Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk about this being the first tax cut in 16 years. We do not hear much about what President is the one that is advocating the tax cut. We do not hear much about how the economy has improved from a deficit that was inherited toward a balanced budget, and our major problem today is that people have a different concept of the middle class. President Clinton has reached out to my Republican friends and said, ``Can't we work together?'' Mr. Chairman, I think the President will speak for himself in saying what a terrible disappointment it has been where the White House, the policy makers, has been excluded from the Republican bill. Bipartisanship means Democrats and Republicans working together with the President of the United States, and the President now says that this has moved so far away from the issue of fairness that he would not be able to sign the Republican bill. Even in the State of Texas they have so skewed and increased the number of people that will be ineligible for the child credit that half of the kids in Texas and over half of the kids in the State of New York will be ineligible for the family tax credit. It seems to me that fairness is something that should govern, but somehow if we can find people who are working every day, paying taxes to local and State government, that when it comes to saying give them a break, the people on the other side think that people who work in low incomes are asking for welfare. Mr. Chairman, I think it is arrogant and all Americans ought to be indignant, when people do not even consider going on welfare and they work every day, they work with their families. We will hear cases like this, but we are saying, ``We have to pass over you because we want to make tax lighter on the very richest of Americans.'' It seemed to me, too, that when my colleagues get a chance to see the Democratic substitute, we really believe that we should have strong law enforcement but we should concentrate on our school system the same way the other side of the aisle concentrates on death penalties and jail sentences. What we are talking about is that the Democratic bill improves our public educational system, brings in the private sector working as partners. We do not just talk about diplomas, we talk about jobs, and we are talking about getting America to move forward in this next century with productivity, effectiveness and the education to do the job we have to do. Mr. Chairman, I now would like to hold onto the time that we have for the other speakers that are here, and I do hope that people listen and see the difference between how we can deal with a tax bill in a bipartisan manner in which the President would want and how our Republican friends deserted and left him, locked him out of the room when these important decisions were made. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important periods, I think, in our Nation's history, because it gives us an opportunity to reflect who we are and what made this Nation so great. I think the test is, how do we who are newcomers to this continent treat those who are even more new? As we move into world trade, our greatest asset is the diversity, because with the exception of the Native American, we have the benefit of all of the cultures of the entire world in this great country, and I am fortunate to have a lot of it in my great city of New York. How many of my colleagues just enjoy thinking about how generations ago, from whatever country, whether it was in Europe or some other country, we had relatives who came to this country, many not with a lot of education or a lot of wealth but they came with a lot of hope. Many of them came illegally because we did not have the sophisticated way of checking. But we are not looking for them. Because those who came had on the docks people who came before them waving and screaming saying that these people are going to make a contribution to this great country. Even those of us who came in chains are saying, ``This is a great country.'' Even the Native Americans are not asking to leave. It is a great country. But with each wave that came, there was some group of people that wanted to hurt them. Ask the Jews, ask the Polish, ask the Irish. Ask the Italians. There was some group that came here that said the next group was not good enough. Because we Americans are so good in our thinking, we do not ask who was that group that was stamping the hands of those people who were climbing into America to become great citizens, but today the other side has put for the record who they are. We are now saying if you come to this country, play by the rules, come in and you were working, coming in you had a sponsor, you did everything right, the sponsor died, you got old, you had an accident, we are saying, ``You didn't come when our parents or grandparents came, so now we're changing the rules.'' My colleagues are not changing the rules by this Congress for the United States of America, and my President, who represents Republicans and Democrats, today's history and tomorrow's history, is going to say, ``We're not going to change these rules to save a couple of dollars to throw into capital gains indexing.'' What we are going to do is to make certain that anyone who wants to come to this great country will be able to come with the same rules and the same protections as for those who came and made this Nation so great.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1997. The bill, if enacted, would remove the arbitrary and unfair distinction between powder and crack cocaine sentencing. As predicted, earlier this month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission again concluded that Federal drug laws that treat crack cocaine defendants 100 times more severely than powder cocaine defendants cannot be justified. I am proud to be joined in sponsorship of this important bill by a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus. In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released a study of Federal sentencing policy as it relates to possession and distribution of all forms of cocaine. Specifically directed by the Omnibus Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Sentencing Commission reported on the current structure of differing penalties for powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenses and to provide recommendations for modification of these differences. Again, following a congressional mandated study, the Sentencing Commission has restated their stance against the current 100 to 1 ratio. This time, the Commission voted unanimously to lower the sentencing disparity and asked Congress and President Clinton to address the issue within 60 days. Your