Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer). (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with deep disappointment, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we extend the time for debate for 1 hour in view of the fact that the Committee on Rules did not see fit to give the Democrats a substitute, in view of the fact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) put this bill together in the middle of the night without a hearing, and we are now finding sometimes for the first time what is in it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) to allocate as he sees fit.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that we still have an opportunity to do what the President would have us to do. Sure, he wants Trade Promotion Authority, but he also wants bipartisanship. I think it is good for the Congress. I think it is good for the country. All of my colleagues know that we have not enjoyed this within the Committee on Ways and Means. That is what the Committee on Rules is all about. The Committee on Rules is the legislative traffic cops. They can set us straight. They can shatter the wounds of partisanship that have been built up. Since the attack on the United States of America, we have worked together, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as a united Congress. They can reject this rule and send us back to the table. They can tell the Committee on Ways and Means to have open negotiations. They can say that the Democratic ideas are just as patriotic, just as sincere, and that we support the war against terrorism the same as Republicans. If they do not do that, if they do not give us an opportunity to be heard. What they are saying is, it is our way or it is the highway. I do not think it is fair. We have a stimulation package that we are working on, and we are trying to give the President what he wants in order to spur the economy. We are not supposed to do it as Republicans and Democrats; we are supposed to come together as responsible Members of Congress. So I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is not well thought out. It should not be just one-sided. Give us an opportunity to work together and to bring a product to our colleagues; and if we cannot do it, then at the very least, let there be an alternative for Members to vote for.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor in opposition to the rule. And I regret that the distinguished chairman of the committee has left the floor, because I do believe that, being in the minority, that the Committee on Rules has been extremely fair in giving Democrats an opportunity, not to pass anything and not to get any votes from them, but at least to give us the opportunity as the minority to have our views heard. This bill has been called a bipartisan bill. And you can call it bipartisan all day and all night, this year and next year, but you can put wings on a pig and he cannot fly. This is not a bipartisan bill. Bipartisan means, to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, walking down the hall with Rangel and giving him an opportunity to talk about trade. If I miss that, then I miss the bipartisanship. This was never discussed in the subcommittee, it never was discussed in the full committee, never discussed with Democrats, but there were meetings with two Democrats with the chairman. And he concluded after those conversations that ended compromise, that ended discussion, and that was the end product. Now, we are used to that on the Committee on Ways and Means, because my chairman truly believes that he was violated by former chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and he is going to spend the rest of his legislative career making us pay for it. That is okay. We all understand that and we will work with it. But we always thought the Committee on Rules was different. We always thought the Committee on Rules knew that they were in the majority, the Republicans; they had the votes, so they at least would let us have an opportunity to express ourselves. We know that we have the constitutional responsibility to deal in trade, but we know it is the President, like the head of any State, that has the responsibility to do it. But when you delegate your responsibility, there should be some checks, there should be some balances, there should be some credibility as to what you are doing. We know Republicans are concerned about labor standards. They do not support slave labor and child labor. They would like people to organize. We believe that we would not want foreigners to have a better opportunity in investment than Americans. We believe Republicans truly believe that the Congress should not just be consulted but should protect its constitutional right to make certain that foreign organizations do not destroy the laws that we have. But just to be so afraid that we will be heard because you do not have the votes or you have not bought enough votes or you do not have enough vehicles to talk about what you are going to give in some other field that you do not even give us a chance to tell you that we believe let us have TPA, let us have fast track, but we think there is a better way to do it. Why would you not give the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) an opportunity to show you what we have worked on? Is he someone that is a protectionist; someone that stood up to the United Auto Workers in Detroit; someone that we would not have had a bill with China had he not worked with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)? You know it and I know it. What about the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui)? He worked so hard for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Who can deny that this man has dedicated his life to free trade? What about the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott)? He will not be able to be heard on the bill that we crafted; someone that opened the doors for trade with sub-Saharan Africa? Are you so afraid of another view, are you so frightened that we will be heard and that you would lose some of the votes? And then this terrorism thing. How dare people say that we are not fighting the war against terrorism because we do not do what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says that we should do. Fighting the war against terrorism, the President says, requires a bipartisan approach. It means that it is not chairmen who run and rule; it is bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans working together, working their will, and presenting something to us. But I tell you this: If you really believe that doing the right thing with unemployment compensation and doing the right thing with health, when you have not done the right thing all year, that you are going to pick up some votes in doing it, and for those people who do not like the bill but are concerned about the crises and the hardships of people who have lost their jobs, and they are going to take a promise from the majority to trust them, vote for this bill and they will do the right thing for health insurance, if you believe that, I have a great bridge in Brooklyn I would like to discuss with you.