Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) to respond.

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Could a Member state that a bill before the House did not go before the Committee on Ways and Means and never had hearings? Is that proper to debate on the floor?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, referred to the Rangel bill. The gentlewoman from Connecticut referred to the Rangel bill. The only people that do not refer to the Rangel bill is the majority in the Committee on Rules that denied us the opportunity to discuss the Rangel bill. So all we have is the so-called Thomas bill. But if we really get past the first page of the bill that we wanted to have as a substitute, that we wanted to debate, that we wanted to see which one was the best so we have options, yes, we start off, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), on page 44 with the Secretary of the Treasury. But then we go to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and all up to 54. This is what we call a program. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think I have not made myself clear, Mr. Speaker. I asked people to look for page 100 to establish what the program was, not how much money was there. Who cares how much money is there if we do not know how to get it? So please, take a look at page 100. That is called the health program. We can put lipstick on the page, but we cannot call it a lady. This is no health program. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the committee; and he knows a health program when he sees one.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 12:40. 12:40, and 8 million people without work. Some of these people have been described as being ``unproductive.'' But all of these people have been promised that this Congress of this great Nation, that we would not only feel their pain, but we would do something about it. We waited patiently, because people have confidence in the President and the Congress. When the flag went up, we saluted it; when we were hit, we responded; and during the war, we are the patriots. But we kind of felt that in order to stimulate the economy, that it was not just tax relief. Everyone agreed if it was temporary, if it was direct, if it could stimulate, encourage investment, we should do it. Nobody said, nobody said, that these 8 million people had to be held hostage until we did it their way. That type of thinking never came up. But, yes, we went into some kind of a conference, and we spent a lot of time on taxes. And the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means would have to agree that there were a lot of concessions made, concessions that we found unpleasant. But because we were determined that we not leave this House of Representatives without doing something for these 8 million people. We said that we agree with you on taxes, if you agree with us on unemployment insurance and on health. Well, it just seems like when you get to unemployment insurance, they believe a block grant will take care of that. Trust the governors; they will take care of it. Maybe some people are not eligible, maybe there is not enough money, but trust the governors, they would do it. Well, we said we will trust the House and we will trust the Senate and we will just leave that alone, but let us get to the question of health. This is the funniest thing in the world, that we are talking about extending health benefits for 1 year. We are talking about an existing program that is used today by employers. We are talking about using a system called COBRA and providing the funds so that the people who lost their jobs will be able to still continue to get health insurance. But there are some people in this House that believe they do not like the current system; that they do not believe there should be employer- sponsored insurance programs; that what they really believe should happen is that people who are out of work and need insurance, they need credits, they need vouchers, they have to go shop and see where they can get the best benefit for their dollar. They do not need these Cadillac programs that Republicans and Democrats have as Members of Congress; they need something cut back. And, of course, if they have ailments and the HMO says it is a higher price, they will give 60 percent of it, but they better go find the rest of it. I tried to figure, in this country, at this time of year, the dignity of a person without a job, the pressures on a marriage, the inability to look at your children and know that you do not have a job, that you cannot pay their tuition, you cannot pay the mortgage. That is enough for any American to lose their dignity. But when you know you are not even currently covered for health insurance, that you do not know what is going to happen to the rest of your family, and they tell you to go out with the credit and shop; so I asked everyone, how do you do it? And do my colleagues know something? I heard an explanation in the Committee on Rules that I could not believe. You needed a lawyer to figure out what to do with the credit. So I said immediately, let me find out where this is in the bill, because I may not have understood in the Committee on Rules, but before I came to this floor, you bet your life I was going to find it. Who has page 100 of the Republican bill? I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). This