Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from New York is right in dealing with the exceptions that are under this law. After we get finished with all of that, the only people that are left are the elderly, working families, and the disabled, and those who are in school. This is not a part of welfare reform. We have legislation that deals with welfare reform. We have legislation that deals with communities and States that require working for those people who are able to work. This is the only type of allowing the indignity of putting this type of burden on poor folks in public housing when there is no such requirement for any other type of Federal assistance, including Section 8. Now, HUD knew how difficult it would be for them to superimpose their standards on the welfare standards. This is a housing bill; this is not a welfare reform bill. That is the reason that they took so long in getting these regulations that are almost unenforceable, and that is the reason why they do not object to having this stricken from the record. Mr. Chairman, we have cut a lot of good services out of the HUD programs to be able to give assistance to kids to get education and recreation and to avoid drug addiction. But this is also an unfunded mandate that forces the public housing people to take a look at this and to put this burden on people when we have the cities departments of welfare, the State departments of welfare to do it. The Housing Authority is no place to enforce the welfare laws. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment would strike the funding for the redundant provision that is in the 1998 Public Housing Act that requires tenants in public housing to do community work. It has taken about 3 years for HUD to put together the regulations in order to guide this, and HUD does not oppose the striking of the funds that are imposed upon the tenants in public housing, because there is no other provisions for other people that receive Federal funds to do this type of thing. In addition to it, the local and State communities are all working hard under the welfare reform legislation to see that people who are able to work can work, and it is an unfunded mandate, and I am certain that HUD could be using the funds for other purposes. I understand the authorizing committee has no objections to this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 212 that expresses the importance of the Bush Administration sending a high- level delegation to participate at the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance (WCAR) scheduled August 31 through September 7, 2001. The United States of America where I am proud to be a citizen and who I proudly fought for in the Korean War, is a major global power that is called upon daily by nations around the world for leadership and guidance. As a global power, historically we have been outspoken on important matters concerning human rights abuses and civil rights offenses around the world. Our legacy is freedom for all human beings. We as a nation must once again exhibit the strong leadership that is our heritage and do the right thing by fully participating in the upcoming World Conference Against Racism. It is unconscionable that the Administration would even consider not attending such an important conference or provide the leadership needed to address this very important issue of world racism. Our full attendance is the only way we can ensure that the conference fulfills its primary purpose of addressing the issue of racism around the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H. Con. Res. 199 that celebrates the 30th anniversary of the Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs to occur in March 2002. I wish to first commend the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Program (NANASP) and my good friend Bob Blancato for their work on behalf of this resolution. I hope all my colleagues and the many national, state and local aging organizations will join in support. In 1972, Congress passed legislation authored by my friend and colleague, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, to establish for the first time a federal program to provide senior citizens with daily meals served either in congregate settings or in their home. It was viewed then as an important federal initiative to address the growing number of ``at risk'' seniors who faced hospitalization or time in a nursing home due to malnutrition and poor diet. During these past 30 years Older Americans Act nutrition programs have done a marvelous job of serving millions of senior citizens with vital nutritional meals and also providing them equally valuable socialization opportunities. We should also acknowledge those federal programs, which achieve and exceed their mission. The Older Americans Act nutrition programs so ably administered by the Administration on Aging, state and area agencies on aging and thousands of dedicated nutrition providers and volunteers, is one such program. I hope during the 30th anniversary celebration, we can recommit ourselves to the cause of promoting good nutrition for our older Americans through the Older Americans Act nutrition programs and the many vital private sector programs that complement the public dollars. One such excellent program is City Meals on Wheels that operates in my home New York City. Each year City Meals on Wheels raised millions of dollars to provide senior citizens with weekend, holiday, and emergency meals. I commend the dedicated men and women who work each day in our senior centers, community centers, schools and other congregate sites serving the meals under the Older Americans Act nutrition program. I also salute the many thousands of people who deliver meals to the homebound elderly. They are a vital link to these older Americans and often their work goes unheralded.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). Mr. Chairman, I come from a city that I am so proud of, but we have more than our share of problems when it comes to crime and drug addiction. The reason I have such a heavy heart is because from these poor communities, those that have access to a decent education and are able to get the tools to be able to negotiate through life, some have been able to make some major contributions to our communities, our city, our State, and indeed, our country. So many of us that come from these very same communities have been able to have the privilege to serve right here in the House of Representatives. I have heard a lot of that testimony here today. One of the greatest things in being an American is not how much money one has, not how much wealth one has, but how much hope one has. When one comes from a poor community and is forced, through racism and economic circumstances, to see poverty every day, and one does not have hope nor believe one has an opportunity to get out of it, then sometimes one looks at drugs and abuses drugs and alcohol, figuring that one has nothing to lose. Our young people really deserve better than that. That is what these programs are all about, to give kids enough hope to know that there is something to lose by making the mistakes and abusing drugs. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why this great Nation and this Congress is prepared year after year to invest billions of dollars in the building of jails and penitentiaries, and yet refuses to recognize not only the money that we would be saving in education and prevention, but the contribution we are making to our great country by increasing the productivity, increasing the competition. If we say that we respect the people living in public housing, why can we not give them the support that they need in the communities to make certain that the kids can have a productive life? These are rough times that we are going through because the majority has seen fit to rely on a $1.3 tax cut, and more is coming. But what good is the tax cut if we are not certain that we are going to be able to maintain economic growth? How can we do this unless we know that the workplace is going to be as productive as it can be, and how can we have this if we know that this great Nation of ours has more people locked up in jail per capita than any nation in the world and that 80 percent of the people who are locked up are there for drug- and alcohol-related crimes and that most all of these crimes are not crimes of violence but crimes where people have abused their own bodies? So it seems to me that we all can be better Americans and better legislators if we could leave here knowing that we supported legislation to provide the resources to allow our young people to know that there are higher dreams, there are better opportunities than abusing drugs. I congratulate all of those who have come to the well to try to convince us that we should leave here today saying that we have restored the money to the program.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, that proves what a great country we have, that friends can disagree and, at the same time, attempt to move forward. I think in addition to a great country, we have to really emphasize the importance of free trade and opening up new markets. Certainly for whatever tragedies people are suffering in Cuba, you cannot possibly believe that it is not worse in China. And if those on the other side of the aisle truly believe that trade is going to be the key of establishing better relationship and normalizing our relationship, then certainly I think we should have enough confidence in the American business people and enough confidence in the American people not to succumb to the dangers that communism offers. This is a strong Nation. We can survive the threats of communism. We can enter into extradition treaties in order to bring back the convicts that are there. Let us face it. If the present dictator dies, who is going to replace him?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, in the shadows of this great Republic of the United States is a small island 90 miles off our shore called Cuba. The most powerful Nation in the world somehow just fritters when we consider talking to the Cuban people, trading with the Cuban people or visiting in Cuba. The sanctions that we have had against this small nation that have been locked into place for over 40 years just have not worked. They never do. Unilateral sanctions never do work. It is so arrogant that not only do we have these sanctions against the Cuban people and their government but we are arrogant enough to put sanctions against our friends and our allies that want to do business with the people in Cuba. It falls beneath the dignity of a great country to try to bring down a government in any country by using food and medicine and economic exchange as a weapon in order to do that. There is no way that we are going to convince the American people that Fidel Castro is more of a tyrant, more of a dictator, more oppressive than people in other parts of the world which we are doing business with. In this very body, I could hear the opposition saying, ``The only way to bring down communism in China is to engage these people in economic activity. The only way that we can bring about democracy is by using the tools of trade and cultural exchange.'' We are saying the same thing about Vietnam, and a bill will be up before we go on recess, a country that is responsible for the taking of so many American lives. Again in North Korea, they are responsible for the loss of so many American lives. Again in China, responsible for the loss of so many American lives. We have never even had anyone mugged in Cuba. Yet we are saying that we have a higher standard in terms of ignoring the country and providing sanctions against us. But there is something else, too. Trade is a two-way street. We now have farmers in the United States that have had markets closed to us. It just seems to me that if China has to go all over the world to get its dairy products, its meat, its rice and its chickens, then why should the United States of America markets be closed? Why should Cuban Americans not be able to do business with Cubans? Why do we put these handcuffs on ourselves when we truly believe that trade and opening up new economic opportunities is really the key to democracy? So it just seems to me that, once again, we have an opportunity by taking away the funds that really operate this bureaucracy and to say that we respect the American people, we respect their economic judgment, and we respect the right of Americans to travel anywhere that Americans want to travel, that we are a strong people, we have a rich history and we do not allow Communists to frighten us here in the United States, in Havana, in Moscow or Hanoi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it abundantly clear to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the concept that I think is disgraceful has nothing to do with individuals but has something to do with the American people having the right, in my opinion, to visit any country that they would want to visit. I really believe that it is very bad policy for Americans, who are able to go to China, able to go to North Korea, able to go into Moscow, to be able to say that we are this fearful that we will be overwhelmed by the people, the good people in Cuba, or by Fidel Castro or by the military. So it seems to me that it is really offensive to the American people for someone to say that they have such little confidence in their willpower to succumb to communism in Cuba when we are strong enough, we are the strongest Nation in the entire world, to be able to say that flag that flies so hard is our flag.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.