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member, one who has worked so hard on the alternative to the majority bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a distinguished leader of Congress.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I am certain before the debate is over, staff will produce a document from Customs stating that. If not, we have a problem.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would not put the valuable reputation of the gentlewoman from Connecticut on the line for that statement because our side is convinced that Customs did not ask for it and do not support it. The gentlewoman knows how much I respect her.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Customs has no better friend than myself. When I was prosecuting narcotics cases, they were just as dedicated then in trying to keep those poisons from crossing our borders as they are today. But it bothers me that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) in calling the bill not sexy would spend most of her time talking about preventing child pornography when the last several speakers on our side were talking about civil liberties. As a matter of fact, I have not heard anyone on the other side deal with this. Mr. Speaker, we can have a good cause and good bill, fight terrorism, but if we ever lose sight of the constitutional rights of people to be protected, their civil rights, then we have lost this battle against terrorism. We have provisions here that say in this bill on the suspension calendar without the benefit of the thinking of the people on the Committee on the Judiciary that we are going to give some type of immunity, immunity to people who violate the rights of other people. The Customs Service did not support these changes. The Department of Justice did not ask for these changes. The Department of Treasury did not ask for these changes, and these changes can violate the very structure of the constitutional rights of our people. So hey, put on the record, Democrats are against child pornography; but let us get on with answering some of the serious constitutional questions concerning civil liberties that our side has raised.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill H.R. 2538, an important piece of legislation for the Native American small businesses community. Now, more than ever, we need to develop and expand the Native American private sector. Industries employ a growing number of individuals on reservations. The expansion of small businesses positively impacts these communities by putting money directly into their hands and places them directly in control of their destinies. In addition to creating new small businesses and enlarging existing ones we must provide management, technical, and research assistance to Native Americans who seek to create, develop, or expand small businesses. Only by providing them full access to the necessary business counseling and technical assistance can we ensure their success, a success that is so important to the future of those communities. With our priority to support the Native American small business community, we build a stronger economy and provide jobs to tribal members. This will, in turn, open the doors for the future of the tribal Nations. Native Americans face various challenges and we have the obligation to actively pursue methods to improve the Native American standard of living.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to the success of Hispanic businesses in the United States and Latin America and to offer my strong support of H. Con. Res. 277. The Hispanic community has become the fastest growing minority group in the United States. The Hispanic community plays an essential role in sustaining the viability of the nation's economy and the number of Hispanic-owned firms is growing rapidly. According to the Census Survey of minority-owned business enterprises, Hispanic-owned business in the United States totaled 1.2 million firms in 1997 and employed over one million people. These businesses generated nearly $200 billion in revenues. At the center of the growth is the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Over the years, the chamber has worked closely with the concerns and issues that affect Hispanic firms, developing business relationships, promoting international trade, and advocating to the Congress and Administration on behalf of these businesses. The Chamber's commitment to the Hispanic business community is a contribution to the economic empowerment of the Latino population as a whole and its impact has been felt throughout the Nation. Promoting Latino-owned businesses is particularly important in my congressional district of Upper Manhattan. The Hispanic influence in this community is significant and the Chambers' continuing efforts to promote such ownership, particularly in the small business arena is critical to the economic viability of my community and its future. For the Chamber's initiatives, I commend them.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of important legislation, S. 494, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act. First and foremost, I want to thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Payne, for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. Unlike previous bills that sought to penalize the people of Zimbabwe, this bill offers incentives to help guide their nation on a path of political and economic reform with United States assistance. I have watched the Zimbabwe crisis unfold over the past several years and am deeply concerned about the increasing repression and violence which has created deepening concern over the manner in which the upcoming elections will be conducted. Our hope in the Congress is that Zimbabwe will become a model for other democracies around the world by ensuring that the upcoming elections are executed in a free and fair manner which assures full participation by all its citizens and manifests the will of the people. The challenges that the nation of Zimbabwe faces are great. Zimbabwe is plagued with a horrific economic crisis that is characterized by extreme poverty, food shortages, and widespread loss of jobs and negative economic growth. These problems must be seriously addressed and dealt with in this nation's recovery efforts, but they cannot be unless political stability is achieved. It is of the utmost importance that stability and economic viability are restored to the people of Zimbabwe. I believe that this bill, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act of 2001, is the first step in achieving this end goal. Through the passage of this bill, not only will Zimbabwe benefit, but the entire southern region of Africa that has been impacted by this crisis will also stand to benefit from the passage of this legislation. