Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance of a National day for the Words Can Heal campaign as called for in H. Res. 235 introduced by our collegue Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and passed by the House on the Suspension Calendar on Tuesday, November 13, 2001. As children, many of us were taught the expression ``sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.'' This phrase was intended to provide a tool for kids, often victims of cruel words and thoughtless remarks, to protect themselves. While this concept often allowed children to stand strong against painful statements, as adults we sometimes de-emphasize the importance that the use language plays in our relationships. When we take part in gossip or say inconsiderate things about others, we disrespect the people we are talking about, those with whom we are engaging in conversation, and especially ourselves. This disparagement can create an environment of negativity and foster a community where the role of each person is under-appreciated. Rabbi Katsof's revolutionary effort to reduce verbal violence and gossip provides us the opportunity to use language to heal our wounds rather than deepen them. The power of words to bring a smile as opposed to a tear cannot be understated. While few people would disagree, despite our best intentions, we sometimes veer off course and need a nudge in the right direction. Rabbi Katsof understands this and his national media campaign designed to encourage us to use ethical speech each and every day has the potential to help us not lose sight of the significance of the words we use.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This agreement expires on December 4, and I rise in support of the bill. I sharply disagree with the statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means that this bill is just a little short of being perfect. I think we have a very, very long way to go to get our House and to get our committee back to the traditional concept that trade bills ought to be done in a bipartisan way. There are just some things that are so important that many of us believe that we ought to set aside the strong objections that we have because it would be in the best interests of trade, the best interests of the people in the Andean countries, and fulfill the commitments that the American people have to our friends in this area. But I just wonder whether it is just old-fashioned to have bills and to have hearings on these bills, to have Members be able to share their concern about the economic impact that would result as a result of passing legislation. I do not think we should have Republican bills and Democratic bills. And I do not think there is anyone in this House that objects to having trade, because it is just abundantly clear that trade is good for the United States. Trade creates jobs here, it expands our economic base, it allows us to have stronger friends, stronger trading partners, it promotes peace; but I do not see why we should not have more dialogue, why we should not have more hearings, why all of these things have to be done in such a unilateral way and why people just have to come to the floor and vote up and down, and if anyone disagrees with a bill that has been drafted unilaterally that automatically their patriotism is being challenged. It is not over just because we pass a bill here. There are conferences. There are differences that have to be worked out. There is no reason why a good bill has to cause people to lose their jobs, whether it is in the textile industry or whether it is in the tuna industry. And people that complain about these jobs are not just whiners and those that are opposed to trade, they are just trying to keep the people in their districts from going on welfare or from having to try to get unemployment compensation, which we cannot even get a decent bill out of our committee to do that. We have to realize that we are at war, and war means that we have to at least appear to be bipartisan and that we cannot allow personalities and politics to have a stronger impact in what we do than having respect for each other even when we disagree. I have a lot of disagreements with what is in this bill. I have a lot of disagreements with the procedure. I have a lot of disagreements with the process, the same way I do and did with the so-called trade promotion authority bill, or fast track. I am not going to let anyone challenge my patriotism because I disagree with the process, the procedure and the substance of those bills. Nobody should have their patriotism challenged because they have legislative disagreements. We have to try desperately hard to make certain that these real disagreements do not bubble up to be disagreements that are going to be attached to parties, because if you study this bill, there are enough things that Republicans and Democrats should be working out together rather than having egos control the agenda. And so while I support this bill, we have commitments to our friends in Africa, in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we have to give support to those that are fighting the drug fight. My good friend and brother, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and I have been around the world for decades trying to stamp out the growth and the processing of drugs. But in poor countries you have to make certain that you give them some economic opportunities to substitute for those crops of death and destruction with crops and industries that promote a positive production of goods and services. So I just hope that because I have cosponsored this bill and because Democrats on the committee that have very strong objections to the way this came to the floor are voting for this bill, that it not be perceived that the problems that we had yesterday have disappeared today. If by coming forward and supporting the progress of this bill, it means that we can expect more cooperation from the other side of the aisle in conference, and that is turning and becoming a new attitude as it relates to other trade agreements that we will participate in, then it is a good day. I would like to point out, too, that I have not had any problem with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade; but I might add that I am disappointed that he has not been able to play the role that he has played in past sessions of Congress in trade because we have had just as many differences of opinion, but we have found ways to work our way out of them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the purpose of controlling time, an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade and one who, without his efforts, we would not have many of the trade bills that we have today.