Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an author of the bill and member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have never really enjoyed any bipartisan effort as much as I have with this piece of legislation. Because truly, emotionally and politically, I am totally involved and committed. Many, many years ago I was involved in the civil rights struggle, and I marched from Selma to Montgomery, and I cussed every step of the way, not having the slightest idea that I was a part of history. I feel, for most of us today, that we are on the brink of history. It is hard for us to imagine that a country as big, as populous, as rich, as historic as Africa has been ignored by a great Republic like we have. It is hard to imagine that we have so many millions of African-Americans in this country but, unlike other Americans, have no village, no town, no country, not even a name that identifies us with any other country except our great United States of America. As small as this step is, it brings us now in a family of trade. And for those that love Africa so much and believe that we have not really done enough, let me laud them for their efforts to attempt to improve this bill; but of course, after looking and working with the heads of these African countries and recognizing that they know that if everything they wanted and everything we wanted was on the bill we would not have bipartisan support, we would not have a bill, and we would not be able to take this one giant step. But look at the people, Nelson Mandella, whose commitment is not to just Southern Africa, not just to Africa, but his commitment to humankind, supports the bill as well as all of the heads of state. I know we have Members that know better than most people, but why do we not give the African people just a chance? They are not in the major leagues but, my God, they will be in the ball game. We have so many organizations, white and black, Jew and gentile, Muslim organizations, saying that we can work together with a better cultural understanding and a better commercial understanding of the things that we are doing. For those that fear the loss of their jobs, visit Africa, please. Go to the towns and villages, and please do not come back saying that these countries are a threat to our textile industry. Do not say that they are going to take our jobs away from us. Let us hope that what we are talking about is that we can get a decent standard of living for our friends in Africa, that they will be able to enjoy some of the comforts of the world, that we will continue to have our industrial commercial leadership, and that they will continue, as all of the countries we trade with, to take advantage of our technology and our consumer appetite. So, for those who were opposed to the rule because it did not go far enough, stay with us as we open the door asking our colleagues to come in to work to improve the conditions that we want to improve, to improve the bill which we want to improve, but to be able to say that before we went into that next century, where every country we have had some agreement with, with this European country through the European Union, that we understood them. We understand our friends in Canada, in Mexico, Central and South America, in the Middle East with Israel, every continent except Africa. Now we can rest assured when this becomes law that, on our watch, we started. Let us hope that our youngsters and our children's children will be able to say one day that no nation is denied the opportunity to enjoy the freedom and the friendship and the trade with our great Republic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman asked for time and the gentleman was given time. What does the gentleman want the Chair to do?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the majority of the members of the Committee on Rules for what is a fair rule. I think the members of the Committee on Rules know that many of the amendments that were received were received too late. I spoke with many of the Members that had these amendments, since I intended to have supported them, and they acknowledged that they were too late. I do not think it is unusual for the Committee on Rules to have a closed rule on those issues which the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Ways and Means believes is necessary to craft a well-balanced piece of legislation and that it is not to be drafted on the floor. I think trade is one of those issues. But I am reminded, as I ask my colleagues to support this rule, of the struggle that many of us had in the area of civil rights and to remember those who said that our legislation just did not go far enough, or we had so many friends that wanted to improve our lot but the Voting Rights Act did not take care of housing, the Voting Rights Act did not take care of jobs, the Voting Rights Act did not take care of equality. And certainly, if we included all of those things, most of the people who objected would not have voted for the Voting Rights Act anyway. It is interesting to see how people would want this bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Bill, to improve all of the things that we have historically ignored. But really what is truly amazing is how, when we got to Africa, that they raised the bar. How could we get to a continent that, when we look on TV, all we see is some little black baby with a swollen stomach, with flies around his or her mouth, stories of famine, stories of droughts, stories of poverty, stories of people begging for us to send a dollar, adopt a kid, and now we are asking for the first time that this great republic open up its trade doors and allow Africa to compete? Does the bill ask for any special treatment in Africa? Does it ask for anything that we have asked for from our friends in the Middle East and Israel? Are the labor standards here lower than our trade in Ireland or any European country? Are we asking the Africans to do more than we ask our friends in North and South America? When did we think that we had to demand so much more in a trade agreement to wipe out a country's debts even though it is not owed to us? We love the Africans so much that no matter who they owe, where they owe it, we should wipe it out. We want environmental and work conditions over there that we do not demand in my Congressional district, and they certainly do not demand it from other countries. But now comes the time for us to show our love for all the people that are in Africa, and we love them so much that we want to put so much in this bill that will never get off the ground. Well, I tell my colleagues this: I know that Americans know best for all the people in the world. And if they do not like our policy, we will bomb them until they understand it. I mean, that is what democracy is all about. But there comes a time that we ought to listen to the people who love their country, who are elected in their country, and who represent their country here. Now, if we are concerned about the sub-Saharan countries and want some type of equality in trade, every ambassador, every President, every head of State ask us to do one thing: leave the bill alone. Vote for the bill, and vote for the rule. Of course, if my colleagues know better what the African people want, if they know better what they deserve, then join with me and so many others after this bill becomes law and let us try to improve upon what we have done. But do not think that the whole world is not watching that, if we close the door this time, we will not have an opportunity next year to improve the bill.

Mr. RANGEL

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this resolution is necessary because the Constitution requires that revenue legislation originate in the House of Representatives. Our action tonight is not a rejection of the merits of the Senate's so-called ``ammo ban provisions.'' Rather, their so-called ``blue slip'' simply makes it clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with tax and tariff matters that affect revenues is for the House to act first and the Senate to add its amendment and to seek a conference. With that said, no one supports the elimination of guns in our inner cities and in the hands of our children more than I do. The dominance of guns in our community continues to threaten the lives of too many law-abiding citizens. The situation cannot be ignored any longer and must start with the cleanup of the deadliest murder weapons on our streets. Why do some feel so threatened by preventing the importation of high- capacity ammunition clips? How many of us have even seen, let alone owned, these magazine belt drum belt strips and other types of ammunition devices that have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition? The troubled young man who killed two and injured 15 people in Springfield, Oregon, had a 30-round clip. The misguided youths who engaged in this horrific shooting spree at the Columbine High School were equipped with a TEC DC-9 with multiple round ammunition. These types of ammunition clips are not for hunting or sport. These clips are designed to kill a lot and to kill a lot quickly. Yes, people will continue to kill with guns. And, yes, these criminals must not escape justice. However, the death count criminals are able to achieve before getting caught is unnecessarily much greater with the high-capacity ammunition clips. No one has explained to me how society benefits from high ammunition clips or cop killer bullets, for that matter. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) is a leader on this issue and is the author of the House-passed ammunition import ban. She should be commended for her commitment to ensuring that these provisions become law. I am confident that once the procedural problems created with the Senate's action are resolved, she will prevail on the merits. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), beloved former candidate for the United States Senate.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the last Speaker would say that if the money from the so-called surplus is left in Washington that Americans should not trust us because ``we'' would spend it. The last I heard, the Republicans were the ``we''. The Republicans are in the majority. If the Republicans are so fractionalized, if they are so disorganized that basically they are saying we should take the surplus and get it out of here as quick as we can and stop us before we hurt the Nation any further, then I understand the argument. But if it is that no matter what economist we might listen to, no matter what American we might talk to, the whole idea of the surplus is that the President says that we are close to $4 trillion, we now have the ability to pay off some of that debt, and we should do that. And that is what we are talking about on our side.