Mr. RANGEL. I am telling you this, that Americans----

Mr. RANGEL. I think the gentleman is out of order.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of his amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is not difficult to support the positions that are taken by both sides here, those who have convicted murderers in Cuba and would want to see that they meet justice here in the United States. For those, it would seem to me that the best way to do it is the way we do it with other countries, and that is to have extradition treaties. We cannot have that unless we are trying to have some relationship, unless we are trying to talk to people. What you are doing here really is not beating up on Fidel Castro. He could care less what we are talking about here today.* * * You are saying that we do not trust Americans.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to call attention to the worldwide humanitarian crisis of AIDS. As we consider appropriations for fiscal year 2002, I urge my colleagues to increase our focus on the fight against HIV and AIDS. I support and applaud the substantial increase in funding to fight HIV/AIDS around the world. I am happy to see that Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 includes $474 million for combating HIV/AIDS, roughly $45 million more than the Bush administration requested. The bill provides for $100 million of the promised $200 million U.S. contribution to the new United Nations Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis. I hope that this contribution is the first of many, a down payment on our global future. As I consider the recent U.N. AIDS conference, I think about the world's people rallying together, in all of our richness and complexity, to fight something so basic yet elusive: a virus. It is shocking and difficult to absorb the reality of the expansive damage done by an organism so small. It was 20 years ago that we began this fight, and it is a difficult anniversary. Thankfully, past disagreement on this issue has given way to building consensus that AIDS is an international emergency that threatens global security and stability. For the United States, this is a matter of the highest urgency and national interest. The moral, humanitarian, economic, and international security threats posed by AIDS mandate concentrated and immediate action. We are all aware of the health crisis presented by AIDS. The facts are staggering and quoted often. At times, the numbers are so emotionally unwieldy that it is difficult to absorb the reality of this epic loss in a meaningful way. Again, we survey the damage: 21 million people have lost their lives to AIDS. Of those, 17 million victims were Africans. This loss of human life is unparalleled. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to about 10 percent of the world's population--and more than 70 percent of the worldwide total of infected people. The United Nations reports that 25.3 million adults and children in sub-Saharan Africa are currently infected with the HIV virus and that 12.1 million African children have been orphaned by AIDS since the epidemic began 20 years ago. These children are left to a life of malnutrition and limited educational opportunity. Beyond Africa, the impact of AIDS is increasing in Asia, Central America, Eastern Europe, and India. The situation is also dire closer to home. The Caribbean is fast The world's poorest countries are those hardest hit. As the virus destroys the lives and bodies of individuals, it east away at the very fabric of developing nation-states. Tragic and personal experiences with death in these countries are adding up to disastrous social and economic trends. UNAIDS states that 95 percent of the world's 34.3 million HIV- infected people live in developing countries, countries where access to care and much-needed medicines are limited. Development is reversed and already-fragile governments are strained. Developing economies are further marginalized by as much as 20 percent. As nations lose entire generations, they lose skilled workers, teachers, doctors, and leaders. The virus is depriving Africa of those who could best contribute to its future, leaving behind economic decline and political upheaval. African and other third-world nations, long on the back burner of U.S. policy consideration, now demand our attention and cooperation. This continuum of suffering must be met with a continuum of real and immediate intervention. This epidemic is truly the greatest developmental challenge of our lifetime. The situation is dire, yet is my hope that in the midst of this crisis, we can find great opportunity. Perhaps we can meet this challenge, employing crisis as a tool to improve medical training, treatment, and health care delivery infrastructure for the world's neediest people. We must meet the urgency of this great calamity and move from shocking figures to strategic, collaborative interventions. The United States must use both our resources and our moral influence as we urge all nations to join in this fight. We must augment our own contributions and urge increased international donations to the World Bank AIDS international trust and the U.N. Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis. The President recently requested roughly $2.5 billion for Theater Missile Defense (TMD). Surely, we can do more for AIDS. Strategic, multilateral partnerships must be formed between governments, non-governmental organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and private foundations and industry to further a comprehensive program of worldwide HIV/AIDS prevention, awareness, education, and treatment. We must focus on authorizing critical assistance to fight the disease in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries. I wish to stress that we must not lose hope as we face tough decisions and the difficult balancing of different positions and approaches. We must allocate rationed resources and discuss the appropriate balance between prevention, treatment, and research. We must craft a compromise between important international trade rules and critical access to HIV-related