Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end racial and ethnic stereotyping in our national media. While many ethnic groups have been victimized in this way. Italian-Americans have lately been the target of a hit television program about a family of gangsters, titled ``Sopranos.'' Frankly, all of the Italian-Americans that I know are honest, upstanding citizens who work every day to support their families, to educate their children, and to build their communities. They are blue- and white-collar workers and professionals. They vote, pay taxes, and believe in the American dream that hard work will yield success. My dear friend and our former colleague in the House of Representatives, the Hon. Frank Guarini, eloquently addressed this issue in a letter to the Wall Street Journal on February 15, 2000. [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, 2000] For Italians, ``Sopranos'' Hit a Big, Sour Note (By Frank J. Guarini) Eric Gibson's Jan. 28 de gustibus column (``Second Thoughts About a Mob Hit on Sunday Night,'' Taste page, Weekend Journal) correctly notes that the HBO series ``The Sopranos'' and others like it have put a slick entertaining face on a subgroup of criminals who rightly deserve society's harshest condemnation. We wish he had taken his criticism one step further, however, and included the harm that programs like ``The Sopranos'' do to the image of an estimate 20 million Americans of Italian descent. Thanks to Hollywood and television, Italian Americans see their culture, religion and customs repeatedly used to give ``color'' to stories about organized crime. As a result of such stereotyping, most Americans believe Italian Americans are prone to the same violent, immoral behavior that ``The Sopranos'' offers up as entertainment. The National Italian American Foundation would like to see HBO present Italian-Americans as they really are: as scientists, educators, military and political leaders and entrepreneurs. It's time for the entertainment industry to balance the false and harmful stereotypes of organized crime figures like Tony Soprano and his mob crew by creating Italian American characters who are educated, law-abiding and articulate.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we work toward final passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, I want to reiterate the importance of the provisions related to textile and apparel products. These provisions are paramount to the success of the legislation's primary objective--to promote the use of trade as a vehicle for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa. In the March 7, 2000 edition of my hometown journal, the New York Times, Tom Friedman makes a compelling case for a commercially viable trade bill for Africa. While 85% of the garments sold in the United States are sewn outside of the United States, all 48 sub-Saharan African countries produce less than 1% of these products. Twenty-two individual countries export more clothing to the U.S. market than all of the countries in the entire sub-Saharan Africa region. Friedman rightfully points out that even ``little Honduras'' exports seven times more textiles and apparel to the U.S. than all 48 nations of sub- Saharan Africa combined. It is critical that the African Growth and Opportunity Act that we pass contains provisions that allow African countries to produce duty- free textile and apparel without insurmountable hurdles and quantitative restrictions. Quantitative restrictions placed on that production are certain to discourage the investments necessary to grow industries and compete with Asian countries in the U.S. import market. In this case, the so-called ``technical details'' of the final bill, though often overlooked, will mean the difference between a bill that is commercially viable for African and a symbolic bill. A symbolic bill would fail to sufficiently bolster African economies so that these countries can become better trading partners with the U.S. and better friends in the fight against transnational threats, such as illicit drug trafficking, environmental degradation, international terrorism and infectious disease. I agree with Tom Friedman. Shame on all of us if we do not seize this historical moment to help, in a meaningful way, over 290 million people in sub-Saharan Africa living on $1 a day. In this era of globalization we must not ignore and leave behind 10% of the world's population. [From the New York Times, Mar. 7, 2000] Don't Punish Africa (By Thomas L. Friedman) There is a travesty brewing in Congress that, if allowed to continue, will be a source of shame for all Americans. It will certainly be an ugly stain on the U.S. labor movement, particularly the apparel union and the A.F.L.-C.I.O.--a stain that will highlight all the unions' phony-baloney assertions in Seattle that they just want to improve worker rights around the world and help the poor. This controversy has to do with a stalled trade bill called The African Growth and Opportunity Act. And the bottom line is this: At a time when Africa is ravaged by AIDS, at a time when 290 million Africans--more than the entire population of the U.S.