Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner). (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a long-time friend of Africa, one of the greatest supporters of the bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have never felt more proud as an American, but more so in being a Member of this Congress during this historic time, where we have dealt with the problems in Europe, we have dealt with the problems of Asia and Central and South America, and now this beautiful, rich continent that tries so desperately hard to struggle out of poverty has now started moving towards a fair market economy, democracy, and all of the things that we said were necessary in order to be trading partners with the United States. Now that she has done those things, and we see the progress that has been made in the sub-Saharan countries, I think that we are just about to give her a chance to prove that she can compete with the best of the countries, given the opportunity. For those who fear transshipment, there have been laws put right into the bill to increase the penalty for those who are guilty, but the people who do not want transshipment are the African people, because they want their people to work and improve the quality of life. But look at it as Americans. Once we develop this market, once we give disposable income for people in Africa, and once they start rebuilding their economies and the infrastructure, who will be providing the technology, the services, and the jobs? With our help, we will be able to beat out the colonial powers and America, once again, will be first, and our friends will be our friends in Africa. I hope that Members are able to support the bill, because I think, throughout the world, we will be able to see that we were not there as fast as we should have been in apartheid; but once we got there, America has demonstrated to the world, including our friends in Africa, that we will be fair, we will be equitable, and we will make certain that they will be able to play in this market as a free economy.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the person that initiated the concept of working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise with great pride in support of this legislation. How many bills can come before this House supported by the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, the minority leader of the House, and the support of the leadership in the Senate? It has been long overdue that we recognize the potential in trading with Africa. And it is not just helping a people that have been excised from economic development because of colonialism, but it is certainly in our best interest to develop those markets and to be able to see, as countries rebuild themselves, that these European countries not having the priority, but the friendship would be with those that were there when they needed them. That is why it amazes me how some of the so- called friends of Africa have now found out what they think is best for Africans, when we have been working with their leadership here. African economists, African leaders have come and they have said that they want to be able to work in that same atmosphere as other countries in terms of encouraging investment and allowing the free marketplace to work for them, to support their ever-growing democracies. And yet, we have people that say, oh, no, that is not good enough for Africa. I do not know where they were with the Europeans, where they were with Asia, where they were in South America. But Africa does not need those kinds of friends now. What they need are people to support the beginning. And that is all this is, the beginning. There are no provisions in this bill that mandates that any African nation succumbs to it. They decide, based on the rules, whether they want to participate. All of the suggestions that are in the bill, the President of the United States does not have to have all of those requirements. This weak continent, and certainly the few countries that are the beneficiary, now has become a threat to the powerful industrial United States of America. We are now importing 1 percent, the International Trade Commission said that it could be 2 percent, of textiles. And now the industry is shaking at its foundation, and we are going to lose African-American jobs. Well, I represent the Harlem community, which is the African- American capital of the world, and if we lose one job as a result of some African working in the sub-Saharan, I would like to see it. It just does not make any sense at all to believe that with these low- skilled jobs, anyone in this continent, much less in this country, would be adversely affected. But the arrogance of saying that we want to trade with Africa, knowing that the low-skilled jobs are in textiles, and what would we say to them; we will trade with you if you only use American fabrics. That is to say that, we will manufacture the fabrics, we will send it to you, you can put a couple of stitchings on the label on it, and send it back to us. When the Africans say it does not make sense, when we supporters say it does not make sense, they say, well, we do it for Mexico. I would suggest to those people taking that position that in terms of transportation costs, it is a heck of a lot different bringing goods from Mexico to Texas than it is to take it from New York to Africa. In any event, we do have an opportunity for an historic vote here. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), because without his help, the input of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and so many others on the Committee on Ways and Means, the leadership of both sides of the House. And we should not go to bed when this becomes law thinking that we have done it all, because it has been too long that Africa has been shut out from international trade. But one thing that we will know is that we were a part of the beginning. And just as many of my colleagues remember the conditions that existed in Korea 10 years ago, for those who would be around to be able to hopefully see an Africa that is thriving in economy, thriving in democracy, and competing with the best of the world, that is what makes us feel so good to be a part of the Congress and to be able to say we made a difference. 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 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 such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who recently returned from Africa to Florida.