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act of 2001 provides that when imperative political conditions are met, such as, restoring the rule of law, conducting fair political elections, and providing for equitable and legal land reform, that the U.S. will initiate an economic recovery policy. It also provides financial incentives, which include bilateral debt relief and U.S. support for similar action with the International Financial Institutions. This bill offers an opportunity for the U.S. and Zimbabwe to re- engage on the road to democracy and economic recovery. It recognizes the need for land reform and for the first time provides tangible U.S. support for its achievement. It authorizes $20m for land reform efforts and $6m for democracy and governance. This piece of legislation is very important to the friends of Africa who are dedicated to stopping civil conflict which impedes development and who continue to work on increasing trade opportunities and promoting economic growth for African nations. I stand today in support of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to also show their support for a democratic and prosperous future in Zimbabwe and the southern region of Africa.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to provide tax incentives for the revitalization of New York City, and in particular, Lower Manhattan. We all know of the terrible events of September 11, 2001, the awful loss of life, the heroism in the face of adversity, and the physical devastation. This was an attack not solely on New York, but on America. In the weeks following the tragedy, Lower Manhattan has suffered greatly and the economy of New York City has been struck hard, it really is America that has been struck. I cannot begin to say how much New Yorkers are grateful for the heartfelt response of their fellow Americans and people from all over the world. The prayers, the charity, and the promises of government support have all made an enormous difference in the ability of New York to begin to respond to and recover from the crisis. As one America we have responded to this dastardly attack in Afghanistan; across America; and, in New York. Through this unity I believe that Congress should provide the tools necessary for New York to fully recover from the attacks and assure that the vitality of Lower Manhattan be sustained. Lower Manhattan in 1624 was the first part of then New Amsterdam settled by Europeans. It has always been the heart of New York. It has been the entry point for millions of immigrants. Beginning in the 18th century and into the 21st century it has been the heart of finance in America and today the financial center of the world. Unfortunately, the impact of the attack on the World Trade Center has altered the character of Lower Manhattan. Many businesses have had to temporarily move out of the area. It is unclear if they will return. Many businesses depending on the traffic in the area are suffering. Many other businesses are contemplating a move out of Lower Manhattan. The City across the five boroughs has suffered as well. Revenues for the city and state governments are down significantly. Public institutions such as hospitals are suffering financially. Projects once thought possible are now on hold. Funds provided through FEMA will help considerably. The appropriations Congress will provide in the supplemental bill enacted after the attacks will also help. Nevertheless, there are still unmet needs and uncertainty that must be resolved. That is why I have introduced this legislation to provide tax incentives for New York's recovery. I am very pleased that my colleague from New York, Mr. Houghton, has introduced H.R. 3373, which also provides tax incentives for New York's recovery. I have cosponsored the bill. I am introducing this bill because it offers alternatives to H.R. 3373 and will allow New York Members to support varying means to speed the City's recovery. It will also allow Congress to chose the most effective and efficient provisions for the recovery. The provisions of this bill, are for the most part, included in the Stimulus Bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee. Two of the provisions would have been amendments to the Finance Committee bill had it been considered on the Senate floor. The bill proposes the following: A 20 percent wage credit to employers for the first $6,000 paid per year to employees working in Lower Manhattan from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2004. The credit is also available for wages paid employees by companies who were operating in Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001, and have subsequently moved to another part of New York City. An increase in the state cap for tax exempt private purpose bonds to $12.5 billion for projects in New York City. The first $7 billion of the increased cap must be used in Lower Manhattan. A limited liberalization of the ability of issuers of tax exempt debt to advance refund existing debt. New York City, the Port Authority, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Municipal Water Authority and nonprofit hospitals would be able to advance refund bonds that had previously been issued to advance refund bonds where the original bonds had bee redeemed. A special provision to allow taxpayers who lost property in Lower Manhattan as a result of the attacks to be able to expense the remaining basis in the lost property carried over to replacement property as the result of insurance payments where the replacement property is located in New York City. A one time $5,000 nonrefundable tax credit for residents of Lower Manhattan (with no more than $5,000 credit per residence). The credit would be phased out for those residents with incomes in excess of $150,000. I urge my colleagues, both from New York and the remainder of the nation to join together and help New York recover. The nation will never be the same as it was before September 11. The relationship between New York and the rest of the nation will forever be altered by the attack on the World Trade Center. We are bound together as never before. Together we will rebuild.