--are living on a dollar a day, the main U.S. textile union, UNITE!; the main textile manufacturers' lobby, ATMI; and the lawmakers who bow to both of them are blocking a bill that would allow Africans to export clothing to America duty free--instead of with the current 17 percent import tax. Why the opposition? Because Africa might increase its share of U.S. textile and apparel imports from its current level of 0.8 percent! Shame on the people blocking this bill. Shame on them. Some 85 percent of the garments sold in the U.S. today are already sewn abroad. Honduras, little Honduras, already exports seven times more textiles and apparel to the U.S. than all 48 nations of sub-Saharan Africa combined. With our minimum wages, we can't produce jeans that retail for $16 and we don't want to. North Carolina's textile industry has already become highly automated and has moved away from low- value goods to high-value, high-tech fabrics. Much of the unionized labor force sewing clothes in the U.S. is in large cities and comprises new immigrants, many not citizens, since most Americans don't want these jobs. If Africa were given duty-free access to our market, sophisticated textile plants in North Carolina wouldn't move to Madagascar. China would be the big loser, because Africans have the same skills to knit cashmere sweaters cheaply as people in China, and if Africa were given a 17 percent import tax advantage in shipping to the U.S., manufacturers would move their production from low-wage China to low-wage Africa. Which is why a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission concluded that ``the impact of quota removal [for African imports] on U.S. producers and U.S. workers would be negligible.'' So why do the unions still oppose it? Sheer knee-jerk protectionism--even though the bill has tough measures to protect against any surge in imports from Africa, and restricts free-trade status to African countries moving toward democracy, economic reform and real worker protection. No matter. Right now the only version of the bill the textile makers would permit is one that says Africa can only import duty-free into the U.S. if it first buys all the fabric, thread and yarn from U.S. factories, then ships it to Africa to be sewn, and then ships it back to the U.S. to be sold--a costly obstacle course that would prevent any new investment in African factories. The real motto of U.S. trade unions is: We're for more worker standards in Africa, not more work. This is really bad. This bill isn't a panacea for Africa, but it's important. Throughout the history of industrialization, poor countries have started down the road of development by sewing clothes. It's the one thing that poor people can do right away. It's critical that this bill go through now because by 2005 all the quotas on textile imports into the U.S. will expire. It will be a free-for-all. Right now investors are deciding where to locate plants for 2005--whether to stick with China or branch out to Africa, Vietnam or Mexico. If Africa is shut out from these investment decisions, it will fall even further behind. The Clintonites talk the talk of Africa and AIDS, but, sadly, they have been afraid to get tough with the unions on this textile issue. Why is AIDS spreading so quickly among young women in Africa? One reason is that women have so few jobs they have to sell themselves to men with AIDS. Apparel jobs largely employ women. They make a difference. But this is of no interest to the A.F.L.-C.I.O. crowd. All they care about is that Africa not sell more than 0.8 percent of garments here. Shame on them for what they are doing, and shame on us if we let them.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor the distinguished Caroline Guarini, mother of our former colleague, U.S. Congressman Frank J. Guarini, Jr., on the celebration of her 100th birthday, March 25, 2000. After 100 years, Caroline continues to be an inspiration to us all, a model wife, mother, and human being. Her everlasting dedication to those who are less fortunate, combined with her devotion to those who surround her, stand as testament to Caroline's commitment to making this world a better place for everyone. Born on March 25, 1900, in Niagara Falls, NY, Caroline attended the Loretta Convent School and a business academy in Ontario, Canada. After completing her studies, she worked in her family's furniture business for a time, and in 1923 married Frank J. Guarini, Sr., who was a well known and highly respected attorney in Jersey City, NJ. A lieutenant in the U.S. Army during World War I, her husband was corporation counsel in Jersey City and a prominent member of the New Jersey Legislature. Together they enjoyed a life in politics. Caroline has been active in many charitable and civic groups including the Cleo Club, the Dante Alighieri Society, and the American Committee for Italian Migration. Concerned for the needs of the less fortunate, she has spent countless hours delivering baskets of food and toys to the poor during the holiday seasons. As a senior citizen, she served as a hospital volunteer for the sick and elderly. Caroline's talents include singing and playing the piano. She has been active in her church choir and, at 100, still plays the piano remarkably well. The Guarinis had two children, Frank Jr. and Marie. Influenced by the spirit and example of his parents--and since the apple doesn't fall far from the tree--Frank J. Guarini, Jr., studied law and went into politics. A distinguished attorney, he was elected to two terms in the New Jersey State Senate and seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. He served on the Ways and Means Committee and the Budget Committee. He was majority whip at-large for the Democratic leadership. He recently served as the United States of America Representative to the General Assembly of the United Nations. During World War II, the former member of Congress saw active combat duty in the Pacific as a Navy lieutenant. Caroline's daughter and faithful companion, Marie, married Albert Mangin and began her career at New York's Lexington School for the Deaf, later teaching elementary school in Newark. The Mangins are the parents of two children, Peter, a noted attorney who is president of the Garden State Development which is engaged in rebuilding the Hudson County Waterfront, and Carol, who holds an MBA and is a medical consultant at Meditech in Boston. When family and friends ask what she is looking forward to in the new millennium, Caroline, in her usual warm and gracious manner, says, ``The celebration of my 100th birthday!'' Through a life that has spanned three centuries and two millennia, one phrase has followed Caroline throughout, and continues to ring true today--what a lady!