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, entitled the Public School Modernization Act of 1998, which consists of two education tax incentives that are contained in the President's budget recommendations for fiscal year 1999. I am very pleased that more than fifty Members have joined me as cosponsors of this needed legislation. It is my hope to continue to work with the Administration to introduce the President's domestic initiatives that are within Ways and Means jurisdiction. I will also continue to urge consideration by the Congress of these important proposals. My bill would expand opportunities for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade and beyond. This goal is crucial to the country's social and economic well being. It's a well known fact, that without the proper educational tools, young people lose hope for the future. We have only to look at the high levels of crime, drug use, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, and unemployment to know the value of a good education. Without basic academic opportunities, the future is bleak. My bill identifies communities that shoulder a disproportionate share of these social problems and offers a solution--a future of hope. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provided additional financial resources to assist families in meeting the cost of higher education. I believe that assistance is vitally important but not enough. We must do more to ensure that those students who wish to pursue higher education are prepared for the challenges of a college education. We also must work harder both to educate and train those students who choose or need to earn a full-time living after high school. In pursuit of this goal, this legislation would provide assistance to public educational institutions to make this a reality. Therefore, our bill expands the education zone tax incentives that were enacted last year. Those incentives are designed to enhance academic achievement below the college level through public-private education partnerships. I believe that we must have greater private-sector involvement in our educational system, and our bill expands existing tax provisions designed to encourage that involvement. Our bill also includes tax incentives to assist local governments in improving and constructing public school facilities. This aspect of our bill does not require a public-private partnership and is not limited to schools in distressed areas or with a large population of poor students. This aspect of our bill provides $19.4 billion over the next two years in interest-free capital for school infrastructure projects. Providing all students with clean and safe public school facilities is a necessary first step in assuring a high quality educational system. Some have argued that the Federal government should have no role in assisting the public school system at the K through 12 level. I strongly disagree. The Federal government historically has provided financial resources to the public school system. It has done so in part by providing tax-exempt bond financing that enables State and local governments to fund capital needs through low-interest loans. The bill that we are introducing today, in many respects, is very similar to tax exempt bond financing. This bill does not require any additional layers of bureaucracy at the Federal or State level. It provides special tax benefits to holders of certain State and local education bonds. The procedures used to determine whether bonds are eligible for those special payments are substantially the same as the procedures currently applicable in determining whether a State or local bond is eligible for tax-exempt bond financing. I also want to be very clear that this bill supports our public school system. I believe that improving our public school system should be our highest priority. Approximately 90 percent of the students attending kindergarten through grade 12 attend public school. If we can find the resources to provide additional tax incentives, those incentives should be focused on improving the public school system that serves such a large segment of our student population. I have and will continue to oppose legislation such as the so-called ``Coverdell'' legislation, that diverts scarce resources away from our public school system. Although the bill that we are introducing today contains only tax provisions, I recognize that tax provisions alone cannot provide sufficient additional resources needed to assist students in obtaining a quality education. Therefore, I also support the other education improvements included in the President's budget. Currently, this Nation is enjoying one of the longest periods of economic expansion in its history, with low unemployment and continued creation of new jobs. Much of the credit for that rests with the deficit reduction efforts of the Clinton Administration and the technological advantages that our industries enjoy over their competitors in other countries. We will not remain competitive in the world economy unless we invest in our human capital to maintain that technological advantage. Any available resources should be invested in human capital. A survey last year of economists by the Wall Street Journal found that 43 percent of the economists surveyed stated that increased spending on education and research and development would be the one policy with the most positive impact on the economy. Amazingly, while the concept of investing in human capital goes unchallenged in debate, elected leaders are still spending more of our nation's limited budget resources on back-end, punitive programs like law enforcement and prisons, rather than front-end investments like education and training that can really pay off in increased workforce productivity. Unfortunately, these skewed priorities are present at the local level, too. New York City spends $84,000 per year to keep a young man in Riker's Island Prison, yet only $7,000 each year to educate a child in Harlem. We must change our priorities. Let's invest in the future of this country through our children. Let's bring the same zeal to encouraging and educating our children that we now apply to punishment and incarceration. The following is a brief description of the provisions contained in our bill. Description of the Bill The bill would include the following two provisions as recommended in the President's budget. These tax incentives would cost approximately $3.6 billion over the next 5 years. 