

any of the countless other companies that have had problems

with diversity issues tried to solve them, did their CEOs

just call their peers and ask what to do? No, they hired

someone with expertise to give them counsel based on their

experience to help them improve on issues surrounding

diversity.

When I first came to Capitol Hill right out of college, I

started as an intern in the office of the late Rep. Gillis

Long (D-La.). I so enjoyed being on the Hill and didn't mind

sitting at the front desk or running errands (delivering

``Dear Colleague'' letters, etc.) for months because I knew

once I was in the door, I could move up the ladder. Today,

there is such a gap in the Senate between entry-level

positions and senior-level slots (legislative assistant up to

chief of staff) that even a strong and competent person who

starts as a staff assistant realistically is not going to be

considered for a LA position for years and rarely, if ever,

for chief of staff.

Such evidence suggests that promoting internships as the

sole solution is not going to attack the problem. The

difference in the House is you can begin as a staff assistant

right out of college, the offices are smaller and there are

more opportunities in the House. So, you can get on a track

that accelerates your career path. Some Senate offices will

tell their entry-level staff right away that they won't get

promoted to LA from the position of staff assistant.

Senators, it's time for some introspection and a deep look

at the picture you're sending to others you tell to ``clean

up their act.'' It's time for a little bit of humility and

some sensitivity to make sure that people of color and women

are included in the ``pool'' from which future personnel are

chosen. Just remember: We, too, are Americans. We bring a

different, and often unique, perspective to the debate,

whether it's on privatizing Social Security or predatory

lending practices and their impact on communities of color.

And many of us would like to have a seat--or even a folding

chair--at the table when policies that impact our

communities, as well as our Nation, are being brought up on

the floor.

Just remember, like that of former President Bill Clinton,

President Bush's Cabinet looks like America. Why should

Senate offices look or behave differently?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a New York Times editorial entitled, ``Emergency in the Emergency Rooms'' into the Record. This article emphasizes the fact that our Nation's emergency rooms and hospitals are seriously ill-equipped to manage major disasters such as the human costs of natural disasters or the occurrence of pandemic influenza. They are also failing to meet the challenge of increased demand by the poor who must use the emergency room for primary care because they cannot afford or do not have health insurance.

According to the Institute of Medicine, about 500,000 (five hundred thousand) ambulances are being redirected from full emergency rooms to others far away. Furthermore, patients awaiting admission to the hospital may spend from eight hours to two days in the emergency rooms before a hospital bed becomes available. Not only are our emergency rooms filled past capacity, but they also lack the services of critical specialists such as neurosurgeons, further crippling the ability of hospitals to immediately treat patients in medical crisis.

The editorial identifies a few causes for the emergency room crisis. First, the number of people seeking treatment in emergency rooms has increased sharply over the past decade. Also, in the same time period, some 700 hospitals and 425 emergency departments have been forced to close due to cost pressures. More importantly, the result of these situations is serious overcrowding, only worsened by a massive influx of patients who seek routine care in emergency rooms because they are either uninsured or on Medicaid but incapable of finding doctors who agree to treat them.

This issue has grave consequences on the United States population as a whole, but it particularly affects the more than 60 million plus uninsured people in the United States, a population that will increase as employers are gradually eliminating health coverage. Ultimately, the United States will suffer greatly at the hands of large scale disasters if we do not improve our preparedness in hospitals and emergency rooms.

Some proposals to develop our emergency rooms include an end to diverting seriously ill patients to far away hospitals and alternatively diverting poor patients who congest emergency rooms seeking standard care. Of course, this would necessitate expanding health insurance coverage to the millions of uninsured and offering more primary care clinics and doctors to underserved neighborhoods. However, in the long run, the addressing of the emergency room crisis will cost the United States much, much less than the consequences.

[From the New York Times, June 21, 2006]

Emergency in the Emergency Rooms

The nation's emergency rooms have been stretched thin for

at least a decade or more, but a new analysis suggests that

they have reached a breaking point. Their plight underscores

how dreadfully unprepared we are to cope with a major

disaster like pandemic influenza or mass casualties from a

terrorism attack.

The crisis in emergency medical care was laid bare in three

reports issued last week by the Institute of Medicine, a unit

of the National Academy of Sciences. Half a million times a

year ambulances are diverted from emergency rooms that are

full and sent to others farther away. Emergency room patients

who need admission to the hospital often spend eight hours or

more--sometimes even two days or more--on gurneys in the

hallways, waiting for a hospital bed to open up.

Some emergency rooms lack the services of key specialists,

such as neurosurgeons, who shy away from emergency room duty

because many uninsured patients can't pay and their

malpractice premiums would skyrocket because of the risky

nature of emergency cases. What is not known is how many

people die as a result of delays in treatment or inadequate

care under chaotic conditions. No measurement system tracks

such data.

The emergency room crisis has many causes, none of them

easily or cheaply resolved. The number of people seeking

treatment in emergency rooms has jumped sharply over the past

decade or so, from 90 million in 1993 to 114 million in 2003.

Over the same period, cost pressures forced the closing of

some 700 hospitals, almost 200,000 hospital beds and 425

emergency departments. The result is severe crowding,

exacerbated by a huge influx of poor people seeking routine

care who are either uninsured or on Medicaid but unable to

find doctors willing to treat them. By law, emergency rooms

must accept all patients, whether they have insurance or not.

The institute's experts have many proposals for easing the

situation, ranging from new regional systems to improve the

flow of patients to the most appropriate and least crowded

emergency rooms to an infusion of money to cover unpaid

emergency care and to bolster preparedness for large-scale

disasters. The most important change would be to stop

diverting seriously ill ambulance patients and divert instead

the poor patients who clog emergency rooms seeking routine

care. That would require extending health coverage to the

uninsured and providing more primary care clinics and doctors

in poor neighborhoods.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend President Bush for his support of the resolution that acknowledges the contributions of Caribbean peoples in America and declares June as Caribbean Heritage Month. I also would like to congratulate the Honorable Barbara Lee for her efforts in bringing about this initiative, receiving 81 co-sponsors and getting this monumental legislation passed in both chambers of Congress. As one of the co-sponsors, I am extremely proud to be a part of the effort to recognize the Caribbean-Americans nationwide who have been a colorful thread of our Nation's fabric.

This proclamation recognizes the millions of Caribbean peoples in the United States for their contributions to American society since its foundation. As a representative of a large Caribbean constituency, I have always felt the need to advocate on behalf of this distinctive community while educating others that Caribbean cultures have influenced our educational and political structures as well as popular culture.

Since 1619, immigrants from the Caribbean islands began to populate America, bringing with them elements of cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. I appreciate the emphasis that this resolution places on shedding light on our Nation's history as many great political thinkers, such as President Alexander Hamilton, were born in the Caribbean. This little known fact was largely unheard of because of the taboos, discrimination and racism that existed in our country's past.

Today, as our Nation's third border, Caribbean nations and our relations with them are fundamental to our interdependent successes in sharing medical advancements, fighting terrorism and promoting diversity appreciation.

In celebration of Caribbean Heritage month, this June, I will promote participation in local festivities. I am glad to support activities such as parades, carnivals and festivals that are being held in my district and nationwide in true Island fashion and flair.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention Part II of the testimony of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) when they testified before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee on May 23, 2006.

The purpose of the testimony given was to share with the Subcommittee important measures to improve our nation's child protective services. It is my hope that my colleagues will find this information useful as well as informative as we focus on legislation that addresses the needs and care of our children.

CWLA Policy Recommendations on Proposed Legislation

The Reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families--

Of most immediate importance for this Committee is the

reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families

program (PSSF) beyond FY 2006, PSSF supports four vital

services that address four different types of families in

need: those in need of basic support services to strengthen

the family and keep them whole, families being reunified,

families we are trying to preserve, and adoptive families in

need of support. As you review some of the key needs included

in this testimony, the Subcommittee can see how the issues of

prevention, aftercare, permanency and stability and

maintaining families are all addressed by these categories,

CWLA believes these services and families should continue

to be the target for PSSF in a reauthorization bill:

Family Support Services (FSS) were developed to respond to

the concerns, interests, and needs of families within a

community. Family Support Services are targeted to families

with difficulties and concerns related to the proper

functioning of the family and care of the children. The focus

of the program is on prevention. The services address the

need to improve the well-being of a child, family

functioning, and the parent's ability to provide for the

family, before they are in crisis. In order to reach

families in need of assistance, family support programs

work with outside community organizations such as schools

and child welfare agencies. The aim is to provide

temporary relief to families and to teach them how to

better nurture their children. Involvement in these

services is voluntary. Types of services include parent

education, child care relief, and selfhelp groups.

Reunification is the first permanency option states

consider for children entering care. Yet, in many ways, it is

the most challenging option to achieve in a plan-based,

permanent way. We know that forty-eight percent of, or

246,650, children in care on September 30, 2003 had a case

plan goal of reunification with their parents or other

principal caretaker. At the same time, 151,770 children, or

55 percent of those children who left care in 2003, were

returned to their parent's or caretaker's home.

Successful permanency through reunification requires many

things, including skilled workers, readily available

supportive and treatment resources, clear expectations and

service plans, and excellent collaboration across involved

agencies. Reunification also requires culturally appropriate

support and treatment services for families and the critical

need for after care or postpermanency services to ensure that

safety and permanency are maintained following reunification.

Family Preservation Services (FPS) are comprehensive,

short-term, intensive services for families delivered

primarily in the home and designed to prevent the unnecessary

out-of-home placement of children or to promote family

reunification. The services are intended to protect a child

in a home where allegations of child abuse or neglect have

occurred, prevent subsequent abuse or neglect, prevent

placement of a child, or reduce the stay for a child in out-

of-home care. Families in need of family preservation

services are usually referred by public welfare agencies.