is all you need. Forget the complexities of it; forget how it works. If you do not know what to do with an advance refundable tax credit, not to worry. If you do not know what to do with a tax credit and you are not working and you have no unemployment, no earnings coming in, not to worry. Because under the Thomas bill, let me emphasize, under the Thomas bill, because the Committee on Ways and Means, like with most tax bills, had nothing to do with this; but that is okay, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is a smart person. Because, under the Thomas bill, the whole program shall be established for making payments on behalf of the eligible individual by the Secretary of the Treasury. Not the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the Treasury. So we got 2 hours of debate. Every so often, my colleagues will hear me refer to page 100, because we have a lot of bright people in this House, and they know just what to tell the Secretary to do. So do not go to sleep; be alert. People are going to ask, what is in the health bill? And remember, one does not have to study it. Hold on to page 100. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. What page?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a former chairman of the Committee on Commerce and the ranking Democrat. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee who has worked hard to protect the rights of those people who are unemployed. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Representatives of the community with a common heritage from the Dominican Republic gathered December 7-9, 2001 for the fourth annual conference of the Dominican American National Roundtable. Each year, this group comes together to reflect on the past year, discuss areas of need within the community, and plan for the upcoming year. This year's conference was especially meaningful in light of the recent tragedies affecting the Dominican American community and I extend my most sincere congratulations to the DANR and its president Adriano Espaillat for hosting such a successful weekend here in Washington DC. Already struggling to overcome the devastating effects of September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the crash of American Airlines Flight #587 has impacted our Nation's Dominican community deeply. Almost all 260 persons aboard the flight were of Dominican ancestry and, as was pointedly demonstrated during the conference, it seems as if every person of Dominican heritage in the United States has been personally touched by this tragedy. During the opening session Moises Perez, Executive Director of Alianza Dominicana a social service community based non-profit agency located in northern Manhattan illustrated this with this with a story of personal quest to find one person who did not know someone aboard the plane. He has yet to find one person. Our ability to gather and reflect on these recent occurrences was essential in providing a discourse for this community to begin to make sense of these horrific events. It also provided a forum to discuss the next forward step. As the Dominican community continues to mourn the loss of so many loved ones, we must support its efforts to continue its work to address the items that impact the community. This year's conference celebrated the opening of the DANR's Washington DC office. The DANR seeks to bring the voices of all people of Dominican origin who lived in the United States together and provide a forum for analysis, planning, and action to advance the primary interests of the community. The office will serve as the coordinating center for the Dominican American's agenda, ensuring that their voice is heard at the national level and their interests are being addressed in the legislative arena. Representing the largest Dominican community in the United States, I am strongly supportive of the opening of this office and I pledge my support to this community as it continues to grow in strength and size in the United States. This year's theme, ``Empowerment through Education'' demonstrates the importance of education to the future of this community. Like many Americans, education is high on the list of critical priorities for the Dominican American community. However, the Dominican American population is plagued by sky rocketing drop out rates, poorly funded and dilapidated schools, educators ill-prepared to face the challenges of migratory communities and bilingual education, and a lack from or familiar with the community. I commend the DANR's commitment to its youth. In addition to the participation of so many key leaders within the community, the presence of a large number of young people was particularly heart-warming and telling of the potential success this community will find if it is given the opportunity to participate in the framing and addressing of the issues and challenges which face it. From high school to graduate school, these students represented the future leaders of the Dominican American community and their dedication to their roots in the Dominican Republic and United States is evident. Too often our children are forced to shed and hide the heritage that defines them. Our culture is not a curse; it is a blessing, and we must never let our youth forget that where we come from is essential in determining who we will become. I would like to thank all those whose hard work made the weekend possible, especially the DANR President Adriano Espaillat. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the DANR Board of Directors including Alejandra Castillo, Raysa Castillo, Miguel De Jesus, Ana Garcia, Epifanio Gil, Josefina Infante, Rafael Latingua, Mania Luna, Manuel Matos, Rafel Morel, Barbara Perez, Moises Perez, Felipe Rodriguez, Ydanis Rodrigues, Elvis Ruiz, Luis Salcedo and Slivio Torres-Saillant and the DANR staff consisting of Jose Bello, Rademes Peguero, Victor F. Capellan, Ninoska Uribe, Roberto Alvarez, and Margarita Cepeda. I look forward to continuing our work to supporting and advancing the Dominican American community.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2069 the Global Access to HIV/AIDS Prevention, Awareness, Education, and Treatment Act of 2001. The HIV/AIDS pandemic threatens the stability of the modern world, as we know it in both developed and developing countries. I would first like to thank Chairman Hyde for introducing this important legislation. I also would like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for her tireless work in the area of AIDS and her efforts to raise the consciousness of her colleagues to combat this horrendous disease. The devastation of the HIV/AIDS disease does not discriminate, and impacts the lives of us all. Recent reports from the United Nations state that more than 58 million people globally have been infected with HIV/AIDS. This horrendous disease has negatively impacted the economies of Africa, the Caribbean, Asia, and Eastern Europe. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to combating HIV/AIDS by providing funding for the prevention, education, testing, treatment, and care of individuals with HIV/AIDS. I support and applaud the substantial increase in funding that H.R. 2069 provides to fight HIV/ AIDS around the world. I am happy to see that this bill authorizes $485 million in bilateral funding, $50 million for treatment, and $750 million for multilateral funding for fiscal year 2002. 1 hope that this contribution by the United States is the first of many, and that it will serve as a down payment on the improvement of our global future. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has erased decades of progress in improving the lives of families in the developing world and has claimed 22,000,000 lives since its inception. More than 17,000,000 individuals have died from HIV/AIDS in sub- Saharan Africa alone. Two-thirds of those diagnosed with the AIDS virus in the Caribbean are dead within two years. AIDS is the leading cause of death in the Caribbean for those fifteen to forty-five years of age and these numbers continue to increase. We as a nation must once again exhibit the strong leadership that is our heritage and do the right thing by addressing this humanitarian and economic crisis head on. H.R. 2069 does just that by exhibiting our commitment in the U.S. Congress to combating this dreaded disease through the authorization of this much needed and necessary funding.--

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was in law school, one of my professors said when the law is not on your side, raise your voice. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does not. But these new, fresh ideas, I guess the best time to get them is in the middle of the night when people are sleeping. These new, fresh ideas cannot stand the light of scrutiny in the committee with hearings where people can come and testify. These new ideas we have to wait until 8:00 at night to find out what is going to happen at 9:00. These new, exciting, fresh ideas are not bipartisan ideas. It is just a couple of Republicans going in the cloakroom coming out wondering what will sound great on television because it is abundantly clear there is not one Republican in this House that is so naive that he or she believes that what they are doing tonight is going to become law. The reporters know it. The television anchor people know it. So what are they doing? Well, they do not like the word rammed through. But what they intend to do is put out a wish list of the things that they would like to do for corporate America, the things they would like to do for wealthy Americans, and then at the same time says, oh, yes, we promised to do something for the displaced workers. What does displaced workers got to do with repugnant tax cuts? Did not the President and did not the leadership here say that when we were bailing out the airline industry that we would have compassion for the other people that got hit by the war, that got hit by the recession? Yes. When did this new, fresh idea for Republicans come up that we should help those people who are not working? If I recall, they were trying to get a bill passed which they did by two votes or one vote. And they promised Republicans, if you vote for this bad bill, we will do something for the unemployed. Then all of the sudden, it became a part of the stimulus package for the first time. Now, we were willing to give on a whole lot of these tax problems because no one likes to go home saying they did not give tax cuts, but we really thought that the Republicans would find the same type of fresh, new ideas for people who were not working as they found some fresh new ideas how to establish some loopholes in the tax code. But they did not do that. And I do hope those that come to