1. Education Zone Academy Bonds Section 226 of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act provides a source of capital at no or nominal interest for costs incurred by certain public schools in connection with the establishment of special academic programs from kindergarten through secondary schools. To be eligible to participate in the program, the public school must be located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community or at least 35 percent of the students at the school must be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches under the Federal school lunch program. In addition the school must enter into a partnership with one or more nongovernmental entities. The provision provides the interest-free capital by permitting the schools to issue special bonds called ``Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.'' Interest on those bonds will in effect be paid by the Federal government through a tax credit to the holder. The bill would increase the caps on the amount of bonds that can be issued under the program as shown in the following table. The bill would also permit the bonds to be used for new construction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Additions Current under the Total Year law bill issuance (million) (billion) cap ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1998................................ $400 .......... \1\ $400 1999................................ 400 $1.0 \2\ 1.4 2000................................ 0 1.4 \2\ 1.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Million. \2\ Billion. The bill would make several technical modification to last year's legislation. It would repeal the provision that restricts ownership of qualified zone academy bonds to financial institutions, it would require a maximum maturity of 15 years, rather than a maximum maturity determined under a formula, it would change the formula for allocating the national limit to make it consistent with the formula used in allocating the limit on qualified school construction bonds, and it would provide an indefinite carryover of any unused credit. 2. Qualified School Construction Bonds The bill would also permit State and local governments to issue qualified school construction bonds to fund the construction or rehabilitation of public schools. Interest on qualified school construction bonds would in effect be paid by the Federal government through an annual tax credit. The credit would be provided in the same manner as the credit for qualified school academy bonds. Under the bill, a total of $9.7 billion of qualified school construction bonds could be issued in 1999 and in 2000. Half of the annual cap would be allocated among the States on the basis of their population of low-income children, weighted the State's expenditures per pupil for education (the Title I basic grant formula). The other half of the annual cap would be allocated among the hundred school districts with the highest number of low-income children and that allocation would be based on each district's Title I share. The following chart shows the aggregate amount of qualified school construction bonds that could be issued in each State under the bill. The total includes amounts allocated to large school districts in the State. An additional $600 million is reserved for allocations to other school districts not in the largest 100 districts. [In thousands of dollars] State Estimate allocation Alabama........................................................$285,079 Alaska...........................................................36,902 Arizona.........................................................257,957 Arkansas........................................................145,925 California....................................................2,281,018 Colorado........................................................165,781 Connecticut.....................................................205,080 Delaware.........................................................36,902 District of Columbia.............................................75,395 Florida.......................................................1,047,028 Georgia.........................................................476,055 Hawaii...........................................................40,984 Idaho............................................................43,463 Illinois........................................................911,455 Indiana.........................................................276,395 Iowa............................................................103,120 Kansas..........................................................126,821 Kentucky........................................................277,115 Louisiana.......................................................463,217 Maine............................................................61,639 Maryland........................................................306,488 Massachusetts...................................................354,978 Michigan........................................................857,280 Minnesota.......................................................220,820 Mississippi.....................................................253,547 Missouri........................................................314,131 Montana..........................................................52,274 Nebraska.........................................................78,955 Nevada...........................................................71,817 New Hampshire....................................................36,902 New Jersey......................................................414,267 New Mexico......................................................145,570 New York......................................................2,166,015 North Carolina..................................................297,397 North Dakota.....................................................36,902 Ohio............................................................782,970 Oklahoma........................................................203,043 Oregon..........................................................155,387 Pennsylvania....................................................852,156 Puerto Rico.....................................................494,937 Rhode Island.....................................................72,188 South Carolina..................................................198,015 South Dakota.....................................................38,002 Tennessee.......................................................331,119 Texas.........................................................1,614,095 Utah.............................................................66,771 Vermont..........................................................36,196 Virginia........................................................258,862 Washington......................................................236,595 West Virginia...................................................142,557 Wisconsin.......................................................332,401 Wyoming..........................................................33,059