Services are provided within 24 hours of referral and the

family's involvement is voluntary. These services respond to

families on a 24-hour basis, including services such as

family therapy, budgeting, nutrition, and parenting skills.

Adoption support is an important need as the number of

adoptions have increased. There is still more work to be

done. Services may include information and referral, case

management services, support groups and a range of other

services. Of the 523,085 children in foster care in 2003,

approximately 119,000 were waiting to be adopted, with 68,000

of these children being free for adoption (parental rights

had been terminated). Of the children waiting, 40 percent

were black non-Hispanic, 37 percent were white non-Hispanic,

14 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent were of undetermined

ethnicity.In 2003, the median age of children waiting to be

adopted was 8.7 years; 3 percent of the children waiting to

be adopted were younger than 1 year; 32 percent were ages 1

to 5; 28 percent were ages 6 to 10; 30 percent were 11 to 15;

and 6 percent were 16 to 18.

Use Of $40 Million PSSF Increase--CWLA supports the

extension of the $40 million in mandatory funding that was

included in the Deficit Reduction Act and we want to work

with the Subcommittee and members of Congress to see that

PSSF is at a minimum fully funded at the level of $505

million as adopted by this Subcommittee in 2001. We feel

there a need for more. As indicated earlier in our testimony,

forty percent of children substantiated as abused or

neglected do not receive follow up services. We also feel it

bears repeating that there is need for more reunification,

adoption and other support services than PSSF attempts to

address. To truly reach the goal of safe and stable families

this country needs to go much further in its funding and

priority of the entire child welfare system.

CWLA recognizes that the Subcommittee and members of

Congress see the $40 million in mandatory funding as an

opportunity to address some additional issues in the child

welfare field. If that is the decision of the Congress we

strongly urge you to make this the first step in a

comprehensive strategy over the next few years to more fully

address the needs of these children.

The draft legislation includes a workforce element tied to

caseworker visits. CWLA supports regular and on-going visits

to children in care. In the child welfare field visitation is

not an isolated service or stand-alone intervention. Rather

it is part of a larger case planning process. To reach this

visitation goal we need a comprehensive strategy to

strengthen the child welfare workforce.

We would not want a system of care where too few workers

with very high caseloads are simply meeting an outcome

measure of numbers. Rather each state should be assisted in

implementing a long term workforce strategy that sets goals

around reduced workforce turnover, higher education levels,

adequate case loads, initial training and on-going training,

adequate supervision and the proper partnerships with

educational institutions and other partners in workforce

development.

For each state this will be different so we would urge the

Subcommittee to craft legislation around such a flexible

allocation of funding and planning that will work with states

to develop outcomes and provide related data that can

demonstrate progress toward a comprehensive workforce

strategy or goals. Again, this is a long-term strategy that

requires federal, state and local partnerships. It should

also be recognized that $40 million for fifty states may

limit the kind of progress we all seek in advancing this

goal. In addition, it will be difficult to determine how this

designation of $40 million will supplement and not supplant

current state efforts since it will overlap with Title IV-E

Administrative funding used for these critical purposes but

we do highlight that additional resources are needed.

Possible Improvements--Access For Tribal Communities--In

your reauthorization, CWLA suggests that the Subcommittee

include the recommendations being proposed by the National

Indian Child Welfare Association, National Congress of

American Indians and the Association of American Indian

Affairs. Their joint proposal would set the reserved amounts

of funding for tribal governments at 3 percent in both the

mandatory and discretionary funding. A consortium of tribal

governments could also apply for the funding and we endorse

an authorization of a tribal court improvement program.

Better Data--As part of the application process, states

submit information on how they intend to allocate their PSSF

funding. This information should be collected and included in

an annual report by HHS. We also urge the Subcommittee to

include legislative language that would direct HHS to work

with states to determine how to compile an annual report that

would provide information on how funds are actually spent and

would include information on families and children served.

The annual reports by HHS on the Social Services Block Grant

have only been issued since 1998, yet they have provided a

stronger picture of why that funding is important to so many

human service programs.

Mentoring of Children of Prisoners--We commend the

Committee for including the reauthorization of the Mentoring

Children of Prisoners program in this legislation. Mentoring

for this population is an effective way to engage at-risk

children and youth, provides connections to caring adults,

and perhaps most importantly, builds relations among family

members during and after incarceration. We know there are

many areas in the country today where children of prisoners

are not able to access this mentoring service due to lack

of availability. Expansion is necessary and the Committee

is to be commended for focusing on this. We urge the

committee to carefully consider the following issues as

this new initiative is implemented.

Currently there are 218 federally funded sites around the

country where this mentoring is taking place, involving

thousands of children. It would be tragic for these children

to have their mentoring disrupted or ended prematurely. We

urge the Committee to include provisions to allow these

efforts to continue.

Researchers and mentoring experts have concluded that

children facing multiple developmental risks benefit more

from mentoring than other children; however, they require a

higher quality of mentoring program and are more likely to be

adversely affected by poor quality mentoring. We urge the

Committee to examine carefully the expertise and background

of all potential national

entities specific to mentoring children of prisoners. New

trainings, techniques and curricula, have recently been

developed. Whatever entity is chosen will need to be fully

knowledgeable of these tools and prepared to make them

available.

IV-B Part 1 Child Welfare Services--CWLA appreciates the

Subcommittee's efforts to better align the IV-B Part 1, Child

Welfare Services program with that of PSSF. This can add

clarity to the understanding of funding sources although it

is unclear to what extent IV-B 1 funds are spent on adoption,

foster care and child care on an annual basis. In practical

terms, since federal Title IV-E funds cover half or less than

half of the children in foster care, it is also unclear that

this change in statute will result in any increase in funding

for services covered under IV-B part 1 or PSSF. Inevitably

states must pick up the cost of foster care for children

ineligible for IV-E by relying on other federal funds, state

funds, local funds or a combination of all three.

CWLA also appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts at

updating the state plan requirements. In addition we suggest

the requirement to include a description of efforts to

address the overrepresentation of children of color in the

child welfare system. These children represent African

American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan

Native, Asian, Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or two or

more races.

Conclusion--CWLA appreciates the opportunity to offer our

testimony and comments to the Subcommittee in regard to this

reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. As

this legislation moves forward we look forward to a continued

dialogue with the Subcommittee and Members of Congress. We

also hope that this reauthorization serves as a building

block for future efforts that will create a comprehensive

reform that results in reduced numbers of children being

abused and neglected and safer and permanent families for

those children who do come into contact with the child

welfare system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Nicholas D. Kristof discussing the merits of U.S. foreign aid. In the article, titled Foreign Aid Has Flaws. So What?, published in the June 13, 2006 edition of the New York Times, Mr. Kristof demands a dialogue to increase the effectiveness of our foreign aid. It is good to see the subject of foreign aid being addressed in the New York Times editorial pages because there needs to be public education about the benefits of foreign aid for the poor and also for the United States.

Eradicating global poverty is the first objective of the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals. With that in mind we must recognize the need for increasing the effectiveness of the money that is provided through foreign assistance programs every year. Mr. Kristof initiates his point by acknowledging the central reality that ``helping people can be much harder than it looks.'' For example, food assistance lowers prices in the markets of the recipient countries and continues the impact by discouraging local farmers from planting the next season.

Economists have argued that aid can have adverse effects on a country's economic system. It pushes up the local exchange rates, discouraging local manufacturing; it breeds foreign assistance dependency by cutting down room for internal development of industries and opportunities. At the same time our aid saves lives. ``For pennies [we] can vaccinate a child and save his/her life. For only $5, [we] can buy a mosquito net and save several people from malaria.'' In Darfur we haven't done nearly enough to establish permanent peace and stability, but our aid has kept thousands of people alive.

Keeping these facts in mind, my dear colleagues, I ask you all to join me in taking constructive steps to increase both the amount of U.S. foreign aid and the efficiency in distributing it to nations that are in dire need of assistance. We, as representatives of the most powerful nation of the world, must lead the way and work with international organizations that can share this burden with us.

[From The New York Times, June 13, 2006]

Foreign Aid Has Flaws. So What?

(By Nicholas D. Kristof)

Don't tell anyone, but a dirty little secret within the

foreign aid world is that aid often doesn't work very well.

Now that truth has been aired (and sometimes exaggerated)

in a provocative new book by William Easterly, ``The White

Man's Burden.'' Mr. Easterly, a former World Bank official

who is now an economics professor at New York University, has

tossed a hand grenade at the world's bleeding hearts--and,

worst of all, he makes some valid points.

Let me say right off that stingy Republicans should not

read this book. It might inflame their worst suspicions.

But the rest of us should read it, because there is a

growing constituency for fighting global poverty, and we need

to figure out how to make that money more effective.

I disagree with many of Professor Easterly's arguments, but

he's right about one central reality: helping people can be

much harder than it looks. When people are chronically

hungry, for example, shipping in food can actually make

things worse, because the imported food lowers prices and

thus discourages farmers from planting in the next season.

(That's why the United Nations, when spending aid money,

tries to buy food in the region rather than import it.)

On one of my last trips to Darfur, I had dinner at a

restaurant in Nyala called K2. Out back were 18 big white

S.U.V.'s belonging to the U.N. and aid groups; that amounted

to nearly $1 million worth of vehicles, in a country where

people are starving.

