Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say, ``Shame, Mr. Chairman, to think that politics would be brought into this debate.'' Why, I am just shocked and overwhelmed that the majority would even mention politics in the dialogue on such a sensitive subject. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we could not even begin to deal with the question of Social Security unless it is done in a bipartisan way, no more than we can deal with the question of our complex income tax system unless it is done in a bipartisan way. The problem that we are facing is that the Republicans are operating like a parliamentary body and we do not talk to each other and discuss how we can resolve some of these very sensitive issues. Let us take this dialogue that we are talking about today. Members of the minority only asked the question that before we do anything, can we say that our first commitment with the surplus is to use it to make the Social Security solvent? Why, that is as bipartisan as it can get. All of America wants to make certain that before we explore different ways in order to assure people pensions, that at least this system is solvent. Of course, that brings about a lot of partisan debate and we try to overcome that. But certainly, even though many of us in the minority did not truly believe that there was need for another group to have dialogue since the President already had established a biparty commission, in the interest of bipartisanship, I would like to join with the chairman of the committee, and let us have another commission, and let us expand the dialogue. But to suggest that it is possible to bring politics into the debate, why, my God, we almost resolved the question of income tax increases the other day in a request from the majority to ask for a supermajority in order to increase taxes. Why just today we tackled the serious drug problem that we had by saying that we were banning funding for needles. I mean, that is substantive, and we are moving the ball forward. When this year has ended, the majority will be asked: What did you do on Social Security? I am certain that the majority would be able to say, we started dialogue. I just hope one thing before we attempt to even talk as though we are partisan is that, when they ask, what have you done with the tax system, the one that we are pulling up by the roots, the one that we are sunsetting, the one that we are bringing in the postal card substitute, when we ask this bipartisan Congress, what are we doing about taxes, we will be able to say, we are establishing dialogue, because that is going to be my answer. I have been in the minority for 3 years. I know how the chairman feels so strongly about this complex system that was compounded in the last tax bill. The gentleman and I know we have to get rid of it. We have had 3 years of dialogue, 3 years of the majority of the Republicans, 3 years that they have the votes in the committee, 3 years that they have the votes in the House, 3 years that they have the votes on the Senate Committee on Finance, 3 years as they have the votes on the Senate floor to improve this tax system. If Members feel nearly as strongly about this Social Security mess as the majority has about the Nation's tax system, my God, the gentleman from Texas and I both will be retired by the time we deal with it. You are only going to stay for another couple of years, and I do not know how long I will be here as chairman, but regardless of what the politics of this are going to be, it would seem that we ought to start now in a bipartisan way and say that we do not want this dialogue to go on as long as we have had for the tax bill. Let the dialogue begin, but let us put a timetable so Americans would know that this Congress, in a bipartisan way, is going to tackle the serious problem. Before we go to Las Vegas or Wall Street or wherever we think where we can get a high return on the investment, let us make certain that the idea of Franklin Roosevelt is protected; and that is, we have a sound Social Security system, and we are going to use the surplus to do that. Now, if that is not done, then the surplus is going to be used for an income tax cut, or they are going to just raise tobacco tax on this industry that has done very little to anybody and just raise their taxes for another income tax cut. The gentleman and I do not like that because we are both against tax increases. So here is another way we can be bipartisan, to give up how we raise the revenue and how we use them. I do not know how my colleagues want to use the surplus. I know the Committee on the Budget chairman does not want to use it for a tax cut. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is a man after my own heart. When he says a tax cut, he means $150 billion. That is no slice of bologna. That is big time. When he says, where are we going to get the money, he is not going to the surplus, he is going to spending programs so that we all will know, that those who get the cut will know where the cut came from. That is the way we do business in a bipartisan way. Here we are with Social Security, and we have a surplus. The President said, let us not get partisan with this. Take the surplus, attach it to Social Security, and then let us get on and see how we can do the rest of the people's work. Let me join with the chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means. Let this be the first shot toward bipartisanism. Let us all say openly that the surplus is going to be used to shore up this system. Let us tell this Commission this is what we expect them to do. Let us give them a date to report back. I wish we could do it before the election, but this is too serious a thing, I think, to be involved with elections. We will wait until after the elections. But let us put a timetable on this Commission, because we do not know who is going to be appointed, and we want them to be as nonpartisan as my colleagues and I in their deliberation. I thank the gentleman from Texas for raising the question, for taking politics out of that, and give me the opportunity to join with him. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Kennelly).