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate African American History Month, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the 86 African American recipients of the nations' highest military award for valor, the Medal of Honor. These medals of Honor were awarded for acts of bravery performed from the Civil War through the Vietnam Era. Last year the President took steps to right a serious wrong, by acknowledging that not one Medal of Honor was awarded to an African American during World War II due to discrimination and other factors. On January 13, 1997 the President awarded the Medal of Honor to seven World War II African American heroes. The Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen also hosted a Pentagon ceremony on February 19, 1997 and paid tribute to the three surviving African American recipients of the Medal of Honor. During the ceremony the ``Legacy of Valor'' videotape tribute was presented, followed by the unveiling of an exhibit honoring the 86 African American recipients. I find the following words, as contained in the Department of Defense ``Legacy of Valor'' tribute to be of particular significance; ``Eighty-six African Americans have earned the Nation's top award for valor, the Medal of Honor. Their legacy of valor is the thrilling story of African Americans in defense of freedom and justice. The stories of these 86 Medal of Honor recipients account for some of the most astonishing acts of bravery and personal sacrifice in the history of our armed forces. Through it all, despite an American legacy rooted deeply in slavery, each and everyone of them, by supreme sacrifice and devotion to duty, in the words of the great African American poet, Langston Hughes, boldly declared, ``I too am American.'' They demonstrated that African Americans have earned the right through military sacrifice and achievement alone, to be true Americans economically, politically, and socially. All Americans can take heartfelt pride in this illustrious record which, unfortunately, too frequently has gone unnoticed. Although 86 African Americans received the Medal of Honor in military conflicts from the Civil War to Vietnam, due to discrimination and other factors, not one was awarded the Medal of Honor during World Wars I and II. In 1991, however, President George Bush awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to a World War I African American hero. Additionally, on January 13, 1997, at a White House ceremony, President William Jefferson Clinton awarded seven Medals of Honor to African American WWII heroes. Six of those medals were awarded posthumously to the families of the honorees and the seventh Medal of Honor was presented to the only living WWII honoree. All Americans owe a special debt of gratitude to these 86 African American heroes. Despite slavery, segregation, discrimination, and bitter disappointment they defended America with their very lives. When the chips were down, to paraphrase the incomparable General Douglass MacArthur, they understood the hallowed words, ``Duty, Honor, Country, Freedom and Justice.'' These words were their rallying point to build courage when courage seemed to fail; to regain faith, when there seemed to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope became forlorn. These words taught them not to substitute words for action nor to seek the path of comfort but to face the stress and sharp spur of difficulty head-on; to learn to stand up in the storm, but have compassion for those who fall; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past. In their belief in God and family, in their strength, in their love and loyalty, many of them gave all that mortals can give. ``Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains majesties, above the fruited plains . . .'' The wonderful song ``America the Beautiful'' begins. But as we look back over the valorous contributions of African Americans, it is the second stanza of America the Beautiful that all Americans can sing, with new meaning: ``Oh beautiful, Oh beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life . . .'' For these are truly 86 African American heroes who proved in liberating strife on domestic and foreign soil that they loved their country more than themselves and mercy for their people more than life!``

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, many of us have the great task of succeeding Members of the House of Representatives that have left, as Reverend and Congressman Floyd Flake has, but indeed, the strong keep coming, and we are so fortunate that a young man a few years back was born in East Harlem, saw fit to go to Queens, got his training there, became an administrative judge for workmen's compensation, and then joined the great legislature of the State of New York in the New York State Assembly. And as I look in front of me, it looks like there is hardly a Member of the New York delegation in our Congress that did not serve in our State legislature. Having served there for 6 years and working hard each and every day, he was selected by the African-Americans, as well as the Puerto Rican Hispanic Members of that group to head up the Black and Hispanic Caucus. He has worked hard, he has got two lovely daughters that are here with his wife, Simone-Marie. His brothers and his family are here to support him as they were during the great election that with more than a half a dozen candidates, he came through with 57 percent of that vote. At this time I would like to yield to a senior member, the senior Republican Member of our delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there are so many Members that would like to be heard, but a lot of people have to make trains and planes, and so we have in our delegation not only an outstanding Member from Queens County, but the Democratic county leader that was able to guide the membership of the great organization there so that they were able to make the proper decision for the election, Tom Manton, for purposes of introducing our brand-new member.