The aid workers are struggling heroically in a dangerous

and difficult place, and I don't begrudge them reliable

vehicles. But something seems wrong when international

agencies are more successful at maintaining S.U.V.'s than

clinics. (One reason is that budgeting is often done

annually, and one of the ways to spend a grant in a single

year is to buy a vehicle.)

It's well-known that the countries that have succeeded best

in lifting people out of poverty (China, Singapore, Malaysia)

have received minimal aid, while many that have been flooded

with aid (Niger, Togo, Zambia) have ended up poorer. Thus

many economists accept that aid doesn't generally help poor

countries grow, but argue that it does stimulate growth in

poor countries with good governance. That was the conclusion

of a study in 2000 by Craig Burnside and David

Dollar. Professor Easterly repeated that study, using a

larger pool of data, and--alas--found no improvement even

in countries with good governance.

Saddest of all, Raghuram Rajan and Arvind Subramanian of

the International Monetary Fund have found that ``aid inflows

have systematic adverse effects on a country's

competitiveness.'' One problem is that aid pushes up the

local exchange rate, discouraging local manufacturing. Mr.

Subramanian also argues that aid income can create the same

kinds of problems as oil income--that famous ``oil curse''--

by breeding dependency and undermining local institutions.

All these findings can be pretty shattering to a bleeding-

heart American. But cheer up.

Some other studies indicate that aid does improve growth

(economists don't agree about this any more than they agree

about anything else). And whatever the impact on economic

growth rates, aid definitely does something far more

important: it saves lives.

For pennies, you can vaccinate a child and save his or her

life. For $5 you can buy a family a large mosquito net and

save several people from malaria. For $250, you can repair a

teenage girl's fistula, a common childbirth injury, and give

her a life again.

The Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank,

has published a terrific book, ``Millions Saved,''

demonstrating how health projects have saved lives.

Eradicating smallpox and reducing river blindness have

improved the lives of more people for less money than almost

any investment imaginable. In Darfur, we haven't done nearly

enough. But our aid shipments have kept alive hundreds of

thousands of people.

For my whole adult life, I've sponsored children through

Plan USA, and in visiting my ``adopted'' child in places like

the Philippines and Sudan, I've seen how the kids' lives are

transformed by American sponsors. Aid is no panacea, but it

is a lifesaver.

So let's not shy away from a conversation about the

effectiveness of aid. The problems are real, but so are the

millions of people alive today who wouldn't be if not for

aid. In the end, if we have tough conversations about foreign

aid, then I believe Americans will acknowledge the

challenges--and then, clear-eyed, agree to dig more deeply

than ever, for that is simply the best way we have of

asserting our own humanity.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the majority has seen fit to bring to this floor a political statement where if you vote against it, you are voting against our troops; and if you vote for it, of course you are supporting the President's policy. But being a politician, I can understand that.

We cannot say enough about the courage and the dedication of our young people, the volunteers and the

National Guards people that are putting their lives on the line each and every day. Tragically, we reached a point that we passed the 2,500 mark in terms of loss of life, and tens of thousands are permanently maimed.

When we laud them, as we have heard, as supporting the President's policy, I really think this is so unfair, and why? Because with our fighting men and women, when that flag goes up, they salute it not because of a President's policy, but because of respecting their oath to the Commander in Chief.

When I was in Korea, I do not remember any of the soldiers that were in combat questioning the wisdom of Commander in Chief President Truman. They never asked did the Congress declare war. They never asked why were we involved in a civil war between the North Koreans and the South Koreans. They never thought that the North Koreans were going to invade our communities.

I tell you that our fighting men and women today are not saying that they challenge the Commander in Chief. They do not ask whether there were weapons of mass destruction. They do not ask whether or not Saddam Hussein was a part of al Qaeda. They do not ask those political questions, and neither did I when I was a sergeant in the infantry.

But I am not a sergeant in the infantry now. I am a Member of the United States Congress, a Member of this House of Representatives, and each one of us has the right to challenge any direction, not of the Commander in Chief, but the President of the United States. That is the most patriotic thing we can do because, in doing that, whether it is Vietnam, whether it is Korea, or whether it is Iraq, we are protecting as best we see it, the lives and the safety of the men and women that have volunteered.

Let us face it, they did not volunteer to knock off Saddam Hussein. They volunteered because they were looking for a better way of life, the same way I did when I volunteered in 1948, and you can see where they come from. It does not take away from their patriotism, but they did not take a poli-sci course in terms of how do you bring peace in the Middle East. I mean, they were not there looking for Saddam Hussein. They were looking for a better opportunity, which I guess they received. They come from our inner cities. They come from our rural areas. They come from the areas of high unemployment. But when they get in the military, they are patriots who do not challenge the policies of a President or Commander in Chief. So they are not advocates. They are patriots.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the outstanding work and commitment of the Child Welfare League of America, CWLA. This organization acts on the premise that every child is valuable and has something to contribute to society. They believe that our children are entitled to nurturance, protection, and the chance to develop to his or her full human potential.

The CWLA testified before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee on May 23, 2006 to review proposals to improve child protective services, all in an effort to highlight the importance of the child welfare system in ensuring that children and families are afforded the necessary resources and services available.

Although the family and the child welfare system have specific responsibilities, we all know that society as a whole shares the responsibility for promoting healthy human growth and development.

I am submitting at this time part I of the testimony given by CWLA and hope that you will find it informative.

Hello, I am Linda Spears, Vice President of Corporate

Communications and Development of the Child Welfare League of

America, CWLA. I am honored to submit comments on behalf of

CWLA, and our nearly 900 public and private nonprofit, child-

serving member agencies this afternoon. The attention given

by the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means

Committee focusing on the child protective services system

and the reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable

Families, PSSF, program further shows the intent to ensure

that our children have the appropriate resources and services

available to them.

CWLA believes that as a country we must confirm our

commitment to prevent child abuse and neglect and to support

children who have been abused and neglected. We support

strengthened partnerships between federal, state, and local

governments and providers in the nonprofit and charitable

communities in order to do a better job of protecting our

nation's children.

Improving the Child Welfare System

Child Protective Services

In 2004, an estimated 3 million children were reported as

abused or neglected and received an assessment or screening

to determine whether or not there was evidence of abuse or

neglect. Approximately 872,000 children were substantiated as

abused or neglected. These numbers are similar to previous

years. Another consistent pattern is that more than sixty

percent of child victims were victims of neglect, while

eighteen percent were physically abused and ten percent were

sexually abused. Thirty percent of victims were age 3 or

younger. We also know that 1,490 children died from child

abuse in 2004. Overall eighty-three percent of the time a

parent or parents were involved in the abuse. Another

consistent statistic from year to year is that of the

children who have been substantiated as abused or neglected,

nearly 40 percent do not receive follow up services.

The foundation on which child protective services, CPS, is

established and what should always be the first goal of any

CPS response is keeping children safe from child abuse and

neglect. The CPS response begins with the assessment of

reports of child abuse and neglect. If CPS determines the

child is at risk of abuse and neglect or has been abused or

neglected, CPS should ensure the child and his or her family

receive services and supports from the public child

protection agency and the community.

CWLA believes the best ways to ensure children are safe

from all forms of maltreatment are comprehensive, community-

based approaches to protecting children and supporting and

strengthening families. Public and private agencies, in

collaboration with individual citizens and community

entities, can prevent and remedy child maltreatment, achieve

child safety, and promote child and family well-being.

Child protective service, CPS, systems in the fifty states

are funded by a variety of sources. In fact, funding goes

beyond the two programs specifically targeted for today's

hearing, the IV-B part 1 and IV-B part 2 programs.

Consistently the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, serves as

a major source of funding with thirty-eight states spending

$194 million in SSBG funds in 2004 for child protective

services. These funds include some TANF dollars transferred

into SSBG. We highlight this because SSBG, which is under the

jurisdiction of this subcommittee, is threatened with a

potential reduction of $500 million in the President's

proposed FY 2007 budget, a thirty percent reduction in

funding that would be devastating to CPS and many other child

welfare services. State CPS systems also draw from the Child

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, but funding under

the state grants part of that program is limited to $27

million and has never reached its full authorized funding

level.

A CPS system that functions well is one that has a fully

staffed and competent workforce. When understaffed and

overworked, this system of child protection will fail. CWLA

cannot emphasize enough the need for a national child welfare

workforce strategy that puts well trained and educated

workers in place, keeps caseloads at manageable levels, and

provides competent supervision and ongoing training.

It is also important to note that CPS is only one part of

the child welfare system and it cannot be viewed in

isolation. If the efforts at reunification of a family fail,

or the adoption fails, or services are not available for

families and children who come into contact with the system,

then we may find these very same children entering the system

again. Children with a prior history of maltreatment are more

likely to experience a recurrence of maltreatment than those

who were not prior victims.

The Need for Services

CWLA's vision for an optimal child welfare system

encompasses a continuum of services ranging from prevention

of abuse and neglect to permanency and stability for children

who experience out of home care. Key ingredients of this

system are a family-centered approach, an ample, stable, and

highly professional workforce, the availability and targeted

application of services to prevent child abuse and neglect,

maintaining families when maltreatment has occurred and child

safety can be reasonably assured, and achieving permanency

and stability for children who must experience foster care.

These components are consistent with current research and

with federal expectations associated with the Child and

Family Service Review process.

Family centered approach

Research in child maltreatment, juvenile justice,

children's mental health, and parent education supports the

effectiveness of interventions that involve the entire family

over those targeting the individual parent or child alone. A

family-centered approach engages families in addressing the

problems that affect the care of their children. Such

engagement has been linked positively to compliance with and

completion of case plans.