the floor would start asking some questions. Why could there not be a new, fresh idea that if somebody was not eligible under existing law for unemployment compensation that they would be covered? Why could Republicans not come up with some new, fresh idea that those people who were not getting an adequate amount of wages to keep their families together, to keep their kids in school, to pay the mortgage, that we would try to meet them half way. Why did they not come up with a new, fresh idea that these people would be guaranteed coverage and not a block guarantee to be given to governors to do what they want but in health care. Why could we not get a dynamic, exciting, new, fresh idea that we only got to do this for a year? That is all the President has asked. Why cannot we take the existing health system that we have, where people who have been working and they are guaranteed that they would be getting health insurance as paid for in part by the employer, that if they lose their job, that the Federal Government would come in and pay 75 percent of it under COBRA, and if they could not pay the 25 percent, that Medicaid would come in. But oh, no. If nothing is remembered tonight, I hope someone would ask the majority tonight what is the new Republican health plan? What is this refreshing new idea that they have to cancel the care that we have now? The answer is the Secretary of the Treasury will tell them how to do this plan. They have not the slightest clue as to the provisions that they would have to provide health care for the unemployed. But as tonight goes on into the morning and as they have make this up as they go along, one thing I can say for my friends on the Republican side, at least they know it will never, never, never become law.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker. With the bipartisan momentum for the abrogation of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba gaining steam, along with the recent courteous diplomatic exchange between the State Department and Havana and the subsequent trade initiative that was struck between U.S. agricultural groups and Cuba's Foreign Trade Ministry, such development should be of great interest to those in this country who have long been concerned with the course of U.S.-Cuba relations. These two long time foes seem to be exercising a newfound flexibility that could evolve into normalized relations between Washington and Havana. Michael Marx McCarthy, Research Associate at the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), has recently authored an article of considerable importance entitled, A Widening Window of Opportunity for Washington and Havana to Constructively Engage, some of which appeared in a recent issue of the organization's estimable biweekly publication, the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. McCarthy's article examines the polite exchange that transpired after Hurricane Michelle rained hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction on Cuba, and closely analyzes how the White House's expediting of Havana's cash purchase of U.S. foodstuffs could establish a diplomatic framework and a new mood which could lead to the restoration of regular political and economic ties. There is some possibility that, if we are lucky, this development could engender further constructive discussion and congressional action on the status of the archaic U.S. trade embargo that Washington slapped on Havana in 1962. Additionally, considering the UN General Assembly's 10th consecutive overwhelming vote in favor of ending the U.S. trade embargo, and the mounting pressure from agricultural and business groups in this country to open the Cuban market to U.S. farm and industry products, now may be the time for some of my colleagues to harmonize with the rest of the world's public opinion and join with me in revising a failed policy that already has cost us dearly in reputation and in economic opportunities. Furthermore, as the Castro government is reaching its natural end, the U.S. should want to build upon the recent discussions to bring about a watershed in these two neighbors' ties. To allow this positive momentum to relapse would be a grievous error. The Cuban government and people are aware that a majority of U.S. legislators and citizens desire friendly relations. To ensure that a peaceful transition of power follows the Castro government's end, U.S. officials should not relent on efforts to engage Cuba now. ln fact, U.S. officials need to consider widening their humanitarian initiative by addressing basic bilateral issues, such as drug interdiction, laws of the sea, refugee and air space questions, as well as a broad range of economic, terrorism, trade, human rights observance and democratization concerns. Action on these issues will provide the foundation necessary for a natural evolution in the development of constructive relations. As such, COHA researcher McCarthy's article is of great relevance since the effort to constructively engage Cuba is likely to grow in importance in the coming months. A Widening Window of Opportunity for Washington and Havana to Constructively Engage Possibly marking a watershed moment in U.S.