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the legacy of Edna Flannery Kelly, a longtime Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Brooklyn, who departed this life on December 14, 1997 at the age of 91. Mrs. Kelly served for 20 years as a Democrat in the House of Representatives, from 1949 to 1969, where she was the first woman elected to Congress from Brooklyn. In a political career that spanned the turbulent decades of the 50s and 60s, Edna Kelly earned national acclaim for strengthening U.S. foreign policy to meet the threat of communist expansionism in Europe and Asia. In addition, her initiatives to improve the economic status of American families as well as her support of civil rights legislation, paved the way for greater opportunity for all Americans. Mrs. Kelly's rise to the national political scene, spoke of her strong character, sharp intellect, and gracious charm. She didn't consider a career in politics until the unexpected death of her husband in 1942. In 1949, she won a special election to the 81st Congress, filling the unexpired term of deceased Democratic Congressman, Andrew L. Somers. Subsequently, she was reelected to Congress nine times in landslide victories by her constituency, and from 1956 to 1968, served as the Democratic National Committeewoman from the State of New York. Many of Mrs. Kelly's proposals became law during the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. One such measure was an amendment to the Mutual Security Act in 1951, which instigated one of the largest, international humanitarian efforts to help resettle people dislocated by World War II. As a result of the Kelly amendment, more than a million and a half displaced persons, most from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, were able to find new homes and opportunities, enabling them to rebuild their lives. Mrs. Kelly is remembered for sponsoring the legislation that created the Peace Corps, and was also instrumental in establishing the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Her statesmanship and diplomatic skills were recognized by President John F. Kennedy, who appointed her a member of the United States Delegation to the United Nations in 1963. Throughout her service in Congress, Edna Kelly worked to improve health and education and the standard of living of American families. She also looked to the needs of those most vulnerable--the sick, the disabled, the elderly, and the poor and underprivileged. Her constituents benefited greatly from her commitment to them as she was able to assess their needs and provide leadership on a variety of issues. She often spoke with pride of her support for different measures that helped the nation expand social and economic justice as well as open doors to housing, education, voting, and jobs for all minorities. On leaving the House of Representatives, Mrs. Kelly was accorded the highest tribute by her colleagues on both sides of the political aisle. Speaker John W. McCormack, Tip O'Neill, Gerald Ford, Hugh Carey, Claude Pepper, and many others, stood up in the House to praise her outstanding legislative service and contributions to American foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the spirit and legacy of Edna F. Kelly, a great American and life-long resident of New York.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 867, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 because I believe it can improve the lives of many children who find themselves in foster care. Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly and Congressman David Camp deserves our thanks for pulling together a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support--and for negotiating a good compromise with our Senate colleagues. H.R. 867 makes commonsense improvements in our child welfare and foster care laws. It makes clear that, in making a reasonable efforts to reunify a family, the child's is paramount. It reauthorizes the capped entitlement funds that we have set aside to preserve and reunify families and promote adoption. It extends health insurance to those children with special needs who cannot be adopted without such coverage. And, it creates an incentive system that will reward those States that increase the number of children who are adopted out of foster care. These are all good reforms, and long overdue. H.R. 867 may have an even more dramatic effect on the lives of children in foster care. Its success depends, in large measure, on how the States implement the provisions of this new law. It can reduce the number of children in foster care if State's take seriously our instruction to begin proceedings to terminate parental rights sooner under certain circumstances. But, handled the wrong way, this new requirement could just as easily spell disaster. If the end result of this requirement is to flood the courts with requests to terminate parental rights, we will have done little to help these children. And, if States make excessive use of their authority to ignore these requirements when there is a compelling reason to do so, little will have been accomplished. A delicate balancing act is required, for each and every child, to make certain that we have done all that we can to assure that these children have the happiest, healthiest home environment possible. Let me also comment on the provision of the bill that addresses adoption of children across State lines. The folklore would have it that States hold on to children who could otherwise be adopted out of State because they don't want to give up the Federal foster care payment. More likely, they fear that they cannot adequately monitor these placements. Whatever, the reason, this bill makes clear that geographically alone should not be a barrier to adoptive placement. This provision deliberately does not mirror the language of the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act--which calls for States to follow a first come, first served approach to adoptions, turning a blind eye