drugs. We must temper the urgent need for the availability of antiretroviral drugs with the reality of health systems that are not prepared for diagnosis and treatment. As we work to extend the lives of people living with AIDS, we must pursue aggressive and phased-in interventions. Without focused funding on the improvement of medical infrastructure, we entertain dangerous public health risks posed by the introduction of drug-resistant strains. We must anticipate and constructively respond to all these challenges as they arise, for they will arise. But let it be said: challenges and hurdles are never a reason to not attempt change, especially when the goal is reduction of extreme human suffering and prolonging of life. We must frame setbacks as opportunities for improved efforts. Lastly, I urge my colleagues to consider the effects of trade and debt reduction policies that influence the treatment of the disease. We must push for the full implementation of the African trade bill and Caribbean Basin initiative. Additionally, it is essential that we provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries and enable these countries to reinvest the savings in treatment, prevention, education, and poverty reduction efforts. I urge my colleagues to let these appropriations be another step in U.S. leadership on this issue. Our own citizens have led the fight in awareness and advocacy on this issue--let us meet them in their determination and dedication. Let these funds be the beginning of increased efforts to treat and prevent this terrible disease. If we miss this opportunity for leadership, we will lose an entire generation. We cannot come late in our response. I thank my colleagues for their continued cooperation and action on this issue. It is my wish that our efforts will result in a day where much like smallpox, the worldwide plague of AIDS will be only a memory; poignant, yet firmly in our past.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, while we take into account the millions who die each year in Africa from this deadly disease we know as HIV/AIDS, we must also focus our attention on the Caribbean, as the second largest population to become infected with this devastating disease, as reported in the front page of the Washington Post yesterday, for those who may have missed it, I submit it for the record. Two-thirds of all those diagnosed with the AIDS virus in the Caribbean are dead within two years. What is even more outrageous is that AIDS is the leading cause of death in the Caribbean for those aged 15 to 45 and the numbers are growing. About one in every 50 people in the Caribbean, or 2% of the population has AIDS or is infected with HIV, the virus which causes AIDS; more than 4% in the Bahamas, and 13% among urban adults in Haiti. The UN estimates that there were 9,600 children infected in the Caribbean. Further, the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre (CAREC) as well estimates that the overall child mortality rate will increase 60% by 2010 if treatment is not improved. Clearly, there is a need not only for the United States government's assistance but also for those major private foundations that provide AIDS money for Africa to also develop programs that will come to the aid of those in the Caribbean. I proudly commend Congresswoman Donna Christensen and her efforts to raise awareness in the community, as this disease is kept silent. I also commend the government of the Bahamas as being the only country in the region that has offered universal antiretroviral treatment over the last several years. While we simply take medical services and treatment for granted in this country, as the number of AIDS cases decreases per year in North America and increases in the Caribbean; it is our obligation to help provide assistance to these governments in order for them to provide a simple service to their people, enabling them to live prosperous and healthy lives.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to correct the misstatement of fact by the distinguished chairman who stated that churches can discriminate. They can, but not with Federal funds. This bill would allow them to discriminate with Federal funds. The motion to substitute would say they cannot. Mr. Speaker, I will later include for the Record the letter from Rosa Parks saying she does not support discrimination with Federal funds. Rosa & Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, Detroit, MI, June 26, 2001. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear John: As you know, I support legislative efforts to enhance the ability of religious and other faith-based groups to receive government funding in order to respond to community problems. I believe that helping grassroots churches access this funding can be fully consistent with our civil rights laws and the First Amendment This is why I want to express my support for amendments you plan to offer when the House Judiciary Committee considers H.R. 7 which would insure that government funds provided to religious organizations are not used to keep churches or other non-profits from working together for the betterment of us all. We do not want to change the 1964 Civil Rights Bill that we fought so hard to achieve. Churches already know that they cannot use food or other services they may provide as an excuse to force people to accept their religious views, while using government funds. I am certainly in support of making sure that does not happen. John, we have both spent our entire lives fighting against discrimination and in favor of the protections set forth in our Bill of Rights. The last thing we would want to do is permit H.R. 7 to be used to narrow the civil rights laws or to intrude on the First Amendment. It is my hope that adoption of these amendments will help broaden the bipartisan support for the bill and allow the measure to be quickly passed into law so that churches can increase their role in fighting poverty and other urban ills. God bless you and your good work. Peace and Prosperity, Rosa Parks.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to further allocate the time.