-Cuban relations, Washington broke its four decade-long history of obdurately naysaying any move in favor of a constructive relationship with Havana--even if that means denying assistance to Cuban civilians caught up in heart-wrenching natural calamities--when a U.S. administration, for the first time, decided to facilitate Havana's multimillion dollar purchase of lumber, corn, wheat, rice, soy and medical products to help Cuba restock its reserves of essentials seriously depleted by hurricane Michelle. The hurricane was the worst storm to hit the island in a half a century, causing millions of dollars in damage to Cuba's sugar and citrus crops, as well as infrastructure losses and adverse effects to its tourist industry. The delivery of such goods, initially called for by Castro to take place aboard Cuban vessels, will instead be carried out by U.S. or third-country vessels, marking a major concession on Havana's part. This unfolding scenario might provide the basis for how a newfound flexibility can build significant momentum in favor of a constructive engagement. Because the unprecedented agreement falls within the existing parameters of the U.S. embargo, the arrangement presented a delicate political issue for Havana to rationalize. Last year, the Cuban president swore to never purchase American goods under the White House's terms, after legislation to ostensibly liberalize the embargo was hijacked by ultra conservative members of congress intent on eliminating any U.S. financing of exports to the island. Despite its heated disagreement with the embargo, Havana's decision to live with the formula for the present purchase indicates the gravity of the economic situation and Castro's ability to learn new tricks by accepting Washington's goodwill gesture at face value. What remains to be seen, however, is whether this episode will morph into a more substantive and broadened diplomatic discussion on such bilateral issues as navigation, air space, refugees and drug interdiction, or if it is merely a one-shot arrangement which will go nowhere. The Good Samaritan The White House, acting out of a ``humanitarian need context,'' played an active role in clearing a major hurdle to the deal by expediting the Commerce Department's issuance of the licenses necessary for American companies to sell and deliver to Havana. This was done after Havana had, with respect, turned down an earlier offer of assistance which would have to go through intermediaries and not involve any Cuban government agency. On the surface, the significance of the initiative is a more modest version of Nixon's opening to China in 1973, but presents a widening window of opportunity that could initiate a deepening and broadening of a dialogue between the two long-time foes. Conceivably, the process could spur preliminary discussions that could end up phasing out the outmoded 40 year-old U.S. economic embargo against the island, something that a majority of Americans appear to want. In fact, in this latest round of hurricane diplomacy, Cuba's foreign minister expressed optimism regarding recent developments, calling for the U.S. to terminate its stepped- up restrictions on travel to the island and pronouncing Havana ready for normalized relations with Washington. As of now, according to the State Department, the diplomatic exchange associated with the sale (which was in cash, with the purchaser being the Cuban Foreign Trade Ministry) is over and it is up to U.S. companies and Havana to seal the deal. Cuban authorities already are in contact with 15 agro- industrial companies and 15 firms that produce medical supplies or pharmaceuticals. The first actual deal between U.S. food companies and Cuba was completed on November 22 in Havana and was emotionally hailed as an extraordinary historical moment by an official from Riceland Foods. The rice will be picked up by Cuban vessels flying third country flags from the port of New Orleans in December and January. Cuba, for the record, stated that the purchase is a one-time arrangement that does not alter its fundamental opposition to the terms of the U.S. trade embargo. Polite exchange sets tone for agreement The genesis of the truly important agreement can be attributed to the natural calamity that ravaged 45,000 homes on the island nation, attracted international attention to Cuba's pressing need for humanitarian assistance and helped produce an unusually civil diplomatic exchange between Washington and Havana. The State Department, in a dramatic shift from its past policy of total intransigence on the issue of Cuba qualifying for U.S. disaster relief, initiated the discussions by publicly offering hurricane relief aid to Cuba. Shortly thereafter, Havana responded to the U.S. tender in a manner devoid of its usual bitter bite, thanking Washington for its kind gesture, but requesting that the Cuban government be allowed to have direct access for purchasing U.S. medical supplies and food and arranging for its delivery. Political fallout The surprisingly new, almost amicable, tone in their discussions suggests that the beginning of a detente might be possible down the road. Such a development could prove to be politically beneficial for both Washington and Havana. Bona fide dialogue, beginning at a relatively low diplomatic level, which would focus on chipping away at the four decade- old and anachronistic trade embargo, rather than seeking its abrogation in one major step, would follow a realistic scenario. The fact is that aside from the more ultra right- wing members of the Miami Cuban-American community, and a handful of highly conservative legislators, support for the embargo rapidly has been withering away. Many in the U.S. business, religious, academic and agricultural sectors, as well as some of the most prominent cold war policy makers from the Reagan era, oppose the outdated embargo. In fact, advocates of the embargo have been overtaken by the recent hurricane food aid purchase and are now on the fringe of the U.S. political process. Miami's Cuban exile leadership, now politically facing a dead end, would do well to assess the changing dynamics of U.S.