to race and ethnicity. My views on that act are clear. Our paramount concern should be what is best for the child, not what is best for the adults who may be waiting to adopt that child. H.R. 867 makes clear that we are not applying this shortsighted, first come, first served approach to adoptive placements across State lines. We leave in the hands of the professionals decisions about what the best placement is for the child and instruct States to take steps to eliminate any arbitrary barriers to adoption across State lines. This, in my view, is a far more responsible, and practical approach that was taken in the Multi Ethnic Placement Act. Mr. Speaker, more than half a million of our children are in foster care today, twice as many as were in care in the mid 1980's. With a little support from us, most of these children will return home. For those that cannot, the adoption provisions of H.R. 867 can make a difference. A happy, healthy permanent home is our goal--for every one of these children.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am today sponsoring legislation to help the Nation's frontline health delivery organizations survive the move to managed care. The bill I am introducing today will provide Medicare wraparound payments to federally qualified health centers [FQHC's] and parallels a provision in this summer's Balanced Budget Act which provided Medicaid wraparound payments to FQHC's. FQHC's, such as community health centers [CHC's], receive about 8 percent of their revenues--or about $200 million annually--in payments for care furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. For the services they provide, health centers are on a so-called reasonable cost basis, which is designed to ensure that sufficient funds are provided to cover the costs of care. As Medicare patients choose to move into managed care plans which include FQHC's as providers, the payment rates that the health maintenance organizations [HMO's] have been willing to pay the centers is often less than the FQHC payment described in the previous paragraph. My legislation is designed to correct this payment shortfall by providing that each FQHC will receive a supplemental wraparound payment from Medicare in an amount equal to the difference--if any-- between the FQHC rate and the amount the FQHC receives from the HMO. This type of wraparound provision was included in the Balanced Budget Act for Medicaid payments, but not for Medicare. Today's bill provides parallel treatment for Medicare and Medicaid payments to these frontline health delivery organizations. Why do these centers need an additional payment? Why can't they live with the managed care payment rate? Basically, these centers do so much additional, uncompensated care and outreach in their neighborhoods that they need what is the equivalent of a disproportionate share payment to help them finance these essential, extra services--and HMO's are unlikely to contract with providers who have these extra disproportionate share costs. If CHC's are to be able to continue their mission of service, they will need Medicare's help in financing these extra costs. Following is a memo from the National Association of Community Health Centers elaborating on the essential work of the Nation's CHC's and explaining why these extra wraparound payments are so necessary. Why Health Centers Merit a Special Wraparound Payment The current reasonable-cost reimbursement provisions for health centers were established by Congress to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid cover the reasonable cost of furnishing covered services to their beneficiaries. Underpayment to these centers is particularly onerous because the revenue to cover unreimbursed costs can only come from federal and state grants intended to support services for the uninsured and essential, non-covered services for others. Health centers cannot absorb risk for several reasons: Their Patients: Health center patients comprise the most vulnerable populations in America today--persons who, even when insured, remain isolated from traditional forms of medical care because of where they live, who they are, and their frequently far greater levels of complex health care needs. Because of factors such as poverty or hopelessness (not to mention the social-environmental threats that permeate low income/underserved communities), health center patients are at higher risk for serious and costly conditions (diabetes, hypertension, TB, high-risk, pregnancies, HIV) than the general population. Their History and Mission: Health centers were founded to make their services available to all in their communities, and particularly to those who can't get care elsewhere (again because of who they are and their often complex health and social problems). They have already proven their efficiency, but their fundamental mission and purpose should not be compromised by placing them at risk for the care their patients need. On the contrary, because they serve disproportionate numbers of high-risk patients, adequately compensating the health centers for their care can serve to make risk levels more reasonable for other providers. Their Services: Health centers offer comprehensive, ``one- stop'' primary care rather than a traditional medical model for chronic and acture care. Prevention is the focus. These services need to be promoted, not restricted or reduced, as would be the case under risk based contracting. For their patients and communities, in particular, expanding the availability of preventive and primary care services will be vital in increasing access and reducing costs. Here, too, the success of managed care will depend on this. Improving Access: As has been noted, health center patients--whose health problems are typically more serious and more complicated than it true of other Americans-- frequently need special services that may not be recognized as reimbursable, but which are essential to ensure that effectiveness of the medical care provided. These services, such as multilingual/translation services, health/nutrition education, patient case management services, outreach and transportation, will need to be provided, even if they are not covered and reimbursable; thus, the centers cannot rely on their other funding sources to cover them against excessive risk. No Reserves. Because of their historic mission and the restrictions placed on them by their funding sources, health centers