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I will.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, if the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is on the floor, there is no question he will be able to answer the questions that have been discussed and debated in the full Committee on Ways and Means. I had thought, though, that this exchange might encourage people to vote for or against the rule. But since the gentleman would rather yield to the chairman of the committee, then I would thank the gentleman for this exchange.

Mr. RANGEL. But, I mean, could a Member serve on the Commission at all?

Mr. RANGEL. So is my colleague saying that Members of Congress should be appointed to this Commission?

Mr. RANGEL. But the legislation that is coming to the floor, does it allow for Members of Congress to be appointed to the Commission?

Mr. RANGEL. I am only talking about this 1 hour.

Mr. RANGEL. Good.

Mr. RANGEL. I had really thought that my colleagues that sit on the Committee on Rules understood substantively what would be in the bill so that when they bring it to the floor, the people have a better understanding as to whether they want the bill to come out in the first place. So I am asking, can my colleague discuss the bill that my colleagues are asking us to rule on at all?

Mr. RANGEL. Let me ask my colleague, what does the rule state? What does the rule have to do with this Commission?

Mr. RANGEL. There is no direction as to what they study?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I am just asking does the rule give any direction at all to the Commissioners being set up in terms of the Social Security system?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, since we have 3 hours debate, and it appears as though my colleague does not have anyone to engage in it, maybe I can ask him some questions about the rule, and we could notify the Members through television. Does this resolution that sets up this committee, does it provide anything about the solvency of Social Security? Are they given directions as relates to that?