-Cuban relations. In reality, the agreement on the purchase of essentials gives a marginal boost for the Castro government just when it was going through hard times due to the worldwide economic slowdown. The Cuban economy, already weakened by the recent region-wide reduction in tourism from EU and Canada, particularly resulting from the repercussions of September 11, faced the prospect of a major financial crisis considering the magnitude of Michelle's destruction. The American supplies should help in short-term relief efforts. More importantly, however, the arrangement could set an important precedent for future trade, as Havana would prefer to reduce shipping costs on imported goods, which in some cases have had to travel from as far as Vietnam, by instead purchasing from a neighbor only 90 miles away. It is estimated that Cuba now spends between $700 million and $1 billion on purchasing foodstuffs from U.S. competitors in Asia, Argentina and France, among others. Much of that amount, U.S. suppliers passionately believe, could be in their hands if regular sales between the two nations were permitted. Castro derided the embargo as an act of economic imperialism, unjustly denying Cubans vital food and medical imports. While Washington's present move could prove to be a powerful political tonic for Castro and almost inevitably will lift his prestige, the delivery of U.S. goods (possibly even on U.S. vessels) to Cuban docks will attract positive international press coverage for the White House. The Bush administration will at least be an equal beneficiary of worldwide praise since it has been U.S. policy towards Cuba, and not the Castro regime, which has been discredited and isolated. For Washington, the political motivation for its change of policy on hurricane relief is difficult to precisely track. Previously, the Bush administration sent Havana an inflammatory signal by nominating Otto Reich--an anti-Castro Cold War extremist who was tenaciously supported by the far right leadership of the Miami Cuban-American community--to the State Department's top Latin American policymaking post. The food and medicine deal, however, sends a constructive message to Cuba. Although the move has not been explained beyond its obvious humanitarian purpose, it is without question that the recent sale is in the interest of Cuban democratization and could signify that Secretary of State Powell desires to generate a constructive dialogue with Havana. Until the State Department made its surprising move on hurricane relief, the decades-long schism between the two nations had been, if anything, worsening. Formulating a new, positive diplomatic posture could prove useful to the two nations as the Castro era approaches its natural end. To ensure that a peaceful transition of power will be the paramount goal of U.S. policy makers, Washington must not go back on its constructive posture. Even the most basic diplomatic ties will prove helpful in avoiding a bellicose struggle over the succession of leadership on the island that would inevitably affect the U.S. mainland. In fact, the two nations would be wise to widen the agenda of issues to be discussed to include the establishment of cooperative initiatives on drug interdiction, laws of the sea, refugee and air space jurisdiction as well as a broad range of economic, terrorism, trade, human rights observance and democratization concerns. Move consonant with recent trend to liberalize and dispense with embargo The humanitarian food and medicine relief agreement comes at an interesting time in the ongoing congressional debate on Cuba. For the past two years the Florida delegation on the Hill has lost much of its influence on issues pertaining to Cuba. The House voted to repeal the travel ban and measures to abrogate the entire embargo failed by relatively small margins. Several weeks ago, however, the Senate decided not to act on the controversial Cuba travel ban repeal, a move which was perceived to have pleased a White House loath to appear soft on Cuba. Of greatest importance in the present trend towards more normalized relations, however, is the rising profile of the anti-embargo campaign by various U.S. farm interest groups as well as a broad range of multinationals and the legislators representing them, who are insisting that trade links with Cuba be extended in order to facilitate American exports to the island. On November 15, the Senate Agricultural Committee passed its funding measure, which permits federal financing of agricultural exports to Cuba, a bill that would establish a direct ongoing economic link between Washington and Havana. In the absence of such permissive legislation, there was no such financing involved in the Hurricane Michelle sale to Cuba. A delegation from the USA Rice Federation, which represents a majority of the nation's rice farmers, recently returned