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, if the Republicans want to have reform with results, if the Republicans really want to give some aid and assistance and comfort to the working poor, if the Republicans want to give a $1 increase in the minimum wage and at the same time give substantial relief to the employers that will be required to do this, they would support the motion to recommit. Why? Because they would know that this motion to recommit would send to the President a bill that would do these things, and it would be a bill that would be signed by the President of the United States. I know that many on the other side do not like the President. The question is, do they care for the American people and the working poor? He is still the President, and we have to work with him until the end of the year. If we want any bills at all to pass, we should be cooperating with Democrats and the President in order to get it done. They just cannot pile $122 billion on a tax bill and forget the $5 trillion debt that we have and just move on, thinking that ultimately, before the year's end, they would have accomplished in piecemeal what they could not do last year with the $800 billion tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that we do have an opportunity to vote on the motion to recommit. It incorporates most of the things that the Republicans would want done, some of the provisions we have worked with in a bipartisan way, and just rejects out of hand the irresponsible tax cuts, most of which go to the richest Americans that we have. We still have an opportunity to deal with some of the serious questions of Medicare, social security, giving assistance in prescription drugs to our elderly, protecting a Patients' Bill of Rights. Democrats cannot do this alone, and we know in their hearts these are the issues they would want to address, but they just cannot do it by going into the Republican cloakroom and coming out with these imaginary, creative ideas without consulting with the minority and the President of the United States. Is it not time we stop playing these political games? There is enough politics to go around between now and the election. Let us not play with the poorest of the poor, who are working every day to maintain their self-esteem, to provide food and clothing, pay their rent, get shelter for their kids. Let us not play around with social security and Medicare. Let us do the right thing by the American people and support the motion to recommit. This could truly be a beginning, a beginning in saying that now that we have the presidential primaries behind us, that the candidates can stop going after each other on a personal basis and decide how they are going to address these issues to the American people on the question of issues and not personalities. We in the House, where truly the people should govern, should set the examples for our presidential candidates by dealing with the issues, and not personality and not politics. We do not get this opportunity often, but this is the beginning of a new era, we would believe. The Members of the Committee on Ways and Means would like to be working together in dealing with tax policy. We resent the idea that tax bills are coming out from the Committee on Rules and other standing committees without hearings, without debate, to just bring things to the floor because it passed the majority in the last year. What we should do is separate the question of taxes and deal with the question of minimum wage. That is why we are here in this body encouraging people not to go on welfare but to work, work for their families, work for their communities, work for their country, and we will give them a decent wage with which to do it so they would not think about going on welfare. But we cannot have it both ways. We are talking about $6.15. Is there anyone here that would like to send anybody in their family out to the work market to earn $6.15? Give America a break, vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For someone to say that Democrats are against any tax cuts, they obviously did not read the substitute. We have $36 billion worth of tax cuts here. The only difference is that we give a clear, no-tax status to those people who have estates that are $4 million tax free and we give relief up to $13 million. The Republicans have most all of their tax cut going to people in higher incomes. So one cannot say that when we look at the substitute, we have a $36 billion tax cut there, that we do not believe in tax cuts. The truth of the matter is that the majority does not believe in a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage, because if they did believe in it, they would have worked out in a bipartisan way