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

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, first let me join those who regretted to hear the leaving of this battlefield from one of our great warriors, someone that speaks his mind and has very strong convictions. Mr. Speaker, I was interested in identifying to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) where we are finding so much abuse in the white middle-class suburban area. I remember, over 35 years ago, I was trying to convince people in America that drugs would not be confined to the inner city, that we cannot just identify a minority group because they are poor and hopeless and think that the profiteer people would not enlarge their market. For those who want to say that this Nation has not done enough to deal with this devastating problem, which I think is a threat to our national security, I am certainly prepared to join hands with those Republicans and Democrats to do just that. We cannot go into this next century having a million and a half people locked up in jail where 80 percent are there because it is a drug-related crime. I think I share in the sentiments of most people to believe that we have to resort to the distribution of sterile needles to deal with a health crisis that we have in this country. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and I may agree that we are not tackling this problem the way that we should, but just saying no, just saying no is not even looking for a solution to this problem. If we wanted to find out whether or not the support of Federal-supported needle exchange is going to increase the problem, if we wanted to find out does it really decrease the spread of HIV, if we want to find out whether lives could be saved, whether Federal dollars could be saved, whether this terrible and tragic disease could be held back, we do not do this with a resolution, we do these things with hearings. We search for the truth. We do not ask Members just to say no. There are a lot of answers that we are searching for, but to ask Members to come to this floor just to direct that our Federal Government defy all scientific evidence before we have had an opportunity to weigh it, and when we know that we are talking about the saving of lives, if we are wrong, how many lives will be lost? They are doing this anyway. Our soul would not be any more cleansed if this thing passes than if we waited to see what the results are going to be. But what I am afraid is happening is that this is not a legislative body that we are dealing with anymore. This is a campaign committee. It is how many issues can we vote on to determine how we stand on something. One of the major issues that we are facing today is getting rid of the IRS, pulling up the Code by its roots. But when it comes to legislation, what we vote on is a supermajority in order to increase taxes. One of the major issues we have today is whether or not the Social Security system is going to be strong enough for our children and our children's children. What are we voting on today? To have some horse and pony show run around the country and discuss the issue. One of the serious issues we have today is whether or not drug addiction is going to expand, whether or not we can control AIDS, whether or not people can live, whether or not people can die, and whether or not the distribution of needles can save lives. Are we going to study this? Are we going to have hearings? Are we going to have the experts in? Are we going to have the scientists in? Or do we just say no? I wish this issue had not come before this floor in this present body, because what we are saying is that we do not trust the United States Congress. We do not trust Democrats. We do not trust Republicans. We do not trust committees. We do not trust subcommittees. Why? Because the Committee on Rules knows best. Did the Committee on Rules have hearings? Did the Committee on Rules bring in experts? Did the Committee on Rules know that we are not talking politics? The people that have taken to this floor trained in medicine are talking about lives and not talking about drug policy. We say we do not want to divide groups. The only way that we can avoid this, and I believe the gentleman from New York is sincere, is that we say that the appropriate committees study this issue and report back to the House of Representatives. With all due respect to the Committee on Rules, it is not a legislative body. It has not had hearings. This issue is too serious just for us to say no.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we mourn the death of our former colleague, Bella Abzug, I would like to pause to reflect and celebrate the life of an extraordinarily gifted human being. I have fond memories of Bella Abzug and admire so many of the principles which guided her as she struggled to make the world a more humane place. I think about the unpopular causes she championed during the 1950's for civil rights. A specialist in labor law, she worked ``gratis'' for union groups, workers in the fur industry, restaurant workers, auto workers, and the first rank-and-file longshoremen strikers. A large portion of her work outside of the labor field was done ``pro bono,'' or for a minimal fee, for civil rights and civil liberties litigants. She was the chief counsel in the two-year appeal of Willie McGee, an African American man convicted of raping a white woman and sentenced to death. The case drew worldwide attention, and some Southern newspaper editorials attacked McGee's ``white lady lawyer'' in language meant to incite racism and hatred between groups. Bella argued passionately, and challenged the injustice of excluding Blacks from juries and applying the death sentence for rape virtually exclusively to Blacks. Although her arguments fell on deaf ears and McGree was executed in Mississippi in 1951, the case was an example of Bella's compassion and lifelong commitment to the underdog. She helped to draft legislation that was incorporated into the Civil Rights Act of 1954 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. An advocate of free speech during the 1960's she was a leader in the movement for women's rights, an opponent of the Vietnam War, and a supporter of environmental issues. When we entered the Congress together in January of 1971, Bella was certainly no wallflower freshman. If her feisty, raspy-throated speeches didn't attract attention, her trademark hats certainly did. They were a throwback, she said, to her early days as one of the New York City's few female lawyers. Bella came in demanding appointment to the House Armed Services Committee--a choice assignment seldom awarded to a freshman Representative. The last woman to serve on the committee had been Margaret Chase Smith, an outspoken critic of the military, in 1949. Although Bella failed at her attempt to secure a seat on the Armed Services Committee, she served effectively on the Government Operations and the Public Works Committees. Time and time again, she proved that regardless of the capacity in which she served, her presence would be felt, her voice always heard. Bella could not be silenced or contained against her will. One of 15 women serving in the House of Representatives in 1971, and the first woman of Jewish descent to serve in Congress, Bella relished her reputation as a ``brash and brassy'' New Yorker. In 1998, we now have 55 women in the House of Representatives. Although Bella might say that we can do better, I think she was pleased and proud of the progress that was made during her lifetime. Bella Abzug was truly a visionary, passionate, committed trailblazer, and a compassionate leader. She was also my friend. May she rest in peace.