Stable professional workforce

Effective child welfare services are based on accurate

differential assessments and require knowledge of human

behavior, the factors underlying child maltreatment, and the

way in which both risks and protective factors interact to

produce an overall picture of a family's needs. Thus, it is

not surprising that child welfare workforce research suggests

the need for staff that have formal social work education,

especially that obtained through specialized child welfare

programs such as those developed through Title IV-E-supported

agency-university partnerships. Studies further point to the

importance of

consistent mentoring by competent supervisors, and to a

supportive and flexible organizational environment. All of

these factors have been linked to reduced staff turnover,

which recent research suggests is critically important both

to minimize costs associated with frequent hiring and

training and to improve outcomes for children and families.

Greater amount of caseworker contact with children and

parents has also been associated with better outcomes. These

findings make it imperative that agencies maintain staff in

sufficient numbers to provide manageable workloads that do

not require caseworkers to sacrifice the provision of direct

services in order to complete administrative tasks and

documentation.

Prevention of abuse and neglect

Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness or promise of

several approaches to prevention of child maltreatment.

Models such as Nurse Family Partnerships and Healthy Families

have produced evidence that they positively impact a variety

of outcomes for children and families, including prevention

of abuse and neglect. Likewise, high quality pre-

kindergarten programs like the Chicago Child Parent

Centers and Head Start that include parental involvement

and supports have also demonstrated effectiveness.

Independent studies have found that the financial savings

achieved by the most effective of these approaches far

exceeds their costs. Rigorous cost-benefit analyses

conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public

Policy showed cost savings for several pre-kindergarten

and home visitation programs as well as for Parent-Child

Interaction Therapy, a center-based intervention that

provides direct coaching to parents as they interact with

their young children.

Several interventions that target older children and their

families have also been demonstrated to have benefits in

lessening children's problematic behavior and improving

family functioning. Family-based therapeutic models such as

Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy have

been rigorously tested in sites across the country and,

despite some variation in findings, there is substantial

evidence of their benefits to youth and their families.

Maintaining families

Many children can be safely maintained in their families

through the timely application of interventions that

correctly target the underlying causes of maltreatment. A

number of studies support the benefits of interventions that

have a behavioral, skill-building focus and that address

family functioning in multiple domains including home,

school, and community. Cognitive behavioral models have been

demonstrated to reduce physical punishment and parental

aggression in less time than alternative approaches. The most

effective treatment involves all members of the family and

addresses not only parenting skills, but also parent-child

interaction and a range of parental life competencies such as

communication, problem solving, and anger control. Attention

to immediate, concrete needs has also been identified as a

key factor in supporting family engagement and positive

outcomes.

Permanency and stability

A wealth of research demonstrates the importance of

children being nurtured in a stable family environment,

confirming the need to move those who must enter foster care

into permanent living situations as quickly as possible.

Recent studies suggest that, when children must leave their

families, well-supported kinship placements have the

potential to provide more stable and normalizing environments

than unrelated family care.

Most children who enter foster care are able to return to

their families of origin, often within less than one year.

However, when that is not possible, alternatives such as

adoption or subsidized guardianship can offer long term

stability. Cost analyses of child welfare services have

linked kinship care and subsidized guardianship to cost

savings. One study found the cost of effecting an adoption

for children in foster care to range from $6,000 to $28,539,

or an average of $19,141, suggesting that this permanency

alternative has the potential to achieve a substantial

savings over long term foster care.

While research supports the use of family care when deemed

appropriate by a full assessment, group care is another

placement option that may offer benefits for certain youth

when used strategically, for a period of time indicated by

ongoing assessment, and as part of a plan to maintain or

rebuild family and community connections. However, family

care, even in therapeutic foster care settings with multiple

supportive services, tends to be substantially less

expensive.

Aftercare and transitional services

Data indicate that about 25 percent of all children who

exit out-of-home care will return at some point, often within

one year. The likelihood of re-entry is especially great when

children or parents have more numerous or complex needs or

when they are exposed to more extreme environmental

stressors. Although the likelihood of maltreatment recurrence

and/or subsequent re-entry into foster care is undoubtedly

related to decision-making and services offered prior to

reunification, it strongly suggests a need for aftercare

services.

The limited research in family reunification aftercare,

indicates that it is most successful when it is initially

intensive and includes the availability of concrete services

and ongoing assessment of risk. The association of social

isolation with failed reunification also suggests the

importance of linking with extended family, extra-familial

social networks, and informal resources. Tapering off of

services should be based on the family's needs rather than on

an arbitrary time frame.

Services during and after the adoption process are also an

important part of the service continuum. Although the rate of

adoption dissolution is quite low overall, research indicates

that some placements may have greater needs for follow-up

services and supports. One study reported that, while less

than 30% of all adoptive families used post-adoption services

other than informational resources, most families adopting

through a public agency used some type of counseling. This

finding was attributed to the larger number of special needs

of children placed with these families. As in other types of

child welfare intervention, family-focused approaches appear

to be the most helpful in supporting adoption stability.

Research suggests that adoptive parents may also value

participation in support groups, access to literature and

seminars, and concrete services like respite care, subsidies,

and health benefits.

Services targeting youth who will exit foster care to

independence are another important component of a continuum

of care. Studies have identified four key elements: school

completion, high-intensity supports over time, a work

experience component, and the presence of a stable, caring

adult as factors leading to successful transition of youth to

work and independence. Youth have been shown to benefit from

a plan based on systematic assessment, combined with focused

skills development, involvement of caregivers as teachers,

and re-establishing or maintaining connections to birth/

extended family and community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an article, entitled The Changing Face of HIV/AIDS Epidemic, by Tony Best, published in the June 6, 2006 edition of New York Carib News, in the CaribHEALTH section. Mr. Best recalls the first time, twenty five years ago when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control informed the world about a disease that claimed the lives of five homosexual men in California. From then on, this mysterious disease became known as the ``gay cancer'' and was considered as an immediate sentence for death.

Since then, HIV/AIDS has been responsible for over 25 million deaths worldwide, and the Caribbean Islands have had nothing short of a personal encounter with the disease, as HIV/AIDS claimed 20,000 lives in the region. The most affected countries in the Caribbean have consistently been Haiti, the Bahamas, Guyana, Barbados, Jamaica, Grenada, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. Best quotes U.S. HIV/AIDS expert Dr. Wayne Greaves as stating that ``Looking back on what has happened in the 25 years, the picture is still not a bright one.'' Despite all the innovative treatments that now prolong the lives of HIV/AIDS patients, there is still no cure or even a drug that prevents HIV in the first place.

Another very noteworthy point that Mr. Best emphasizes is that HIV/ AIDS, while first distinguished as a homosexual, white, male disease, has now become blind to sexual orientation, gender, and race as it is alarmingly spreading and infecting increasing numbers of Blacks and heterosexual women. Although current census places Blacks as accounting for 12 per cent of the U.S. population, they also account for a whopping 51 per cent of the new HIV cases in the nation. Furthermore, the diagnosed HIV cases for women have tripled since first cases in 1985.

Mr. Best cites possible theories that may explain these surprising shifts in HIV infection such as low rate of uncircumcised Black males compared with whites, the large Black prison population, and poverty. In essence, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has completely transformed in nature with regards to who is primarily infected by the disease. Akin to the shift in the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic exists the fact that the HIV virus is able to mutate so easily, making it virtually impossible for scientists to develop a vaccine against the disease.

Nevertheless, Mr. Best cites Dr. Greaves as commenting that while the cure to HIV is a ``far way off,'' in the meanwhile, scientist can still continue to develop medications that can prolong life. This point is well taken in light of the fact that there is no cure for diabetes and hypertension, and yet, science has been able to treat people with these diseases to the point where the public no longer sees them as terminal conditions. Dr. Greaves underscores education and access to beneficial drugs as key elements in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Twenty-Five Years After the First Cases--the Changing Face of HIV/AIDS

Epidemic

(Tony Best)

To some, it was the disease from hell, the ``gay cancer,''

that brought death. To others, it was an unfathomable plague

whose origins were first believed to be in Haiti. That was a

discredited medical theory scarred a nation, forcing millions

from the Caribbean country to fight back to clear their name.

To yet another group, the lethal virus that terrorized

communities in North America, Europe, the Caribbean and Latin

America, is still wreaking havoc, especially in Africa, but

much less so in North America and the Caribbean.

The disease: HIV/AIDS.

Twenty five years after the U.S. Centers for Disease

Control first told the world in a 1981 report about the

deaths of five homosexuals in California from a rare form of

pneumonia, few countries, if any have been spared the

ferocity if this deadly disease. Some 25 million deaths

later, at least 20,000 of them in Haiti, the Bahamas, Guyana,

Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, and their

neighbors, the world is grappling with the devastation HIV/

AIDS has left behind. The Bahamas and Barbados, for instance,

are considered success stories in dealing with it, have had

more than its fair share of deaths. ``Looking back on what

has happened in the 25 years, the picture is still not a

bright one,'' said Dr. Wayne Greaves, a Caribbean scientist

and an HIV/AIDS expert in the U.S.

For one thing, asserts Dr. Greaves who heads a research

laboratory at a large U.S. pharmaceutical firm, ``we can

argue it is brighter than before, because there are newer and

more effective drugs.'' Even more important, scientists know

how to block some, not all, infections that attack the immune

functions within the body. Still, there is no drug, which

prevents HIV infection in the first place.

``From the epidemiological standpoint it is particularly

disconcerting, particularly among Blacks and Hispanics,'' he

said. ``In the early days of the epidemic, 95 per cent of the

total cases were among men. Two-thirds of those cases were

among Caucasians. Blacks made up 20 per cent of the cases.

Today, although Blacks account for 12 per cent of the U.S.

population they account for 51 per cent of the new HIV cases.

