Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me join with the chairman in support of those parts of the bill that he spoke about and to indicate that our substitute merely tries to perfect two provisions. The first provision deals with the question of immunity. I want to say that our customs officials and agencies and employees are our first line of defense against terrorism. They do a fantastic job. But under this particular bill they are granted immunity for their conduct when they perform searches, and personal searches, if indeed the search was made in good faith. Now, under the Constitution, the standard for liability is not really whether or not there has been good faith but whether or not it has been reasonable, and that is the proper test that we have to use. This is the constitutional test we have to use. And there is no evidence that blanket immunity by the Federal Government and by the customs agency, even though the search may have been performed in good faith, should leave our American citizens without any recourse. In our fight against terrorism, we must make certain that we do not do damage to the principles of civil rights and certainly not do damage to the constitutional rights of American citizens. So in the substitute, we maintain the aura of immunity for the particular customs officer, but we do allow for the aggrieved party. If indeed they are found to have been subject to an unreasonable search, they may sue the Federal Government, so that there would be some relief, and some incentives for the customs agencies not just to respond as to what they think is in good faith but what is reasonable under the Constitution. It just seems to us that we would weaken the protections against racial profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the customs department if we left our citizens, having been treated in an unconstitutional manner, without any redress at all. It is in times of crisis, such as those we are going through, that truly tests a democracy. And I am certain that in voting for the substitute my colleagues will get the benefits of the bill but also this deficiency will be corrected. The second thing that is provided here is that under current law the Customs Service is empowered to search without a warrant for inbound mail handled by the United States Post Office. And, of course, this border exception to the fourth amendment is derived from the traditional authority of a sovereign to protect its border against inbound contraband and to collect duties on inbound freight. But the rationale of the border exception does not allow customs searches of outgoing mail without a warrant. Section 144 would allow customs officials to open mail with reasonable cause, which is a much lower standard than probable cause and would eliminate the need for judicial review. The United States Post Office believes that this is an unreasonable provision. They have written in support of the provision which I have mentioned would be in the substitute where we just strike the provision that gives the Customs Service the power to open mail just because they think it is reasonable but they do not have probable cause to do it. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and ask that he be allowed to allocate time based on the requests made of him.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and his team for an attempt to put together a bill that would wipe out partisanship as we deal with this very sensitive issue. It is tragic that when we talk about aid to needy families or children that need some assistance from their government, albeit State government, that it gets so political that we start talking about raising the standards, forcing people to work, increasing the hours of work, but we do not concentrate on putting the resources there to see that we can reach these laudable goals that we would want. It is one thing to say that illegal immigrants and the kids are not entitled to assistance for shelter or for food or for medicine, but great States and great people like those in Florida and California and New York and Texas, somehow we cannot turn our eyes away from children who are in need, and that is why my mayor and my Governor would appeal, notwithstanding their Republican credentials, that more sensitivity would be involved. They want people to work 40 hours a week, but they do not like the mandatory sense in working when the jobs are not there, when you do not provide the education and the training that the workers are not going to be productive. When you finally think about what we are trying to do is to create a better life for our children, who can do that better than a mother? And if you are saying that the mother with young children should go to work, well, politically we will say yes, but what about the child? Should we not have some concern about what happens to this kid as we feel good and we go to our townhall meetings and tell the voters we were hard on welfare mothers today, but would anyone ask, what about the children? Did you provide money for day care for the kids? Can anyone really work a productive day not knowing whether their child is being taken care of? If we said that we wanted to let the State work their will, how do we tell them what they cannot do when they are begging as my mayor and as my Governor for the flexibility to do it? Except when it comes to the money questions and you want the governors to be able to play chess with the money, when you want them to be able to do the things that normally the Committee on Appropriations should be doing, then you can go in the basement in the Republican rooms in the middle of the night and work out how you will do this while we do not legislate. You know how to cook the books when you want to make certain it works for you politically, but it seems to me if we are talking about a better America, more productive families, communities, that can have self-esteem, then when you talk about jobs you are not talking about just makeshift jobs, you are talking about making people feel good about themselves because they learned something, they have had training and they can be productive. Please vote for the Democratic substitute and reject the Republican political plan and stick with something that you can go back home and be proud of. Not that you beat up on the mothers, that is easy to do in an election year, but you did something for the kids. You did something for the kids.