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lionel Hampton, a great artist, a great American, a great ambassador, and one of the greatest musicians America has ever known. In tribute to Lionel Hampton, on this his 90th birthday, I would like to share with you and this House, some of the highlights of this extraordinary man. Lionel Hampton, the reigning King of the Vibraphone for over half-a- century, and one of the few surviving internationally renowned jazz talents of the swing era, was born in Birmingham, Alabama on April 20, 1908. He was a member of the Benny Goodman Quartet which was the first racially integrated group of jazz musicians in the nation, but left the group to form his own big band in the early 40s. His original ballad, ``Midnight Sun'', written with Johnny Mercer and Sonny Burke, has become an American jazz and popular classic. His two major symphonic works, ``The King David Suite'' and ``Blues Suite'' have been performed by many leading symphonic orchestras throughout the world. Nevertheless, whether you are familiar with his musical accomplishments, over the years, Lionel Hampton has known no status where he was not eagerly accepted, as he has been well received the world over by Presidents, politicians, Kings and Queens. His very music has caused the walls of communist nations to come tumbling down. Allow me now to share with you Lionel Hampton the constituent . . . the friend . . . the community leader. His fame and greatness have not let him forget the homeless and the hopeless. Long a supporter of public housing, he developed the Lionel Hampton Houses in the early 70s, and upon completion, built the Gladys Hampton Houses, named for his late wife. To this day, those projects are considered among the best in the nation. The Lionel Hampton Community Development Corporation has built more than 500 low and moderate-income apartments in my Congressional District of Harlem alone. Lionel Hampton holds more than fifteen honorary doctorates and received the Gold Medal of Paris, its highest cultural award, from its Mayor, Jacques Shirac. He was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center in 1991 by President George Bush, and in December 1992, he was awarded a prestigious Kennedy Center Honor for his lifetime career achievements as a musician and teacher. Since then, he continues to produce educational events and considers the real highlight of his career as having the music school at the University of Idaho named for him, the Lionel Hampton School of Jazz. Whether you are Black or White, Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative . . . Lionel Hampton represents the very best of America. Happy birthday Lionel Hampton.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to take another step closer to a goal that is close to our hearts--renewing investments in our cities and communities. Working closely with the administration, the leadership of numerous Federal agencies, State and local governments, and community residents, I am introducing the Empowerment Zone Enhancement Act of 1998. The Empowerment Zone Enhancement Act expands on the successful empowerment zone (EZ) initiative we began in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1993. In 1993, OBRA created nine empowerment zone demonstration projects and 95 enterprise communities. In the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, we went one step further by authorizing the designation of 20 additional EZs and provided for tax incentives for these zones. However, the 1997 Act did not provide the flexible grant funding critical to assist distressed urban and rural communities develop and implement holistic revitalization programs. The bill I am introducing today would fulfill this major goal of the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) Initiative. Specifically, this bill provides for $1.7 billion in grant funds over a 10-year period, $1.5 billion for the urban zones and $0.2 billion for the rural zones. The funds are channeled through the Title XX social services block grant and are in addition to current Title XX resources. Despite the short existence of the EC/EZ Initiative, various elements for success have been identified. This initiative has not produced the intended benefits of creating economic opportunity, broad-based community partnerships and sustainable community development, but has also proven to be one in which local neighborhoods are encouraged to seek solutions to the problems of their community, rather than wait for Washington solutions. Leveraging public sector resources to enable private-sector community investment is a fiscally responsible means of promoting community development and prosperity. The Empowerment Zone Enhancement Act is the next logical step in permitting the private sector to actively participate in this process of developing and implementing solutions. It is important and appropriate that we continue this process of rebuilding our communities.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit, but I would like to tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) that there are things in this bill that can be perfected. The question of transshipment is always a serious problem with any trade bill. We have tried to tighten it up. The bill has not passed the Senate. It will go to conference. We hope to be working with the President, the WTO and Customs to make certain that we do not lose jobs, that we do not adversely affect the industries here. Of course, to say that Africans cannot manufacture any African fabric does not make a heck of a lot of sense, but I am certain, working together, we can find some compromise to improve the legislation.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who recently returned from Africa to Florida.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to take the opportunity to speak to some of the concerns that some of my colleagues have had as relates to transshipment, which is always an issue when we are dealing with any type of a trade bill. Because of this concern, the Committee on Ways and Means had put in specific language to increase the penalties for any country that is found guilty of transshipment. But the interesting thing is that these African countries, more than any other countries that we are dealing with in trade, are so sorely in need of jobs that they would be the ones that are looking forward to getting assistance and having their people trained and having the ability to participate in international trade. The World Trade Organization has rules against violations of transshipment, and certainly we will have the resources as well as the customs agencies to see what is coming into the United States. We certainly can determine whether it came from the continent of Africa, and since they only penetrate our market 1 percent, and it is believed that they do not have the ability or the capability to penetrate it more than 2 percent, if there was a question of transshipment, it should be something that would be easily found. I also would like to deal with the question of human rights and the question of workers' rights. As most people know, these are included in the GSP, and the President of the United States has responsibility before he signs off on any agreement to make certain that that agreement is in the international interests as well as the interests of the people of the United States of America. So whether we are talking about environment or human rights or workers' rights incorporated in the concept, the language in the bill would certainly take care of that. I am particularly concerned that the people in these developing African countries have not only looked forward to the United States executive branch for leadership, but have worked very closely with the members of the committee and their staff to make certain that the relationship was one of mutual respect. I think those are the magic words when we are dealing