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 257 and to honor the outstanding service provided by the men and women of the United States Postal Service since the terrorist attacks of September 11. I wish to express special appreciation for all postal workers and their dedication to the mission of the Postal Service during this time of national crisis. Even as our homeland was besieged by terrorist attacks and devastating tragedy the United States mail service continued. United States Postal Service workers are the unsung heroes of this nation. Come rain, snow, sleet, and now the threat of anthrax exposure our mail continues to be delivered with minimal interruption. Two postal workers have given their lives, four workers have contracted inhalation anthrax, and another three have contracted cutaneous anthrax and still our U.S. mail delivery continues. Who would have ever thought that these conscientious postal workers who were committed to doing their jobs would be front line warriors in this war against terrorism? It is our duty in the Congress to ensure the safety and well being of these courageous and patriotic postal workers, just as we ensure the safety and well being of other federal employees. As a nation we must salute the fine work of our postal workers and not take for granted their commitment to the mission of our United States Postal Service.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and against the cockamamie idea that only people that are against trade or are against the bill can come to the floor to have something to say about it. I just do not believe that when we support a bill or we support a rule, that automatically means that it is bipartisan. Bipartisan means that Republicans and Democrats set aside their labels and try to find out what is best for the country, what is best for international trade, what is best for Members of Congress. Just because everything is not violently opposed does not mean that people support the concept of bringing bills to the floor based on the thoughts of the distinguished chairman from California. There is the old fashioned way to do it, and they call it hearings. We do not have to do it that way, but just because there is not a name- throwing episode with everything that comes out of the committee, I do not think it raises this type of procedure to the level of being called bipartisan. And supporting trade, international trade, does not mean that one can be insensitive to the impact that it has on hard-working Americans. Of course, economic growth is going to be dependent on expansion of trade. Of course, expansion of trade means that there is going to be dislocation and pain. That comes from progress. But it does not mean that we should not be sensitive to the negative impact that it has on hard-working Americans and that we should not do all that we can to ease that pain. And we should discuss it; we should have hearings. Americans, whether in Puerto Rico or whether they are in American Samoa, should have an opportunity to share with us what will be the negative economic impact on our citizens in that part of the world. The fact that I support the rule and support the legislation does not mean that I am not going to do all I can to make certain that equity is displayed not only for our textile workers and manufacturers, but for our people in American Samoa and people in Puerto Rico. It seems like if anyone has a complaint about anything, that they are depicted as being whining and screaming and un-American. Even when it gets to the trade promotion authority, one can be even unpatriotic because one disagrees with some unilateral proposal that came out of my committee. We have to get back to the idea that just because we all do not read from the same page does not mean that one is less patriotic than the next person. I want to say that we have a lot of things to work out here. We have assurances from the chairman that he has to see some negative evidence of what is happening in Samoa and Puerto Rico, and we have to do that. We have to work with our friends, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. We have to try to perfect this. We have to try to do in conference what we did not do at hearings. So let us try to be a little more gentle with each other. The country is at war. We have a job to do. We have to have mutual respect for the intent of the Members that are trying to perfect our legislation, and not just be opposed to it.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the victims who lost their lives in the crash of American Airlines flight #587 on Monday, November 13, 2001 and to offer my condolences and support to their families and friends. In the last two months, New York has witnessed such horrific losses and today we mourn the loss of more than another 250 friends. The flight that crashed was heading to the Dominican Republic and the list of passengers reflects the Dominican presence in New York City--a vibrant community that is an integral part of our National cultural mosaic and part of the wonderfully diverse constituency that is my privilege to serve in the U.S. Congress. Our attention now turns to the Dominican people, both here and in their motherland, who suffered a grievous loss. As I read the news reports, I notice the family relations on the flight which ties our community to a small country in the Caribbean. Mothers taking children to visit a never seen homeland. Nephews visiting aunts. Husbands returning to bring wives to their new lives. Parents on first vacations without the children. All the stories reflect lives prematurely ended leaving loved ones. We cannot reverse the tragic event of yesterday and only time will perhaps reveal the circumstances that caused it, allowing us to better understand why. Today we can stand with the Dominican community and offer our assistance in the healing and restoring of their lives. We can let them know that they are not alone during this time and that we pledge to provide every available resource to them. To the people of my district and its people of Dominican heritage: The past years we have worked side by side to improve the lives of our people and we have seen many wonderful changes. Your presence has enriched my life and contributed to the diversity that defines Upper Manhattan. I am so proud to represent you. Last night, in Washington Heights, I saw your tears and felt your pain. Please know that I mourn with you for your loss is my own. Mi apoyo, compansion, y solidaridad va para todos mis hermanos dominicanos. Frente a la tragedia y la adversidad, mi corazon esta con todos ustedes.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one does not know the strength of a family or a community or indeed a country until we have been hit hard by a disaster; and certainly our country and my city was hit hard on September 11. But we just do not know how long it is going to take and what the response is going to be until things like this happen, because yesterday morning Flight 587, an American Airlines flight, took off from Kennedy headed for Santo Domingo. It crashed 2 minutes later. 