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, strengthens an important tool to promote U.S. exports and U.S. jobs. By law, the Export-Import Bank finances only exports made in the United States. In other words, the Bank supports American jobs. Last year, the Bank supported $12.5 billion in U.S. exports, which in turn supported tens of thousands of American jobs. In the 67 years of its existence, the Bank has supported more than $400 billion of U.S. exports and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on those exports. I would like to note my support for many of the important provisions in the reauthorization. First, I am pleased to see the substantial increase in the Bank's aggregate loan, guarantee, and insurance authority. Second, I am particularly happy to see the new provisions creating an Office of Africa within the Bank to promote exports to sub- Saharan Africa. The Export-Import Bank's role in recent years in strengthening the role and expanding the opportunities for U.S. business in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the wake of passage in 2000 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, has been critical. Third, I am pleased to see the required increases in the Bank's lending to small businesses, which often have difficulty accessing foreign markets. The Export-Import Bank is also important to help U.S. companies compete abroad. The export banks in many other countries--including Canada, the European countries, and Japan--often provide much higher levels of assistance to exporters from those countries. If U.S. firms and their workers did not have the Export-Import Bank, they would be at a real disadvantage when competing in the international marketplace. Moreover, the Export-Import Bank does its job efficiently. It is a fee- for-service agency. In the last two years, the Bank's revenues have generated a net $1.3 billion surplus for the U.S. Treasury. In conclusion, the Export-Import Bank helps American exports and it helps American jobs. We can debate about whether or not there are some things wrong with U.S. trade policy, but the Export-Bank is not one of them. I support its activities and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance of restoring food stamps eligibility to legal permanent residents. In 1996, Congress stripped legal immigrants of eligibility for food stamps and a variety of other benefits. As a step in the right direction, President Bush proposed to restore food stamps benefits to low income legal immigrants. The President's position on this issue makes sense. The food stamps program is a critical safety net that allows working men and women to feed their families during hard times. All a household needs to qualify is a low income. However, thousands of legal resident families go hungry each day. Legal residents pay taxes and their labor helps drive the economy. Yet, even hard working families may have a difficult time putting food on the table. A recent study by the Urban Institute found that 36 percent of New York City's limited English Proficiency households, during the previous year, had been unable to acquire adequate food at one time or the other. Food stamps can help provide these needy families with a temporary safety net during difficult times. Hunger does not limit itself to U.S. citizenship. Therefore, we should not create a policy to systematically deny food to needy tax paying immigrants in this country. But when the conferees to the Farm Bill met last week, Republicans did just that. They crafted a food stamp provision that essentially denies benefits to legal permanent residents of the United States, even though this position is in direct opposition to the President's proposal of restoring food stamps to low income immigrants who lived in the U.S. for at least five years. The Republican's food stamp proposal is much more restrictive and would severely limit legal resident's eligibility and basically punish them for being non-citizens. It is unfortunate that the President's own party is undermining a bi-partisan efforts to help feed the working poor. Recently, Republicans fashioned themselves as being pro-Hispanics. At the same time the Republicans were courting the Hispanic vote, they were cutting assistance that would help needy working legal immigrant families put food on the table. Democrats have fought for equal rights and just treatment for immigrants, as well as for restoring benefits to immigrants workers. If Republicans were really concerned about the immigrant community, they would restore food stamps eligibility for legal permanent residents.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Morningside- Westside Community Action Corporation as they prepare to host the Seventh Annual Consumer Art Show in New York city. Working outside the conventional restraints, art participants are mental health consumers from the five boroughs who employ art to communicate their singular expressions, idioms, and viewpoints. The artists represented in this show have one thing in common, and that is a history of serious and persistent mental illness. The beautiful and inspirational art in this show celebrates the artist's individual vision, humanity, and insight. I applaud the good people at the Morningside-Westside Community Action Corporation for spearheading such a superb gathering of artistic genius. Founded in 1994, Morningside-Westside Community Action Corporation is an organization that has been actively involved in issues of the mentally ill. Comprised of a group of mental health consumers, family members, providers, and friends--they work as a team to serve not only the mental health community, but the community at large. Through day- to-day activities, employment, and special events, the Morningside- Westside Community Action Corporation not only promotes the rights of those suffering from mental illness, but helps increase the understanding of these rights as well. These dedicated individuals work hard in order to build a better future for those with mental illness. Their commitment to educate, empower, and enrich the mental health consumer should be an inspiration to us all.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Con. Res. 363 extending birthday greetings and best wishes to Lionel Hampton on the Occasion of his 94th birthday. I also take great pleasure in not only paying tribute to a great American and renowned jazz artist, but to recognize a constituent, a friend, and a community leader--Lionel Hampton. Because of the enormous volume of work Lionel Hampton has consistently contributed to the National Endowment of the Arts, only his most outstanding contributions will be listed in these remarks. Lionel Hampton was the first black musician to perform for a presidential inauguration; President Harry S. Truman in 1949. He also was one of the first black musicians to perform in venues and events previously opened only to white performers, including performances with the Benny Goodman Quartet from 1936-1940. Mr. Hampton furthered the cause of cultural understanding and international communication. He received a Papal Medallion from Pope Pius XII, the Israel Statehood Award, and served as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United