from a Havana International Trade Fair, marking the first official visit of a U.S. trade group to such an event in nearly four decades. Upon their return from Havana, USA Rice officials announced their support of the State Department's hurricane relief effort and the Agricultural Committee's vote on federal financing, as well as their serious interest in gaining access for U.S. rice farmers to Cuba's billion dollar produce purchasing market. The lesson of Hurricane Lili In the past, Washington has been unyielding when it came to providing any form of disaster relief to Cuba if it was assaulted by a natural calamity. In 1996, when Hurricane Lili leveled thousands of structures on the island, the only U.S. relief effort came from one Miami-based Catholic Charities group. Historically, Miami exile polemics shaped the debate over Cuba, automatically ruling the country out from receiving any U.S. assistance. This obstacle still plagues efforts at constructively engaging Cuba today. In 1996, militant anti-Castro forces argued once again that assistance sent to the island would never reach those most in need and would end up in the hands of Castro officials, where the goods would be used to strengthen a despised dictatorship. Some Cuban-Americans fear that sending aid would signify an ideological decision, not a humanitarian gesture. In the absence of such assistance, aid sent family- to-family as a permitted remittance would have to do the job, but it would not be sufficient in terms of total volume. That is why skeptics on this issue should reconsider and view Washington's recent step as an astute decision that shuns the sterile responses inexorably made by all White Houses dating back to the Kennedy era. Furthermore, the State Department's monitoring of the 1996 church donation to Caritas, the Cuban equivalent of Catholic Charities, concluded that such aid had in fact reached its intended destination. Ironically, this little-recalled episode might have established a platform of trust between the State Department and Havana and encouraged U.S. officials to immediately intercede after Michelle rained its destruction. Towards restored ties Despite the deep-rooted prevailing mistrust between the two capitals, Washington would be wise to follow Havana's lead in expressing its interest in expanding its present minimal ties. Washington should view the successful 1996 shipment of aid, the Senate Agricultural Committee's recent key vote, USA Rice's scouting of trade opportunities on the island, the Bush administration's intervention on behalf of the cash purchase, Havana's decision to let the goods be delivered by U.S. or third-country vessels, and the positive tone of the recent diplomatic exchanges between the two nations as the foundation for initiating talks that could produce the critical mass necessary for the development of positive relations in the coming months.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues from New York in supporting the concept of this bill and especially the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) who has been really a great pleasure working with over the years and especially as relates to restoring life, both economic life to our great city and our great State. We do not know whether this is going to come back from the other side, but we do know that there is other legislation that has not passed over there, and working closely with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), I do hope that we can bring the best ideas that have come out of both Houses and do the best that we can this year by the city of New York. I would like to say on behalf of delegation once again how grateful we are for the groundswell of support that we have received from this House of Representatives. If ever we thought that we were not a part of the Nation, all over the country and the world stood with us and we are deeply appreciative. We have a long way to go. We have had some legislative setbacks. But I am confident that as the President moves forward to remove this type of risk from other congressional districts, other parts of the country, that we would realize more that the Americans who lost their lives on September 11 are the same type of courageous Americans that lost their lives at Pearl Harbor or at any beachhead that we have had in the United States. We can never restore the lives to these great people or the heroes that went there to save lives at the risk of their own. But we can let friend and foe alike know that when you strike one part of our great country, you have struck all parts of it. And regardless of our backgrounds or party labels, we do come together as a Nation. And in that spirit, I hope we move forward with this legislation and join with our colleagues on the other side to see what more we can do to repair the harm that has been done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), in whose district the Twin Towers once stood high.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, because it is so important to my city that we get as much relief as possible from both Houses. But it really never ceases to amaze me of the creative legislative ability of our distinguished chairman to bring together ideas and to pull them together without the input of the members of the committee, without hearings; it is just absolutely fascinating how the things that we have taken for granted that we do as a Congress or we do as a committee have been substituted by the inquiries that the Chair can make in the great City of New York and with people that have an interest in the City of New York. So this is not the time to object; this is the time to move the consideration of this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, could the chairman of the committee share with a member of the committee with whom he discussed the remedies for the problems that we face in this city? The chairman constantly referred to ``we.'' Is there a particular group from the City of New York that the gentleman met and discussed these issues with?