260 people lost their lives; 9 of these people were part of the crew. Almost all of these people were Dominican. Almost half came from my congressional district, and this morning I was there with the survivors as they were looking for social services and trying to identify those who have been lost. Mr. Speaker, I say this because all of us in the Congress and the country really have to treat each other with more civility and more dignity and be more aware of those who give their lives and help ease the pain when communities suffer something like this. These people who left to go to Santo Domingo for Thanksgiving or Christmas to have family reunions left behind people who will never see them again. It is just a reliving in a lesser way the nearly 5,000 people who are dead or presumed to be dead as a result of the tragedy of September 11. We cannot restore these families, we cannot bring back the lives, but we can talk about the services that have been available, the courageous people who have tried to save lives, those that continue to give spiritual and social services. We can thank Members of Congress such as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for reminding us and being able to never allow us to forget that we have to be ever vigilant, we have to be ever prepared to give these prompt services to families and especially to children of these families. Getting in the habit of caring, getting in the habit of loving, getting in the habit of recognizing that we all are just one family makes it easier for us to respond and makes it easier for the affected families to try to bring their lives together. I think that the Congress does well by giving support to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the sponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), be allowed to control the remainder of my time on this bill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, this is a great privilege and honor for me, and one that I have never really enjoyed before, to talk about a friend that has passed away and at the same time to talk about trying to leave something that is made out of steel and concrete as a memory for him. This is difficult because Judge Watson was anything but a monument. He was just a living example of what a great country that we live in. It is true, as the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said, he came from a family that is well known, a family of hard workers and high achievers. But still that same family, as the gentleman pointed out, really never left the Harlem community. They were always there as mentors for those who wanted to help themselves. Judge Watson served as a guide and a symbol of what can happen in this great country when people try to make something out of their lives. So whether he was a lawyer or whether he was a judge, he was always somebody that we just called plain old ``Skiz.'' It is remarkable how his family was able to visit with him, his daughter Chris and other daughter Karen, while he was on his death bed. I have never in my life heard of anyone that was leaving that was so concerned about his friends and family that he mapped out everything that he would like to see happen before he left us, and had a chance to tell each and every one how much he loved them. Madam Speaker, I just think that it is fitting that all of the judges have come together to request that this building that they have worked in, the International Trade Court, be named after one of them because he was representative of all of their feelings. Even though he did retire in name only, on the complex cases he was called in, and he welcomed the opportunity to continue to serve as he served in combat and was wounded and received the Purple Heart for his World War II services. If there was any award that we could possibly give a civilian that loved his country and his community until literally the day that he died, then Skiz, or Judge Watson, would be the person. It is a privilege for me from the community, from the City and State of New York, to be the sponsor of this legislation. Its passage would mean that generations to follow will know who Skiz was and what he meant to our great country.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Republican colleagues for fashioning a bill that really makes it so easy for people to distinguish the difference between Republicans and Democrats. It is abundantly clear that you are just as patriotic as anybody in this House and you believe the way to fight terrorism is to provide funds to multinationals which converts that into jobs. Some of the economists that we were listening to kind of thought that this should be consumer-driven. They never thought that corporations with large inventories, with cars they cannot sell and washing machines they cannot sell, that they would be entitled to a $25 billion, would you say loan or would you say credit or would you say giveaway? And then you have got to convert this automatically into jobs but some say, or into dividends. I think that your ideas are not well founded. Certainly they have been rejected by what used to be the Secretary of the Treasury, but when he disagrees with your leadership, he becomes an underling. When the President disagrees with you, he is a bad fellow; but when he agrees with you, he is enlightened. Let me tell you this, we are going to have a conference and you can run and hide all over this House of Representatives, but Charlie Rangel is going to find that conference this time and I am going to be involved in the conference this time. If the President wants a bipartisan bill, I have assurances that is what we are going to get. You have to learn that America, they really do not want to go for these tax giveaways. They want security. They want to know that the Social Security fund is there. They want to know that Medicare is going to be there for them. They want education for their kids. We have not forgotten the newly found ideas that President Bush found on the campaign trail, Patients' Bill of Rights, help with prescription drugs. These are still the American dream. And when we are at war, the rich have to know that spending money at Disneyland does not pay for it. Yes, we freeze the top rate for a tax rate that they did not get yet. And we say that everyone has to share. You just came around to realizing that those who pay payroll taxes are entitled to some relief. I thank you for it. I assume that is what you call bipartisanship. You take a good idea, label it Democrat, talk with nobody, fold it in with the garbage that you have and you got a bipartisan bill. I think we have got to clean that up; but I do hope that you consider trying to talk with people, being nice with people, being considerate with people. It did not last too long, this bipartisanship; but the little time we had it, I enjoyed it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. I can see the bumper sticker now: ``Fight Terrorism, Support Welfare Reform for Corporations.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my friend. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Oh, the show is over. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that another thing my colleagues will hear repeated over and over again is the fact that you are looting the Social Security Trust Fund in order to pay these faceless corporations. And the American people understand this. You can talk about loans and credits all you want. You are using Social Security money to give bonuses to your corporate friends. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it just shows, I would say to the gentleman, that we have more confidence in people spending than we do in corporations that are not doing well in creating new jobs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the committee. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)