how we could bring the President to sign a bill. It is as simple as that. As a matter of fact, if they had just stopped at $36 billion, we could have walked out of here, men and women, Republican and Democrats, going to our home districts and saying, not only did we help those that work every day, even though it is at near-poverty wages, but we gave relief to small employers who may not be able to afford that $1. That is what we could have done. That could have been the beginning of us working together toward other tax cuts after we take care of Social Security and Medicare and affordable drugs, after we make certain that we protect the patient's right to be able to sue, after we do those basic things, again, not as the majority and minority, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Members of Congress working together to improve the quality of life for most Americans, especially working Americans. There will be enough differences for us to go to the polls and to campaign, but we do not have to fight on each and every issue. Why cannot the majority take a deep breath, get a life, and try to do some of the things that the senior Senator from Arizona was saying. Be responsible. Stop thinking only in terms of tax cuts. The American people say, I want a tax cut. They are saying, that is my money. But we have a responsibility to take care of that over $5 billion of Federal debt that we have to pay down. We have to take care of Medicare. We have to take care of Social Security. While we are at it, they say, yes, take care of cutting my taxes; but during this period of prosperity, do not deny the working poor a $1 increase in the minimum wage. So I suggest to the other side that they know that they have begged for a veto. The worst thing that could happen to my colleagues is for the President to decide not to be held hostage and to swallow these irresponsible tax cuts, but that is not going to happen. Because it was this President that has led us to this period of prosperity and he is not going to allow politically motivated Members of this House to drive them into doing something this irresponsible because he wants a minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for my colleagues to change their wayward ways and to attempt to sit down and to work with Democrats and to work with the President and to do the right thing. My Republican colleagues could not get this 800-pound gorilla off the floor last year, and you will not be able to do it this year.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to respond to what the gentleman from Arizona just alleged.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not care how much time they give my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), to speak. He has to be pretty hard put to find any bipartisanship on the tax provisions in this bill. We can rest assured if there was any attempt, we would not find 90 percent of the tax cuts going to 10 percent of the highest income people here. If we did have a bipartisanship, we would not find three-fourths of the tax cuts going to the highest income people. Let me say this to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). He came pretty close to calling one of our colleagues a liar that was speaking. He came very, very close. I do hope that a reflection on the Record might bring out the best that he has in his personality and his character so that we can continue to work together as friends in this legislature, notwithstanding the TV shows that he watches. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The senior Senator from Arizona would be proud of the gentleman that represents the 6th Congressional District of Arizona as related to 100 percent deductibility of health insurance because that is in the Democratic bill and in the Republican bill and so many other things he speaks well of; but he would be sorely disappointed that you would just ignore the needs for Social Security and Medicare as you go on and take 75 percent of that amount, of the $122 billion tax bill, and make certain that those who are the wealthiest benefit most. You did a fantastic job up until Tuesday, and I hate to see you losing those principles now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) just got finished talking about the degree of bipartisanship that went into this bill; and if he is talking about his willingness to work with Democrats in order to reach bipartisanship, nobody in this House works harder than he does in order to accomplish that end. But my friend knows that, as relates to this particular bill, that his colleagues on the other side of the aisle put tax cuts on top of tax cuts on top of tax cuts until they were convinced that the President of the United States would veto this bill. This has nothing to do with the degree of cooperation that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has given to us in the Committee on Ways and Means over the years. But that small bit of bipartisanship that is displayed in this bill is overwhelmingly knocked out by the degree of partisanship to make this bill be vetoed. I look forward to the day that we will not be talking about one part of a bill but that we will be talking about an entire bill as we work together, Republicans and Democrats, not for our parties but for our Congress and for our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who has committed his career to the protection of small business.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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