For women, the story today isn't very good. The cases

diagnosed in the U.S. have increased dramatically among

women, tripling among women. From eight per cent in 1985

women accounted for 29 percent of all the cases. It is even

higher today.''

The hard part is that the pattern of the diseases in

Caribbean countries mirrors the trend in the U.S. Globally,

more than three million died in 2004 and of the 40 million

who succumbed to the disease since 1981, Africa accounted for

half of them. In sub-Sahara Africa alone 25.8 million are

living with HIV, a 75 per cent jump in the last decade. Sub-

Sahara Africa has the world highest rate of infection

followed by the Caribbean. In Asia, 8.3 million are living

with the disease, an increase of almost 300 per cent since

1981. Indeed, 25 per cent of the new worldwide cases were in

Asia last year. In Latin America and the Caribbean an

estimated 2.1 million now have the disease, a 75 per cent

increase from 1995.

``What is really very troubling in the United States is the

high rate of infection among Black men, who are having sex

with other men and many are also having sex with women,''

said Dr. Greaves. ``'This is really very troubling.'' How

come such growing infections among Black men? ``It's not

really quite clear what's happening,'' Greaves said.

For instance, the causes range from a lack of knowledge

about their own HIV status and then having sex with other

people; low rate of uncircumcised Black males compared with

whites; the prevalence of sex workers in Africa and the

Caribbean; and the large Black prison population; to mistrust

of the medical community; poverty and conspiracy theories.

``In summary, we are now talking about a different epidemic

than the one first reported in 1981,'' Greaves, explained.

``It is more heterosexual transmission than before; less

homosexual; transmission through injection drug use remains

the same; and a lot more women infected than in the early

days of the epidemic.'' But what about treatment?

If there is a bright spot, it is that HIV positive

individuals are living longer, many are leading normal lives,

and infection is no longer seen as a death sentence, and

that's true if you are in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, New

York, Nassau or Port of Spain where retroviral drugs.

``I am optimistic from the medical and scientific

standpoint in terms of the new medicines and drugs but I am

not optimistic at all about the behavioral response to the

messages which have been put out there in the public arena,''

he said.

On the horizon, some promising categories of drugs. One is

entry-inhibitors, which block the virus from being able to

enter the cells of the body, thus causing infections. The

other is an enzymes used by the virus to infect the cell. By

blocking the enzymes scientists interrupt the process of the

virus multiplying and causing destruction of the cell,

spawning new viruses.

``These are being developed and they look very promising,''

he reported. ``If these successes continue, they would be

useful additions to the existing drugs that we use to treat

AIDS.'' Unfortunately, though, current research is unlikely

to lead to a class of drugs anytime soon that would prevent

infection. In essence, a cure is a far way off.

The problem is that the HIV virus is able to mutate so

easily that scientists have been virtually unable to develop

a vaccine that stimulates the right antibodies or cells that

would prevent infection. ``In the meantime, though, we will

continue to develop better drugs and we can still prolong

life,'' Greaves said. ``We may not be able to cure the

infection but we can keep people alive.'' After all, there's

no cure for diabetes and hypertension but ``'we have

effective drugs where people can go living virtually a normal

life span,'' he says.

Dr. Greaves gives several Caribbean nations high marks for

their efforts in fighting HIV through education and the

provision of drugs to victims.

Mr. Speaker, with Secretary Michael Chertoff's decision to cut Federal anti-terror funding for both New York and Washington, DC, I would like to introduce an editorial printed in the Daily News on June 7, 2006, that encourages the executive branch to put pressure on the Department of Homeland Security to rectify this decision. The editorial, titled Get N.Y. the money, Mr. President, discusses the extremely negative reception this decision has received.

Both former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former chairman of the 9/11 commission, Tom Kean, two of the most knowledgeable men on protecting our country from terrorism, claim that New York, as the premier target of terrorist attacks, needs to implement several anti- terror programs in order to completely protect itself. The intended programs included an effort to prepare the fire department to adeptly handle multiple attacks at once, to allocate funding to the NYPD counterterrorism bureau which interprets threats to the city, and to create systems that can detect radiation in the water and air.

In deciding how to best allocate homeland security funds, Secretary Chertoff used a complicated scoring system that resulted in the funding of information dissemination and consequentially the rejection of funds required for protecting New York. This editorial endorses an effort to demonstrate the importance of protecting both New York and Washington, DC. The Daily News editors argue correctly that President Bush is the only person with the authority to do this.

The House Homeland Security Committee's chairman, Peter King, joined by the entire New York delegation in the House and Senate has made spirited efforts to reverse the decision to reduce the allocation to New York. More money is needed for New York, and I certainly hope that the Department of Homeland Security recognizes this as soon as possible.

Therefore I submit for the Record an editorial from the June 7, 2006, issue of the Daily News for our consideration.

Get N.Y. the Money, Mr. President

No less an authority than Rudy Giuliani has rendered the

ultimate verdict on the Department of Homeland Security's

decision to slash New York City's federal anti-terror

funding. Plainly and simply, Giuliani sees incompetence.

Similarly, Tom Kean, former chairman of the 9/11

commission, says the department turned thumbs down on paying

for exemplary programs that ``should be a model for the

nation.'' Kean also questioned the wisdom of allowing

Homeland Security to base its dollar allocations on the work

of anonymous panels operating in secret.

When it comes to emergency preparedness, Giuliani and Kean

are two of the smartest guys around. Having studied the war

on terror up close, they are experts in the extraordinarily

broad range of defenses that a city like New York, the

world's No. 1 terror target, must mount if we are to have a

chance at fending off disaster.

New Yorkers aren't as versed in the best ways to link

emergency communications, or how to pick up radioactivity, or

what to make of intelligence reports flowing from abroad--but

New Yorkers do have finely tuned B.S. detectors. And so do

all the late-night comics who are ridiculing Secretary

Michael Chertoff's incompetence. Which starts with the rules

his bureaucrats established for selecting anti-terror

programs that were worthy of funding.

The regs favored buying things over paying for manpower and

training, no matter how vital the manpower or training was.

So, Chertoff smiles at paying for armored vests for cops, but

he frowns at picking up the salaries of the officers who

patrol in them. He's happy to buy haz-mat suits for

firefighters, but he doesn't want to train firefighters to

wear them.

The shortsighted, wrongheaded outrageousness of Chertoff's

thinking screams forth when you run down just some of the

ways the city had hoped to spend U.S. anti-terror money.

There were plans to:

Prepare the Fire Department to face multiple chemical,

biological or nuclear attacks.

Provide continuing emergency response training to

firefighters and fire officers.

Devote funding to the NYPD counterterrorism bureau, which

analyzes threats, and Operation Atlas, which puts as many as

1,000 anti-terror cops on the street daily.

Boost security for the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg

and Queensboro bridges.

Create a lower Manhattan security zone, complete with

surveillance cameras.

Develop a broadband wireless communication system for

public safety agencies across the metropolitan area.

Set up systems to detect radiation and biohazards in the

air and water and gauge their movement in winds and currents.

Draft an isolation and quarantine program to be used in an

epidemic outbreak.

Buy a boat to enable the FDNY to respond to a chemical,

biological or radiation attack by water.

Using a half-baked scoring system as complex as the Tax

Code, Chertoff's evaluators gave top marks to a program to

disseminate emergency readiness information to the public,

including pet owners, while flunking the NYPD

counterterrorism center. Nothing could better sum up how

disconnected from reality Homeland Security was.

Yet Chertoff is holding fast in refusing to put federal

funding where it really belongs. That's in New York and

Washington, which also suffered a 40% cut in aid. He needs to

change his mind, or be made to change his mind, and all his

nutty rules must go. Only one person has the power to compel

such action: President Bush.

Rep. Pete King, chair of the House Homeland Security

Committee, said yesterday that if Chertoff doesn't come up

with more money for New York, he'll take the matter to Bush.

That's good, but King shouldn't have to storm the Oval

Office. Bush, who has refrained from canning Chertoff, should

order him to rectify his incompetence posthaste.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an article by Mr. Kofi A. Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations. In the article, titled In Praise of Migration, published in the Wall Street Journal on June 6, 2006, Mr. Annan extols the benefits of transnational migration for both the country of origin and the receiving country.

In receiving countries migrants perform essential tasks that residents are unwilling to undertake. Generally they pay more to the state in taxes than they take out in welfare and other benefits. ``Nearly half the increase in the number of migrants aged 25 or over in industrialized countries was made up of highly skilled people'' who have added talent and dexterity to our economy by strengthening the workforce.

Migrants strengthen the economy of their country of origin as well. ``Migrants sent remittances, which totaled around $232 billion last year, $167 billion of which went to developing countries--greater in volume than current levels of official aid from all donor countries combined''--that are vital contributions to economy of the nation of origin. Migrants also encourage investment in their country of origin and are generally willing to supervise and direct these endeavors, leading to increased trade relations.

Irregular or undocumented migrants are most vulnerable to smugglers, traffickers, and other forms of manipulation. If the host government chooses to criminalize those who assist these people in the name of humanity, they will completely be at the mercy of such exploitations. Essentially, we are throwing them to the wolves with the proposed House passed immigration bill. While immigration is not without drawbacks, I condemn the inhumane policies proposed by the bill passed by the House.

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2006]

In Praise of Migration--Nations That Welcome Immigrants Are the Most

Dynamic in the World

(By Kofi A. Annan)

Ever since national frontiers were invented, people have

been crossing them--not just to visit foreign countries, but

to live and work there. In doing so, they have almost always

taken risks, driven by a determination to overcome adversity

and to live a better life. Those aspirations have always been

the motors of human progress. Historically, migration has

improved the well-being, not only of individual migrants, but

of humanity as a whole.