States. He also received the Honor Cross for Science and the Arts, First Class, one of Austria's highest decorations. Lionel Hampton is one of the most recorded artists in the history of jazz. For decades, Lionel Hampton has worked to perpetuate the art form of jazz by offering his talent, inspiration, and production acumen to the University of Idaho, since 1983. In 1985, the University of Idaho named its school of music after him. He became the first jazz musician to have both a music school and jazz festival named in his honor. His composition, Midnight Sun, became a jazz classic and his two major symphonic works, The King David Suite and Blues Suite, have been performed by major orchestras throughout the world. Mr. Hampton has received many honors during his distinguished career and has been a frequent guest and performer at the White House. President Ronald Reagan once conducted a jazz salute to him. In 1992, he received the Kennedy Center Honors award, and in 1995, he was the focus of a Kennedy Center all-star gala. In 1996, Lionel Hampton's original recording Flying Home was entered into the Grammy Hall of Fame. He holds more than 15 honorary doctorate degrees. As a constituent, Lionel Hampton's talent and fame has not compromised his commitment to community service. He is a long-term supporter of public housing and a staunch advocate for the homeless. In the early 1970s, he developed the Lionel Hampton Housing community and later built the Gladys Hampton Housing community in honor of his late wife. As of this date, those communities are considered to be among the premier public housing communities in the country. The Lionel Hampton Community Development Corporation has built more than 500 low and moderate income apartments in my Congressional District of Harlem alone. Lionel Hampton's contributions to excellence to the art form of jazz, personal commitment to community development, and outstanding accomplishment to cultural diversity has more than secured his musical genius in the world of jazz. His record and commitment to jazz is unparallel. His legacy and commitment to excellence, education, and inspiration continue to gain him special recognition as ``leader,'' ``genius,'' and ``jazz great.'' Lionel Hampton has received numerous awards and commendations by local and State governments, and has received acknowledgments from hundreds of civic and performance groups. It is for these reasons, that it is both an honor as well as a pleasure for me to submit these remarks in the Congressional Record in his behalf, for the decades of outstanding service and achievements to this American hero, acclaimed jazz artist, and community activist from my Congressional District.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and those who would direct that the conferees accept the Senate provisions to remove the restrictions on financing agricultural products to Cuba. I am not known to be a hostage to the agricultural lobby, but certainly I do believe that trade is essential if we are going to attempt to persuade those people who have dictatorships that democracy is the way that they have to go. I do not really believe we can just shut ourselves off from these people, and continue to have an embargo and deny them access to food and medicine, and at the same time expect that the people are going to look at us as an example of what a better way of life is. I do not really think that we should be held hostage by the People's Republic of Miami in our foreign and our trade policy. It seems to me that when we take a look at a billion people in China, we are taking a look at a dictatorship. When we take a look at the people in north Vietnam or North Korea, we are taking a look at dictatorships. As a matter of fact, Members do not have to be as old as I am to know that we have taken a look at dictatorships in the past, and even so today, without denying our ability to export to these countries. So it just seems to me that after the hurricane in Cuba, Americans, for humanitarian reasons, decided that we would offer food and medicine to the people in Cuba. That led to some provisions being made that we could have limited exports to the people in Cuba. Well, what is wrong, if the House has said and the Senate has said that American farmers should be allowed to export their products, why can we not assist them in making certain they get paid for their products? So I know this is a very emotional issue, but we cannot allow ourselves to be blinded by emotion at a time when we are saying, look at democracy, look at our farmers, look at productivity, look at better products, look at lesser prices, and allow us to go into that market and compete with everyone else. Let our kids get over there, let them be ambassadors for good will, remove the restrictions in terms of the Cubans and Americans, and let us all work hard for a better understanding, and to bring democracy to Cuba. Do not threaten those people who vote one way or the other that the new government in Cuba is going to punish those people who voted to relax the embargo. Nobody has designated who is going to lead the new Cuba. If we knew that, maybe we could take a different foreign policy. If some people know who is going to succeed Castro, maybe they should share it with us, because it could be worse than we might expect, than what we are getting today. But we do not know these things. That is why we should not allow our food policy to be governed by our political policies. For 40 years, those people who said, no, no, no, no, no, have found out that this guy that runs Cuba has survived half-a-dozen Presidents. Let us give freedom a chance, let us give trade a chance. I congratulate those who have put this motion together to instruct the conferees.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. RANGEL. Is it true that the Republicans crafted a rule that denied us the motion to recommit?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to close this argument on behalf of the minority and the American people to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), an outstanding leader of our party.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. RANGEL. Then the answer is no. Is it yes or no, did they do it?

Mr. RANGEL. The answer is yes.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is the leader. He is the leader. Now, did not the Republican-controlled other body put in this 10-year limitation?

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to then yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, to ask a couple of questions here since he was in charge of this bill and did not make it permanent before. I would like to yield time to him. No one else is responding. I would like to yield 30 seconds to him.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.