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you an article that appeared in the Hill newspaper on Wednesday, November 28, 2001. This news story is concerning H. Con. Res. 249, a resolution that I recently introduced, which provides for a joint session of Congress to be held in New York City early next year. I am pleased to have this opportunity to share this story with my colleagues. [From the Hill, Nov. 28, 2001] NYC Congressional Session Gains Momentum (By Kerry Kantin) Despite the logistic hurdles that confront the notion of convening a session of Congress outside of Washington, D.C., momentum is building behind the movement to conduct a symbolic, one-day joint session in New York City. A resolution introduced last month has already captured the bipartisan support of 165 House members. The House effort is spearheaded by New York State delegation Democratic chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel, who is from Manhattan. Rangel, working with New York State GOP delegation dean. Rep. Ben Gilman, has been actively corralling support from both his Democratic and Republican colleagues. ``It would be historic. It would be a way of symbolizing the strike we took for the nation and their appreciation for it,'' said the 15-term Rangel in a phone interview last week. ``Any city or any town or village know the Congress is with them, like they're with New York City.'' Rangel acknowledged that there are several logistical obstacles, including where the session would be held and security issues, to iron out, but said that should not get in the way of members' support. ``No one's turning us down,'' Rangel added. ``I know I can get my signatures next week.'' Rangel and Gilman have written Dear Colleague letters, asking their support for the measure. ``We are equally impressed by our colleagues' support of a symbolic--but powerful--gesture to convene the Congress in New York for one day,'' write Rangel and Gilman in a Nov. 14 letter. ``We believe that such a session in the city where Congress first convened would be a powerful and meaningful expression of support to New York.'' The session would also provide an opportunity for all lawmakers to meet with New Yorkers, the letter adds. The movement to bring Congress to the Big Apple was catalyzed on the editorial page of the Sept. 25 New York Daily News. The New York tabloid wrote an editorial urging a joint session of Congress in New York City, even if it is only for one day. Rangel quickly picked up the cause and introduced a resolution on Oct. 12; New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and Charles Schumer (D), followed suit, introducing a companion resolution Nov. 15. ``We're working actively to see that it happens,'' said Schumer, of his and Clinton's efforts. ``It would be a shot in the arm for New York.'' In the House, the resolution has captured the support of 53 Republicans and 112 Democrats, ranging from Empire State liberals like Rep. Jerrold Nadler to Midwestern conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Don Manzullo (R-Ill.). The entire 31-member New York State delegation has signed on, as well as several other members from the Northeast. With the exception of retiring House Minority Whip David Bonior (Mich), the entire Democratic leadership has pledged its support for the resolution, but no one from the House GOP leadership. It has, however, received the support of other influential Republicans, including Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (Fla.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin (La.). ``Everyone has been extremely receptive,'' Rangel said. ``But when we get to the logistics, I hope they'll love me as much in the springtime as they do in the fall.'' Other members are wary to sign on until finding out more details. ``I saw the note from Charlie [Rangel], but Gosh, it's an interesting concept, but I don't know if I'm for it or against it,'' said House Republican Conference Chairman Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.). ``I do find it quite intriguing we would consider something like that,'' he added. ``I'm sure we would look at the pros and cons and give it a fair hearing. It seems to be a massive undertaking to move the mechanics of Congress to another location.'' While his primary focus is gaining as many signatures as he can, Rangel said he is looking into about six sites. He added that he is working with New York City Mayor-elect Michael Bloomberg (R) and other city leaders, like Bill Ruden, the chairman of the Association for a Better New York. Ed Skyler, a spokesman for the Bloomberg Transition Team, said the mayor-elect ``strongly supports'' the resolution. He added that Bloomberg discussed the issue during his trip to Washington earlier this month. Those in support of the resolution say the logistics can be hammered out at a later time. ``A lot of those things would need to be worked out,'' acknowledged Schumer, adding that lawmakers could not work out many of the fine details themselves and would need to leave issues, like security, up to other agencies, including the sergeants at arms. ``This is an act of showing congressional support for New York,'' said Kori Bernards, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), who supports the resolution.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am a proud Member of Congress today to be following the eloquence of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. His remarks were stirring and moving, and almost as wonderful as I felt when this great House went to the steps of the Capitol and sang together ``God bless America.'' None of us knew how New York would respond to what struck us, but it was abundantly clear that America had spoken and this Congress had spoken, and as the gentleman said so eloquently, that we knew that New Yorkers were going to fight back and our country was going to fight back and the Congress will be with us. It is difficult to see why we are here. Why are we in the hall? I leave here, and I have this time ahead of the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations because I am going to a meeting on the economic stimulus package, where the leadership of this House is asking for a $200 billion tax cut to be put in the stimulus package. What are we talking about? What is the $10 billion shortfall causing us to create an atmosphere where once, and not that long ago, we were in complete unity? In our delegation there was not a position between Republicans and Democrats, and outside of that, there was not a position in this House with Republican and Democrat. They shuffle around some money to give a handout to New York City, we thank them, but that money is coming from other congressional districts, and this evening some of our own Members will be moving to restore that money back to where originally it was supposed to be in their congressional district. Mr. Chairman, I leave this floor, hoping that no district in this country ever suffers a natural disaster or a terrorist strike or anything; but I tell the Members, I also wish that they never be treated like the people in the city and State of New York are being treated. We are not even given a reason why a promise made is not being kept. We have no reason why $10 billion is being taken away, allegedly to support the Department of Defense. So I appreciate the song, but I wish we could go home with the money.