And that is still true. In a report that I am presenting

tomorrow to the U.N. General Assembly, I summarize research

which shows that migration, at least in the best cases,

benefits not only the migrants themselves but also the

countries that receive them, and even the countries they have

left. How so? In receiving countries, incoming migrants do

essential jobs which a country's established residents are

reluctant to undertake. They provide many of the personal

services on which societies depend. They care for children,

the sick and the elderly, bring in the harvest, prepare the

food, and clean the homes and offices.

They are not engaged only in menial activities. Nearly half

the increase in the number of migrants aged 25 or over in

industrialized countries in the 1990s was made up of highly

skilled people. Skilled or unskilled, many are entrepreneurs

who start new businesses--from round-the-clock delis to

Google. Yet others are artists, performers and writers, who

help to make their new hometowns centers of creativity and

culture. Migrants also expand the demand for goods and

services, add to national production, and generally pay more

to the state in taxes than they take out in welfare and other

benefits. And in regions like Europe, where populations are

growing very slowly or not at all, younger workers arriving

from abroad help to shore up underfunded pension systems.

All in all, countries that welcome migrants and succeed in

integrating them into their societies are among the most

dynamic--economically, socially and culturally--in the world.

Meanwhile, countries of origin benefit from the remittances

that migrants send home, which totaled around $232 billion

last year, $167 billion of which went to developing

countries--greater in volume than current levels of official

aid from all donor countries combined, though certainly not a

substitute. Not only do the immediate recipients benefit from

these remittances, but also those who supply the goods and

services on which the money is spent. The effect is to raise

national income and stimulate investment.

Families with members working abroad spend more on

education and health care at home. If they are poor--like the

family in the classic Senegalese film, ``Le Mandat''--

receiving remittances may introduce them to financial

services, such as banks, credit unions and microfinance

institutions. More and more governments understand that their

citizens abroad can help development, and are strengthening

ties with them. By allowing dual citizenship, permitting

overseas voting, expanding consular services and working with

migrants to develop their home communities, governments are

multiplying the benefits of migration. In some countries,

migrant associations are transforming their communities of

origin by sending collective remittances to support small-

scale development projects.

Successful migrants often become investors in their

countries of origin, and encourage others to follow. Through

the skills they acquire, they also help transfer technology

and knowledge. India's software industry has emerged in large

part from intensive networking among expatriates, returning

migrants and Indian entrepreneurs both at home and abroad.

After working in Greece, Albanians bring home new

agricultural skills that allow them to increase production.

And so on.

Yes, migration can have its downside--though ironically

some of the worst effects arise from efforts to control it:

It is irregular or undocumented migrants who are most

vulnerable to smugglers, traffickers and other forms of

exploitation. Yes, there are tensions when established

residents and migrants are adjusting to each other,

especially when their beliefs, customs or level of education

are very different. And yes, poor countries suffer when some

of their people whose skills are most needed--for instance

health-care workers from southern Africa--are ``drained''

away by higher salaries and better conditions abroad.

But countries are learning to manage those problems, and

they can do so better if they work together and learn from

each other's experience. That is the object of the ``high-

level dialogue'' on migration and development that the

General Assembly is holding this September. No country will

be asked or expected to yield control of its borders or its

policies to anyone else. But all countries and all

governments can gain from discussion and the exchange of

ideas. That's why I hope the September dialogue will be a

beginning, not an end.

As long as there are nations, there will be migrants. Much

as some might wish it otherwise, migration is a fact of life.

So it is not a question of stopping migration, but of

managing it better, and with more cooperation and

understanding on all sides. Far from being a zero-sum game,

migration can be made to yield benefits for all.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment at the desk prevents all spending in support of the embargo against Cuba. I recognize this is a very emotional subject because so many people have personal memories of the dictatorship of Fidel Castro.

But this is not a pro-Castro amendment, this is a pro-American amendment. If we are going to get rid of this fellow, one thing that is clear, the embargo route is not the way to go. For 45 years, he has outlived all of our Presidents by being there. If anything, he has used the embargo as an excuse to continue his dictatorship. It hasn't done anything except hurt the Cuban people by having the negative economic impact on their government.

But more important than anything, it restricts the American people from doing what we should be able to do without being restricted by our government. Americans should be able to travel, period. Nobody should deny us the opportunity to go anywhere that we want to go. If we are going to be restricted because it is a Communist country, then the administration is saying they don't have confidence in us that we are going to be converted to communism.

What about capitalism, the whole idea of changing people's lives and thoughts through exchange of goods and wares? What about our farmers? What about those that want to invest in oil?

But, more importantly, what about those people that believe in not only economic freedom, but cultural freedom, educational freedom, song, dance, get to know people? The Cuban people love us and those who know them love the Cuban people.

It is this rascal that is in charge that we have lost billions of dollars in denying our people the opportunity to have economic exchange. That has not gained us one thing except perhaps a handful of votes in Florida.

Because America has to do what works. The embargo is not working any kind of way, and the meanness of it all, to deny Americans an opportunity to visit their families in Cuba, or to restrict it to once every 3 years, we have to check with the doctor to see whether or not your parents are sick enough or well enough so that you can plan your visit. That is not the American way of life.

The whole idea that you have sick and poor people in Cuba, and you are Cuban American, and you want to send some money to them, that that is being denied because the hard money is going to be used by the government.

I suggest that nobody in this House, even the lovely lady from Florida, is going to say that this program has worked. I know it is a political issue, and I am not belittling that. I know there is a lot of compassion behind it. But I will call this the American amendment, an amendment for Americans to travel where they want, to trade where they want, to entertain where they want, to listen to entertainment where they want, and to send money where they want and never be able to say that these people in Cuba that are being adversely affected are a threat to our national security.

If we love those people, we wouldn't cut off America to them. We would send America there with the American flag, with our young people, with hip-hop, with jeans, with all of the things that the whole world has come to enjoy. But to deny the people in Cuba this because we don't like or we hate or we want to get rid of this man who puts innocent people in jail or who shoots down harmless planes, if you want to get rid of him, bring America to Cuba but don't keep us out.

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

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your kind indulgence. I know that there is a lot of passion involved in those that oppose anything that would appear to be supporting a ruthless dictator in Cuba. I want you to know that if we had an opportunity to take a vote on this floor for or against Cuba, I would volunteer to get rid of Castro, because we are from Cuba, but we are not for Castro.

There is nothing in the embargo that punishes Castro. Certainly it seems to have enhanced his popularity. But be that as it may, for those people who want to get rid of the ruthless dictator, share with me what good it is to take a Cuban American that is here or a Cuban American that is here in America, and say that they can't send money back to Cuba to their family in a very poor country because we hate Castro.

How can we tell farmers that want to sell food to the Cuban people that you can't do it? We have to get special permission to send medicine and food, and even that is being opposed by some. How do you tell a kid that wants to go to Cuba and to learn not communism but learn about medicine, or why not have Cuban kids be able to come here to learn about our great republic, our great democracy?

How are we able to say that putting up a wall between the Cuban people and the American people is going to help get rid of this ruthless dictator? It would seem to me that we would have such pride in our ability to change the way people think about democracy by demonstrating it, but when you tell Americans who are so proud of ourselves that we are fortunate enough to live in the greatest Republic in the world, that we can brag about it in every city and every valley and every county in every country, but for God sake do not show the Communists in Cuba how proud you are, people who have never been able to enjoy any of the things that we just take for granted in this country.

But realistically and honestly, has this got anything to do with the people in Cuba over Castro? Or does it have to do with the electoral college system in Florida? Is this not where we concentrate to make certain that we are going to try to find out who hates Castro the most?

I wish we could change this debate around and have it to be who loves and

cares for the Cuban people the most. Why can we not expose them to our market of food and medicine and education and the ideals of freedom that was fought for in this country? Why can we not go there and be able to say that we are not afraid of Castro, they cannot lock us up, so if you lock those people who disagree with you up, then we will stand up there and say this is what democracy IS about? Who are the greatest advocates of freedom than free Americans?

I am suggesting that let us take the politics out of this. Let us take the embargo out of this. Let us be proAmerican, and those people who refuse to allow our American flag to be carried by Americans to Cuba, they are the ones that are stopping democracy; because I will suggest to you that any American that is so proud of what we have been able to do, we may have obstacles to overcome, but we love our country. We preach about how great it is, especially when we are overseas. Do not deny Americans the right to be able to say how great democracy is, and do not put a cap on our capitalism. Let us be able to sell to whomever wants to buy from us and do not blame it all on Castro because he is not being hurt.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I hoped we would not distort the argument. If we can have a petition to circulate tomorrow, where we can support the release of all political prisoners, where we can condemn the dictatorship of Castro, hey, I would want to be a part of circulating it.

I do hope that sometime you might try to explain to the American people how we are supporting Castro because we say that a Cuban American that wants to visit their sick parents or their brother and sister, how that compassionate visit is supporting communism.

I would like to know how would supporting Castro, if what we are saying is that we want to send some money to poor families that are there, but we cannot do it because we hate Castro and we would be rewarding him, I would like to know how we are rewarding him when our farmers are denied the opportunity during the time they have to export food, the pharmaceuticals, the people who export the American dream, I would want to know as we put a cap on capitalism, how this is rewarding Castro?

No, I think it has been said by many people. Castro uses us as a vehicle for his dictatorship. And the people who are in prison, I think if we had more Americans there and people from other countries there condemning his conduct, do you think that Americans would be locked up by this dictator if our youngsters were able to go there and protest there as they are so easily able to do it here?