have no available capital, limited marketing capability, poor and sicker patients and thus no leverage in the marketplace. Moreover, all revenues received by health centers (all of which are either public or not-for-profit organizations) are reinvested in patient care services-- there are no ``profits,'' and they have no reserves to protect them against risk. Consequently placing too much risk on health centers would force them to remain outside the managed care system rather than being centrally involved. Perhaps most importantly, development of primary and preventive care in underserved communities has been particularly effective in reducing unnecessary and inappropriate use of other settings such as emergency rooms which are much more costly. This is especially true of public-private partnerships such as the federally-assisted health center programs, which today provide care to nearly 10 million low income people in underserved rural and urban communities across the nation. Because of their experience, the health centers--together with other key community providers--form the backbone of the local health care system for most underserved people and communities, and have had a major impact on the health of their communities. Their presence and availability of services has significantly lowered unnecessary use of costlier, less appropriate settings such as hospital emergency rooms and ``Medicaid mills''. Their consolidation of both preventive and comprehensive primary care services under one roof has measurably reduced the frequency and cost of preventable illnesses. Their experience in case management has brought about a substantial reduction in specialty care and hospital admissions, saving millions of dollars for the health care system. Despite the poorer overall health of their patients, studies have shown that health centers are tremendously effective in reducing total health care costs for their patients. Recent studies in California, Maryland, and New York show that those states incurred 30% lower cost per case for Medicaid recipients who were regular patients of community health centers than for Medicaid recipients who used other providers. These findings underscore those in a earlier 5-day study that showed significant Medicaid savings through use of health centers.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this. We all have to agree that it is very unique for someone who has gained such a wonderful reputation in this House to find higher reasons and better causes in order to leave. In addition to going home every night in order to take care of his parishioners, we talk about family values; but Floyd Flake has really lived it, because he has four children and a wife that he shared his life with while he was here working in the Congress to improve the quality of life for other Americans. We find it so easy to talk about improving the life of the poor, but he was on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and he did what he thought was the best thing he could do for poor folks. He did not just talk about poverty but, rather, thought the best thing he could do would be to remove people from poverty. And, being a part of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he was able to bring community banks to allow people that lacked the sophistication to have access to the resources so they would not just be getting loans, but they would be able to go into business and provide opportunity for others. We hear all the debate about education, whether we should support the public schools or whether we should have vouchers. He not only talked about the concept but went out and built the schools so that, indeed, people would get an education. When you talk about the jobless and the hopeless and the homeless, he has built the schools, he has built the homes, he has provided the opportunity and, at the same time, has given them spiritual and political leadership. There were times that some of us would doubt the wisdom of his votes, when somehow his hands made a mistake and he got on this side of the aisle when he was voting with you. But there is not anybody in this House that would ever challenge the integrity of Congressman Floyd Flake. For any vote that he has ever taken in this House, you would know, in his opinion, he was doing the right thing for his constituents. This is the greatest country that man has ever conceived, and many of us know that she can and will become better as the years go by. But the fact that we can enjoy in this body someone that came from his background, rose to gain the respect of his colleagues, can go out and be entertained as members of private corporate boards and at the same time lead thousands in prayer for a better community and a better country, it just means that those of us who have been lucky enough to get here should appreciate the fact that only in America can we rub shoulders with a person like Floyd Flake and still do our duty as politicians and know that somehow, through him, we were doing God's work. It has been a pleasure having you here, and we know we will be hearing from Pastor-Bishop-Former-Congressman Floyd Flake.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a special appeal to my friend, the leader of the New York delegation, a leader in the House, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Under the rule, the Democrats that are in opposition to the fast track would have only 30 minutes. I know that the gentleman wants to stick by the tradition in how they have handled these things before, but I cannot begin to tell him the number of Members that are asking just to be heard to express themselves. There is a frustration that exists in the House where I truly believe that people do want to hear the debate. But in addition to this, I think that people want to explain their vote. Whether they vote for it, whether they vote against it, they want to have an opportunity to explain through whatever way to their constituents why they are voting that way on a subject matter which I truly do not believe is that well known to the American people. I know it is extraordinary action to take a review of the decision that the full committee has made, but in view of the fact that he has said more than once that senior members of the Committee on Ways and Means have said this is appropriate time, I can tell the gentleman that senior members of the Committee on Ways and Means have asked for a half-hour themselves to be able to debate. I hope whomever they are, they will stand up, because we are catching the devil trying to allocate time. The gentleman would do this House a great service if he could be more flexible in tradition of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reword my question. Forget the administration. The gentleman is in the majority. He has the majority of the votes. How long would it take for him to get a bill passed? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, 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. Well, I do not want to get involved in how the bill came to the floor, but the gentleman is asking the people that are responsible for doing what we tell them to do. We are the ones that made their job difficult, and the gentleman and I agree on that, and so does the chairman. We have beat up on them because they did it poorly, but it was our complex legislation that they had to administer. The gentleman and I are now seeking to improve the Code after, as the mumblers would say on the floor, after 37 years of Democratic fiascoes. We have had a similar extension of 3 years of Republican fiascoes. Now we are saying, let us clean it up. I share with the gentleman that unless we attempt to do this in a bipartisan way, it will be America that loses. I just want to compliment the gentleman for the direction that he is going. I hope when we say we have to work together to scrap the Code, as the gentleman likes to say, or to pull up the IRS by the roots, that we are talking about pulling up this Tax Code by the roots and replacing it with something that is fair and equitable. We cannot agree unless we see what the gentleman is talking about. For 3 years, I have not seen it. But I look forward to working with the gentleman, hoping that the other side, while they are talking about scrapping, pulling up, and getting rid of, would give us something to work with. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to take some time to again congratulate the gentleman that just spoke, not just because of the expertise that he brought in perfecting a bill, but his ability to reach across the aisle to make it very easy for the members of the committee to at least take a look at what he is talking about. I notice a provision that is very close to the gentleman, and that is the tax complexity analysis that he spoke about in the well. I would like to yield to the gentleman to respond. If this was an existing law, how would this apply to the bill that was reported out of our committee?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2676. First, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for creating an atmosphere which allowed the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] to take the best that came out of the commission, not only to work with it in a bipartisan way, but to bring it to Members who did not serve on the commission so that they would be able to work and improve upon it. The administration has had strong objections over the original document. This could have been played up politically that the President was trying to protect the status quo, but the Secretary of Treasury was not only involved in the meetings but encouraged to know that no Republican and no Democrat was locked in concrete except to the extent that the IRS needed improvement and it had to be done and it was going to be done now. The Democratic Leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], publicly said that they were not there, that the Democrats were not there, except to join with our Republican friends to get a bipartisan solution to a serious problem. So, Mr. Speaker, we are here today for the first time in a long time knowing that we have taken one gigantic step forward to give some small comfort to the taxpayer that at least we, in the Congress, are providing the oversight to try to make the collection easier. But, Mr. Speaker, we all agree that this is only a first step. We cannot give a very complicated, complex Tax Code to anybody and expect them not to have problems in its execution. If anyone abuses their rights as a public servant with the taxpayer, that person should be pulled up at the roots and got rid of. There should be no excuse for any public servant treating taxpayers in a disrespectful way. But there should be no excuse for us to talking about pulling up the IRS by the roots unless we are prepared to say we are going to pull up the Tax Code by the roots. And I would want to say this, that if we can get this Portman-Cardin spirit of cooperation going, let us try to do it in talking about this bus trip that is going to pull up the Code by the roots, and I ask whether or not there is an extra seat on that bus that I can join in. The only thing I would want to know is, where is the bus going, what is the itinerary, how much is it going to cost, and, most importantly, when is it going to end? This bus that has been pulling up the Tax Code by the roots has been in a bus depot for 3 years. If we are going to do anything to correct the system, and God knows we agree it has to be simplified, let us try to do this too in a bipartisan way, the same way we have been so successful in recognizing a problem and trying to bring a resolution. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would want to say that I would encourage the administration to take a lesson from the books of the House of Representatives and not only just support this, but to encourage the other body not to politicize this issue. We are moving swiftly, we are moving swiftly toward the end of our legislative business for this year. It would do us no good to compliment each other for this bipartisan effort if the other body is not on board. We all know that next year something chemically is going to take over us as we all seek reelection. I would suggest that it is more important to get this important piece of legislation passed than to give other people an opportunity to make political hay out of it. I conclude by thanking the leadership on both sides of the aisle, again, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], and those Members who worked so hard, not to get their names in the newspaper or to have TV interviews, but to do what was best for the country and what was best for the Internal Revenue Service, but most importantly, what was in the best interests of American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.