with any country: mutual respect. Whatever guidelines and conditions are necessary in order to give assurances to investors, it is not the United States who sets the guidelines, it is the international community that does that. So the bill was drafted not only with the concerns of the Africans, but something that could get the support of liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, because even though some people may think this is a decoy and not a duck, the President of the United States believes it is a trade bill, the Secretary of State believes it is a trade bill, the members of the committee believe it is a trade bill, but most importantly, our African friends who are dependent on this, who are looking forward to this and having hope for the future, believe it gives them an opportunity as a trade bill. So I do hope that those that have reservations would understand that this is far from a perfect document. How could it be, with so many people coming from so many directions? And the fact that these are countries in Africa does not mean that they do not have differences among themselves in terms of what should be in the bill. Mr. Chairman, this is something to work toward. This is something to give opportunities to people in the United States to look forward to having a better working relationship with our friends in Africa, but just as important, to develop markets in Africa. So it is hoped, as when we went and traveled throughout the Sub- Sahara, that African Americans with talent, many of whom were on the trip with us, would get the opportunity to show to our African brothers and sisters what we will be able to contribute, not mandate relationships but to contribute through joint ventures in working with them. Indeed, on the trip some of these concepts became deals, and we were able to work out arrangements, working with the Department of Commerce, working with the Eximbank, working with OPIC. All of this is a part of it, and of course this is not a substitute for assistance in terms of education and health and economic development, but it is also an opportunity for us to continue to give assistance and at the same time be able to make certain that one day this type of assistance would not be necessary. So I think that all of us who would want to be able to say that we played some very small part in bringing the countries of Africa into international trade will be proud of the opportunities that have been given to us, and we look forward to this bill not only becoming law, but when our President of the United States visits Africa, he will be armed with a document of friendship, a document, a working document that can improve the quality of life not only for the Africans, but to give opportunity to those people in these great United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we close this debate, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record letters that have been sent to me by the President and the Secretary of State, and with the consent of this body, just to read the last paragraph of each. From Madeleine Albright, our Secretary of State, she says, ``This critical legislation will advance one of our most important foreign policy goals in Africa: Integration of African countries into the global economy. The approximately 600 million consumers in Africa deserve a better future. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is an important first step in that direction, and I strongly urge you to support it.'' Mr. Chairman, I include this letter for the Record. The letter referred to is as follows: The Secretary of State, Washington. Hon. Charles Rangel, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Rangel: The African Growth and Opportunity Act, H.R. 1432, is scheduled for a floor vote today. Passage of this landmark legislation is one of our highest legislative priorities. As you know, President Clinton made a strong statement in support of the bill during the State of the Union speech. Passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act will send an important signal to Africa that we will help those countries which help themselves by pursuing sound economic and political reform policies. The Act will provide substantial trade and debt relief benefits to those African countries which are undertaking significant economic reforms. The African Growth and Opportunity Act will help African countries improve their own business climates so that U.S. companies can better compete in the important emerging markets of Africa. We believe the legislation contains adequate provisions to prevent injury to U.S. industries and jobs. The impact on U.S. consumers, workers and industries must be assessed by the International Trade Commission (ITC) before the President is authorized to grant the additional duty-free preferential market access provided by the Bill. A recent ITC study of the textile provisions in the Act concluded that duty-free, quota-free entry of textile and apparel products from Africa would have a negligible impact on U.S. industries and workers. This critical legislation will advance one of our most important foreign policy goals in Africa--integration of African countries into the global economy. The approximately 600 million consumers in Africa deserve a better future. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is an important first step in that direction, and I strongly urge you to support it. Sincerely, Madeleine K. Albright. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to read from a letter from the President, who says, ``We face a historic opportunity to assist the renaissance in Africa. Congress has the chance to help this transformation by enacting the African Growth and Opportunity Act. When it comes time to cast your vote, I urge you to support this legislation.'' Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the entire letter from the President. The letter referred to is as follows: The White House, Washington, DC, March 11, 1998. Hon. Charles B. Rangel, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Charlie: I strongly support passage of H.R. 1432, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which would provide enhanced trade benefits for sub-Saharan countries engaged in meaningful reform efforts. The United States strongly supports a stable, prosperous Africa. Africa is a continent on the doorstep of a new era of democracy and prosperity, and many countries have adopted market-oriented economic and political reforms in the past seven years. A stronger, stable, prosperous Africa will be a better economic partner, a better partner for security and peace, and a better partner in the fight against drug trafficking, international crime, terrorism, and the spread of disease and environmental degradation. Africa is already an important trading partner for the United States. Our exports to Africa are over $6 billion annually. In addition, America has its own special reasons to contribute to Africa's economic development. Over thirty million Americans have ancestral origins in Africa. We should work to help African nations achieve greater prosperity and stronger democracies, which will improve the lives of the African people. The bill helps us do that. This bill is supported by a bipartisan and diverse cross- section of Americans and concerned groups--including Jack Kemp, David Dinkins, Andrew Young, the United States Conference of Mayors and the National Urban League. They know this bill is good for both Africa and America. We face a historic opportunity to assist the renaissance in Africa. Congress has the chance to help this transformation by enacting the African Growth and Opportunity Act. When it comes time to cast your vote, I urge you to support this legislation. Sincerely, Bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).