Why do you not open up this door and acknowledge, this is a Floridian problem. This is a political problem. This is who-hates-Castro-the-most type of problem.

I submit to you, if you were to take this and say who likes the American people, who loves the American people the most, how can we help them the best, I would think it is to bring them medical care, to bring them food, to bring them help, to bring them technology and wrap it all up in the American flag and dare them to contest what we are doing because we are the freedom-loving people. We do not ban people from going to places, and I do not want to give up my democracy because of some feeling that people have of their own politics, which has nothing to do with my great country.

Castro is not a threat to the United States of America. He is a threat to whether Republicans or Democrats gets votes out of Florida. The Cuban people are not a threat to our national security. They are always offering to send doctors here, to send blood here,

because they love our way of life. If Castro is an impediment for them being able to know and enjoy what America stands for, then let Americans go there, especially Cuban Americans who know the tyranny of Cuba and know the freedom that they have enjoyed in Florida and New Jersey and New York and throughout these States.

Who could be a better ambassador for freedom, an embargo or people who have known the pains of dictatorship and the love and the joy of the American way of life?

So do what you want to do politically, but do not take away Americans' rights to be able to enjoy the hearts, the culture, the education, the music and all of the things that we have been able to enjoy, really, merely because you are trying to pick up a seat or two in the State of Florida. It is not fair to the Cuban people. It is not fair to the American people, and it is not fair to our Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an editorial from the New York CaribNews newspaper dated May 16, 2006 that draws attention to the ``longstanding and thorny problems'' associated with the deportation of criminal aliens and the resulting initiatives needed to re-integrate them into the society of their Caribbean homeland.

The article addresses Caribbean born individuals who have broken the law in the United States and subsequently banished back to their homeland. There are varying opinions surrounding the re-integration of criminal aliens. Some feel that their return is creating serious problems while others blame the situation on the United States and other country that deport them.

Mary Kramer, the U. S. Ambassador to several Caribbean nations believes that the deported criminal aliens are no real threat to the Caribbean states and are in fact productive law-abiding citizens. She also asserts that the criminal aliens are not playing a significant role in the upsurge in crime in the Caribbean. Grenada's Prime Minister, Dr. Keith Mitchell shares his opinion that in the criminal enterprise Americans have imparted all of their bad ways on the aliens and then deport them back to their regions as hardened criminals. P.J. Patterson, former Prime Minister of Jamaica cautions Ms. Kramer against relying on the U.S. statistics and conclusions reached by U.S. researchers. In this article he shares a concern about the relationship maintained by criminal aliens and gang members abroad.

In the article, the editor offers several solutions to solve the problem of coping with deported criminal aliens. Similar pilot programs have been developed and implemented in other countries. Based on the statistics, there will continue to be an influx of criminal deportees to the Caribbean. If other well-to-do nations are truly interested in the economic and social development of the island-nations they should be prepared to assist financially in the re-integration process for Caribbean criminal aliens.

Mr. Speaker: I submit this interesting and informative editorial from the CaribNews newspaper for submission to the Congressional Record.

[From the New York CaribNews, May 16, 2006]

Criminal Aliens: An Editorial

Just when everyone thought that the question of why

undocumented immigrants should stay in the United States was

the only item on the table for discussion, we have been

jolted back to reality to deal with a long-standing and

thorny problem: criminal aliens.

From London, Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston and Bridgetown to

New York, Washington and other cities, we are being forced to

focus our attention once again on the deportation of persons

who have broken the law in the countries to which they have

emigrated from the Caribbean.

The trouble is that in deporting immigrants who have

committed crimes in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom,

are creating serious problems for their friends and allies in

the Caribbean.

That issue is at the root of a dispute involving the U.S.

Ambassador to several nations in the region--Antigua,

Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia and

St. Vincent.

It seems as if Mary Kramer, America's top diplomat to those

island-nations, has convinced herself that not only are the

criminal aliens no real threat to the Caribbean states but

they are productive law-abiding citizens in their homeland.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

Granted, some of them have become productive citizens. Also

true, the U.S. has a responsibility to protect its borders

and its people from persons, whether native born or

immigrants from disrupting the society. And it can do that by

enforcing its law.

But to ignore the hard reality of what's happening in the

Caribbean, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana, included,

is akin to burying one's head in the proverbial sand by

pretending that choirboys and girls are being shipped to the

region.

That's unreal.

According to a news agency report, Kramer believes that the

deportees are not playing a significant role in the upsurge

in crime in the Caribbean. In addition, she wants to get the

word out that the U.S. was ``not deporting people who go to

the U.S. as very small children and learn bad behavior.''

The evidence indicates otherwise. Many of the persons

deported to Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, St. Lucia,

Guyana, Haiti, Barbados and their neighbors left the U.S. as

underage children and were sent back as hardened criminals.

Just as bad they had lived in the U.S. for so long that on

their return they knew no one and nobody knew them, a point

made by Grenada's Prime Minister, Dr. Keith Mitchell, when he

addressed Grenadians at a recent town meeting in Brooklyn.

``They are sending people from America and they got all of

their bad ways in America and Canada and they send them back

to the region,'' was the Dr. Mitchell put it. ``Each time you

notice a problem home involving young people there is someone

from North America (involved in Grenada).''

It's clear that criminal aliens are causing problems,

serious problems in the English, French, Spanish and Dutch-

speaking nations and territories in the Caribbean.

It's also a fact, an awful reality that far too many of the

deportees are involved in criminal behavior in the region. To

deny that, as Kramer seems to have done is to engage in

ostrich like conduct. The mistake she made was relying

entirely on the statistics which U.S. funded surveys have

unearthed.

P.J. Patterson, until recently Jamaica's longest-serving

Prime Minister, cautioned the Ambassador against relying on

the data and the conclusions reached by the researchers.

``I don't think that one can look at it only in narrow

statistical terms,'' Patterson told this paper. ``I say that

because very often, especially in areas connected to drugs

those who return get involved in leadership of gangs that

maintain relationship with gangs that operate abroad and

really influence the criminal activities that are taking

place in particular communities in which they return.''

Cabinet ministers from St. Lucia, St. Kitts-Nevis, Haiti,

the Dominican Republic and Dominica have all made essentially

the same complaint. Kramer should stick to the line taken by

senior U.S. State Department officials and members of the

U.S. Congress who have told Caribbean nations that American

authorities are simply following the law and that's not going

to change. To try to defend the bad bit of legislation and

its damaging consequences on the Caribbean by denying the

obvious isn't going to solve the problem.

The solution isn't difficult to figure out. The countries

deporting the criminals and those being forced to accept them

should sit down and work out a reasonable policy that (1)

ensures only Guyanese are deported to Guyana, Haitians to

Port au Prince, Jamaicans to Kingston or Dominicans to Santo

Domingo and so on; (2) Caribbean nations are given a

reasonable amount of time to find out if the deportees are

their nationals before they are put on a plane back home; (3)

Caribbean states must accept the awful truth: U.S. lawmakers

and the Bush Administration aren't going to change the law to

stem the flow of deportees; and (4) a resettlement scheme

funded by the U.S. and Caribbean nations should be undertaken

to ease the re-integration of the deportees back into their

birthplaces. Such programs have been developed and

implemented on a pilot basis in a few countries and if the

organizations involved are to be believed they seem to work.

A re-integration effort is needed not only for detainees from

the U.S. but from Canada and the United Kingdom and those

countries must help too.

Just last week, Tony Blair, the British prime Minister,

fired his Home Secretary, Charles Clarke because his ministry

had failed to deport criminal aliens after they had completed

their jail sentences. The criticisms showered on the head of

the Blair government and the public's demand that something

about people who enter Britain and then commit crimes were so

strong that they are bound to trigger a flood of deportees to

the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the

Pacific.

Of the 77,000 inmates in British prisons, 10,113 of them

are from foreign countries, including nearly 2,000 from the

Caribbean.

The outcry should serve as a warning to the Caribbean,

expect more criminal deportees on your shores and it also

cries out for some help from the rich nations. If, as they

say, they are interested in the economic and social

development of the island-nations then they should be

prepared to help, not to undertake the total resettlement and

reintegration effort but offer a helping hand.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of third world debt relief for the Record. In the article, Can Developing Countries Be Financial Saviors of Rich Nations?, published in Volume XXIV No. 1230 (May 24-30, 2006) issue of The New York CaribNews, Mr. Tony Best cites Dr. Jeremy Siegel, a professor of the Wharton School of Business. Addressing the possibility that the baby boomers' selling their savings stock and bonds would lead to a weakening of the assets of the rich nations, Dr. Siegel claims that the best solution is to allow investors from developing countries to buy up these excess stocks to maintain the market prices. Mr. Best asserts that some of ``the highest growth rates in dollar terms in market capitalization was in the emerging markets'' of Macedonia, West Bank and Gaza, Fiji, Nigeria, Jamaica, Botswana, Trinidad and Tobago, India, Kenya, Bermuda and Tanzania. As Mr. Best claims, if the global market is integrated so that ``the selling of assets from the old in the rich world to the young in the developing world is no more difficult than today's sales of assets by elderly folks,'' America's trade deficits in the developing world would not be a cause for concern. The increasing investments in American from the growing markets would be balanced by the existing trade deficits and debts owed by the developing countries to the U.S.

[From the New York CaribNews, May 24-30, 2006]

Can Developing Countries Be Financial Saviors of Rich Nations?