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California to describe the substance of the bill before us today and how it differs from the bill that was passed by the Senate.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that as long as the gentleman and I have served in this House of Representatives, I am confident that we will treasure this jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and try to protect it the best we can, no matter which party is in charge of this House. But I would hope that any Member of this House serving on any committee that has any interest in legislation in his or her jurisdiction would never have to appeal to the other body to be heard. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the President and many national leaders are asking us to stimulate the economy by putting together a package and presenting it to the President for his signature. Some may remember it was this House that passed the so-called stimulus package, but what was in it? Hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate tax cuts, and little if no notice was given to the hundreds of thousands of people that are unemployed. That is the Republican stimulus package. Yet Members are ridiculing the Senate for not moving. What they fail to realize is that the leadership of the committee is not on the Senate side. The chairmanship of the committee comes from the House side from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if we were serious about doing something, the committee would have a meeting. What most Americans and Members do not know, we have not met since last Wednesday. If there is an urgency, let us not blame the Senate. Let us find out where the blame is, and have Members of Congress not having press conferences or fund-raisers, but coming together trying to resolve this difference.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising before you today to recognize one of the world's greatest and most admired entertainers--Tony Bennett. World-renowned as an ``individual of unequaled excellence,'' Tony Bennett has remained for over five decades, one of our leading male singers of traditional pop songs who has entertained all age groups with his magnificent voice and dynamic performances. Indeed, he is an American icon whose talents are timeless and who continues to be an inspiration to all generations. It is said of Tony Bennett that he is a superb performer, a true legend of American music, and a national treasure. While all that may be true, Tony is all those things and so much more. In addition to entertaining audiences through song, Tony Bennett is also an accomplished painter and author, as well as a devoted philanthropist. Throughout his career, he has participated in many humanitarian causes and concerns. He has raised funds for the American Cancer Society, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and the Hospice of Baltimore. He has worked with the Center for Handgun Control and has supported environmental issues through such organizations as Save the Rainforest and the Project for Walden Woods. His charity concerts have also benefited many causes, namely the preservation of the Apollo Theater in my Congressional District of Harlem in New York City. What many people may not know is that Tony Bennett served as a foot soldier in World War II, and was an active participant in the liberation of a concentration camp. In 1965, he participated in the March on Selma with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and refused to perform in South Africa during the era of apartheid. Tony Bennett, who celebrated his 75th birthday in August of this year, is a lifelong New Yorker born in the Astoria section of Queens. He attended the High School of Industrial Arts in Manhattan, where he continued nurturing his two passions--singing and painting. This year, Bennett founded the Frank Sinatra School of the Arts in New York as a tribute to his friend and musical mentor. Recently, friends gathered together to commemorate Tony's extraordinary and enduring career at the pinnacle of popular music, a career that took off shortly after Bob Hope discovered Bennett in a New York nightclub in 1949. That discovery has resulted in scores of albums, ten Grammy awards, a Lifetime Achievement Award, and induction this year (along with Frank Sinatra), into the Black Entertainment in Sports Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to pay tribute to Tony Bennett, an extraordinary entertainer, a true humanitarian, and a champion for all people. Legions of fans of all ages and musical tastes applaud his genius, and we can be assured that the legacy of Tony Bennett will live forever.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.