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support to the House Resolution expressing the Congress's appreciation to the General Accounting Office and its employees for enabling the House of Representatives to continue its work during the closing of our buildings as a result of the anthrax attack. The GAO provided office space for and administrative support of the House with little forewarning and its employees stood by, ready to be of assistance providing a warm welcome, that made our transition that much easier. I and my staff were personally pleased to be accommodated in the offices of Mr. McCoy Williams and Ms. Lynda E. Downing for several days providing us the opportunity to continue our work while they were inconvenienced. This sacrifice was and is greatly appreciated. During these turbulent times, our ability to depend on each other has been essential to an appropriate and expedient response to support and lead the Nation. The GAO is always an important component of our work and its performance during the most recent challenge exceeded all expectations. I thank them for their hard work and dedication.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of important legislation, H. R. 2722, the Clean Diamonds Trade Act. First and foremost, I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Hall, Mr. Houghton, and Mr. Wolf for their tenacity and commitment in seeing this bill through. Each of you has helped keep the Congressional spotlight focused on the terrible toll trade in conflict diamonds has had on the people of sub-Saharan Africa while continuing to encourage international agreement through the Kimberly negotiating process. You have worked diligently and responsibly to address the concerns the Administration and Chairman Thomas raised. You have also worked to address concerns I initially had on the impact of rough diamond regulations on legitimate diamond trade in countries such as Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Tanzania. Now more than ever we need to ensure that the revenues from legitimate diamond trade with African countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, and others are used to build the economics and infrastructure of nations who support the Kimberly Process. Botswana, for example, through its legitimate and peaceful diamond trade, has successfully increased its average annual income from eighty dollars three decades ago to approximately three thousand six hundred dollars today. In addition, Botswana's diamond trade revenues account for three-fourths of all exports earnings, one-half of government revenues and one-third of its gross domestic product. Botswana's diamond revenues are used to build schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, homes, and offices. It is our duty as lawmakers to penalize those countries that fuel conflicts with diamond revenues, but is also our responsibility to protect those African nations that are using legitimate diamond trade revenues to strengthen their economies, educate their people, and to be good and responsible neighbors to other countries around the world. I want to thank the Bush Administration for its assistance and willingness to consult with us. I know that the Administration had reservations with the legislation, and appreciate the time it spent to work through those reservations and to develop a mutually acceptable response to the dilemma of addressing this problem legislatively while continuing to support the Kimberly Process. The bill before us today is a prime example of what can happen when Members on both sides of the aisle commit to work with each other and with the Administration to address matters which are critical not only to the American people but also to the entire international community. I only wish that the cooperation shown on this bill would carry forward to other pending legislative matters. The bill we are discussing today, the Clean Diamond Trade Act, sends an important message of support to a continent which has seen far more than its fair share of pain and suffering. It reflects a strong commitment to the ongoing international dialogue that is aimed at dealing with this difficult problem. As with all compromises, this bill does not have everything I would like to see in it. However, it is a significant step in the right direction. Passage of the Clean Diamond Trade Act will undercut a conflict diamond trade that has financed organizations that have killed several million people, driven millions more from their homes, and committed countless human rights abuses. The violent conflicts spurred on by these groups are impeding growth and development throughout sub-Saharan Africa. By stemming this illegal trade, we can remove a key barrier to progress and prosperity in these countries. If we pass this bill, we work to preserve the dignity of an entire industry, which can and should be a source of wealth for countries around the world. This piece of legislation and its provisions are very important to the Congressional Black Caucus members and other friends of Africa who are dedicated to stopping civil conflict which impedes development and who continue to work on increasing trade opportunities and promoting economic growth for African nations. Through this bill, we seek to promote legitimate diamond trade, allowing countries such as, South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana to continue to benefit from their rich natural resource endowment. I think it's particularly important that we are discussing this bill today, as negotiators from over thirty countries are gathered in Botswana as part of the Kimberley Process, an effort to develop international standards for certifying legitimate diamonds. If we pass this bill, we send a signal to the international community that we are engaged, that we take this issue seriously, and that we hope an international agreement can be reached soon that will bring us significantly closer to eradicating this blight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.