(By Tony Best)

It may not be a case of reverse Robin Hood, meaning

stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich. But

investors and stock markets in relatively poor nations of the

Caribbean and Africa may in the long run be the next

financial saviors of future prosperity in the world's

wealthiest nations. Add Asia, Latin America and the Middle

East to that list and the prospects would become clear, very

clear.

So, while people in G-8 nations and their affluent

neighbors may not steal from such developing and relatively

poor nations as Jamaica, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago,

Barbados, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Botswana, Pakistan, Swaziland,

Bermuda, Jordan and at least 40 other emerging markets, some

economists in the U.S., Britain and elsewhere in the

developed world are offering a bit of advice: keep your eyes

on these economies because they are poised to help make up

the shortfall of buyers of assets in the rich world.

One such economist is Dr. Jeremy Siegel, a professor at the

prestigious Wharton School of Business in the U.S. He

believes that with many baby boomers in North America and

Europe, persons born between 1946-64, getting ready or

planning their retirement, they may sell off their stocks and

bonds in large quantities to finance their retirement and

that in turn can create a huge gap in the assets of rich

nations.

``The sale of these assets will lead to a sharp fall in

prices, because there are too few people in the smaller

generations that followed the boomers to buy all of those

assets at today's prices,'' stated The Economist as it

explained Siegel's theory.

The upshot: unless the baby-boomers delay their retirement,

they could ``see their standard of living in retirement

halved, relative to their final year of work,'' the Economist

added. Siegel warns a huge sell-off of stocks and bonds by

the baby-boomers can trigger a 40-50 percent fall in stock

prices with a smaller pool of investors coming along in the

rich countries to take up the financial slack. That's where

the developing countries may come in, goes the argument. Some

figures tell an interesting story.

Although the top 10 stock markets in terms of

capitalization are in the U.S., Japan, U.K., France, Germany,

Canada, Spain, Switzerland, Hong Kong and China in that

order, some of the highest growth rates in market

capitalization in dollar terms between 1983-2003 were in

emerging market. Macedonia, West Bank and Gaza, Fiji,

Nigeria, Jamaica, Botswana, Trinidad and Tobago, India,

Kenya, Bermuda and Tanzania are on that list. For instance,

Fiji's growth was put at 760 percent; Jamaica's 297 percent;

Trinidad and Tobago's 170 percent and Bermuda 92 percent.

When it came to the highest growth in value traded between

1998-2003, Zimbabwe, Jordan, Jamaica, Israel, Trinidad and

Tobago, United Arab Emirates, Barbados, Malaysia, South

Africa, and Sri Lanka were listed among the 44 nations with

the best performance. For instance while Zimbabwe had growth

of 623 percent; Jamaica 507; percent Trinidad and Tobago 128

percent; Barbados 121 percent; and South Africa 76 percent;

Germany's pace of expansion was 51 percent and Canada's 42

percent.

Of course, it would take decades before those countries

have the financial power to fill the financial gap but then

who would have predicted in 1980 that China, India and Dubai

would have become such economic giants as to drive fear in

the hearts of protectionist lawmakers on Capitol Hill in

Washington who worry about their ability to buy U.S.

companies. Dr. Siegel is writing a new book called, ``The

Global Solution,'' and in it he is insisting that by the

middle of the 21st century most multinational companies must

find new investors outside of North America, Europe and

Japan.

``The challenge is to integrate global markets so that

selling assets from the old in the rich world to the young in

developing countries is no harder, no more unusual, than

today's sales of assets by elderly folks,'' stated The

Economist. ``From this perspective, America's external

deficits, particularly with some developing countries may be

both long-lasting and nothing to worry about.'' It goes

without saying that investors in developing countries

shouldn't forget that protectionist tendencies in the rich

nations are alive and well and can retard growth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an article by Mr. Warren Hoge, titled Nations Benefit From Migration, U.N. Study Says, published in the New York Times on June 7, 2006.

Mr. Hoge cites Mr. Kofi Annan in calling for broad international cooperation in order to ensure rapid growth in global migration. A recent United Nations study has shown that migrants provide strong socio-economic support for their country of origin as well as their new home nation. ``The alarm over the growing number of migrants has cast the issue in a negative light.'' The aging populations in developing countries are offset by the influx of immigrants. Currently in developed countries there is an average of 142 entrants into the labor force for every 100 people about to retire but the report predicts that in 10 years the number of entrants will become as low as 87. This deficit can easily be filled by immigrants since on average the developing countries have 342 entrants for every 100 retirements.

Mr. Annan calls for ``tightening law enforcement to curb smuggling and trafficking, easing visa and naturalization rules, and establishing reliable financial services'' to better the conditions of the immigrant. The U.N. study clearly shows the advantages of immigration. In light of such evidence, how can the United States, the leading nation of the world, choose to impose harsh measures that curb immigration?

My colleagues, let us create an open immigration policy for our national borders and ease the integration of immigrants into the U.S. rather than build a wall to keep everyone out.

Nations Benefit From Migration, U.N. Study Says

(By Warren Hoge)

United Nations, June 6.--Secretary General Kofi Annan said

Tuesday that the rapid growth in global migration should

help, not harm, all countries but that broad international

cooperation would be necessary to ensure it.

``We now understand better than ever before that migration

is not a zero-sum game,'' Mr. Annan said. ``In the best

cases, it benefits the receiving country, the country of

origin and migrants themselves.''

He made his comments in a report he delivered to the

General Assembly on migration and development, subjects that

will be a focus of the annual gathering of heads of state at

the United Nations in September.

The report noted that alarm over the growing numbers of

migrants had cast the issue in a negative light but asserted

that the emphasis was misplaced, citing the aging of

populations in developed countries that it said could be

offset only by migration.

``We think that societies don't ask themselves enough what

they would do without migrants,'' said Hania Zlotnik,

director of the United Nations Population Division.

Mr. Annan said he hoped the September meeting would take up

measures to better conditions for migrants, including

tightening law enforcement to curb smuggling and trafficking,

easing visa and naturalization rules, and establishing

reliable financial services to enable money to be sent home.

From 1990 to 2005, the numbers of migrants in the world

rose to 191 million from 155 million, the report said. It

estimated that migrants sent $232 billion home in 2005. Of

that, $167 billion went to developing countries, Mr. Annan

said.

The report said that migration sometimes reduced the wages

of low-skilled workers in advanced economies, but that it

more often freed citizens to perform high-paying jobs.

Listing demographic statistics that will make a continued

rise in migration inevitable, the report said that in

developed countries there is an average of 142 young entrants

to the labor force for every 100 people about to retire, but

that in 10 years, the ratio will be 87 young entrants for

every 100 who leave the labor force.

This trend, it argued, creates a deficit that only migrants

can close. At the same time, developing countries will have

342 candidates for every 100 jobs that open up.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record, an announcement for the Pan American Development Foundation's Inter- American Leadership award awarded to President Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic on April 28, 2006. The award is bestowed on ``an individual who has demonstrated outstanding leadership in strengthening democracy in the hemisphere and promoting economic and social development in the Americas.'' Undoubtedly President Fernandez, known for his forward and original thinking, is such a person. At a time of economic turmoil, he has spearheaded numerous reforms and innovations in the economy of the Dominican Republic, promising to reduce inflation, to stabilize the exchange rate and to restore investor confidence. He has largely succeeded in increasing employment opportunities and has ``demonstrated a clear vision for a vibrant future for the Dominican Republic.'' He has worked with the PADF in promoting cross-border programs with Haiti with the goal of economic development, as well as, mitigating the hostile attitudes of the two people who share the island of Hispaniola. I praise the accomplishments of President Fernandez and congratulate him on receiving this award honoring his work. I hope that he will continue his effective leadership of his nation and I wish him every success.

President Leonel Fernandez Receives PADF's Inter-American Leadership

Award

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, Apr. 28.--The Pan

American Development Foundation (PADF) presented Dr. Leonel

Fernandez, President of the Dominican Republic, its 2006

Inter-American Leadership Award this evening in a ceremony at

the Hotel Hilton Santo Domingo attended by business,

diplomatic, and governmental leaders. The PADF Inter-American

Leadership Award is bestowed upon an individual who has

demonstrated outstanding leadership in strengthening

democracy in the hemisphere and promoting economic and social

development in the Americas. Corporate support for the

ceremony and dinner was provided by PADF's longtime corporate

partners Stanford Financial Group, Citigroup, and

Caterpillar, Inc.

PADF's President of the Board of Trustees, Ruth Espey-

Romero, stated, ``President Fernandez's dynamic leadership

and vision for his countrymen has strengthened Dominican

society. He is committed to advancing his country's economic

condition. The President has a clear vision for a vibrant

future for the Dominican Republic and how the border can

serve as an engine of growth for the entire region. His

record has demonstrated his commitment to PADF's vision of

`Creating a Hemisphere of Opportunity for All.'''

PADF also presented awards to several key corporate

partners whose support has enabled PADF to accomplish its

work throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

Representatives of Stanford Financial Group, Altria Group

(including Philip Morris International and Grupo Leon

Jimenes), and the American Chamber of Commerce in Haiti each

received recognition for their support of projects throughout

the Caribbean and Latin America.

The Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) is an

international nonprofit organization established in 1962

through a unique partnership between the Organization of

American States and private enterprise to promote,

facilitate, and implement social and economic development in

Latin America and the Caribbean through innovative

partnerships and integrated involvement of the private and

public sectors. PADF currently has offices in Bolivia,

Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Haiti, and

has operated in every country throughout Latin America and

the Caribbean.

In the Dominican Republic, PADF is working with over 80

local organizations to strengthen to the border region and

encourage private sector participation in development.

Funding for the programs comes from the U.S. Agency for

International Development (USAID), with additional support

from other public and corporate donors.