support of the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1997 as an original cosponsor will facilitate timely consideration of the Commission's request. Included in the mandatory minimum penalties enacted by Congress in 1986 and 1988 was an arbitrary distinction between crack and powder cocaine that singled out crack cocaine for much harsher treatment. The laws had the effect of creating a 100 to 1 quantity ratio for triggering equal treatment for the two pharmacologically identical drugs. For example, under current law, if a person, tried in Federal court, is found in possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, he would be subject to a mandatory 5-year penalty. If that same person is found with 5, 50, or 400 grams of powder cocaine, he would face a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison. It would take 500 grams of powder cocaine to bring the same punishment for possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine. One of the effects of this legislation is to punish small-scale crack cocaine users and dealers more severely than we punish their wholesale suppliers. Continuing this unfair treatment threatens to undermine the authority of the 14th amendment to the Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law from disproportionate punishment. In addition, current policy threatens the 14th amendment's equal protection guarantees for those who live in areas where crack cocaine is more readily available and cheaper than powder cocaine, namely African-Americans and Latinos. These positions are outlined in the accompanying Letter to the Editor from a May 13, 1997, letter to the Wall Street Journal. The Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1997, brings back a sense of fairness to the Federal sentencing process. I challenge this Congress to adopt this legislation to promote that ideal. Letter to the Editor From the Honorable Charles B. Rangel I write regarding Mr. Wayne J. Rocques' opinion-editorial that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. In the article, Mr. Rocques' condemns Reverend Jesse Jackson and me for our views regarding the mandatory Federal Crack Cocaine sentencing law, which we regard as unjust due to its disproportionate application to African American defendants, who represent almost 90% of the defendants in these cases. Current law mandates that persons convicted of possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine receive the same sentence (five years) as persons convicted of possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine. Since enactment of this law, the 100-1 quantity ratio has had a devastating and disproportionate impact on the African American community. The evidence is indisputable. First, almost 97% of all crack cocaine defendants are Black or Latino despite the fact that these groups represent less than 50% of all crack users and less than 25% of the general population. In Los Angeles, from 1988 to 1991 the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted no white suspects on Federal crack cocaine charges while hundreds of white suspects moved through the state court system. In 1992, this two track system was repeated in 17 states. Second, although Mr. Rocques notes the difficulty of attacking the wholesale marketing of crack cocaine, he neglects to explain the reasoning behind this statement. Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are virtually identical from a pharmacological standpoint, and crack is derived directly from powder cocaine. Consequently, wholesale powder cocaine dealers also serve as wholesale crack cocaine dealers. The consensus among drug control advocates, including Mr. Rocques, is that this is the group that must be targeted for severe sentencing. Meanwhile, small time street-level crack dealers, who often produce the crack themselves can fill our jails and face kingpin sentences with possession of as little as $50 worth of crack. Third, to answer Mr. Rocques' question regarding why advocates for fair sentencing would concern ourselves with drug criminals, I would remind him that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution requires equal treatment under the law. This sentencing disparity breaks that promise and undermines the foundation of fairness that our country is built upon. Finally, though Mr. Rocques would have your readers believe that only Rev. Jackson and I have spoken out regarding polarizing effects of the Crack Cocaine Sentencing Law, in truth, we have been joined by others in- cluding the entire Congressional Black Caucus, Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, former Drug Czar Lee Brown and Senator Robert Dole. Even more significant are the Congressionally requested studies produced by the bipartisan United States Sentencing Commission, which in 1995 and yesterday, unanimously, released studies that found such a disparity insupportable. Furthermore, the Sentencing Commission explained that, ``the current (100-1 sentencing) policy must be changed to ensure that severe penalties are targeted at the most serious traffickers.'' The rejection of the current biased system should guide Congress to act on these recommendations in an expeditious and responsible manner. The Sentencing Commission's report should also spur immediate action in President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno, and Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. The challenge of overcoming the zealous rhetoric of detractors demands that they fight for the commission's responsible proposal rather than issuing pensive and avoiding promises to give the report, ``very serious consideration.'' In addition, although Mr. Rocques' diatribe would label me as a supporter of drug legalization, nothing could be further from the truth. I have spent my entire professional career-- first as a Federal prosecutor, then as a New York State Assemblyman and finally as a United States Congressman-- advocating for increased awareness of drug abuse and control. Despite the fact that I originally supported the Crack Sentencing legislation, I now recognize that it's application has revealed a strongly biased and flawed statute. My strong advocacy against drug trafficking and abuse does not blind me from my responsibility to correct failed policy, no matter the author.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's decision to extend most-favored-nation status to the products of China for another year, and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 79. As most of my colleagues know, we are not really talking about giving privilege or favorable treatment to the Republic of China; what we are talking about is treating them as we would normal trading partners. I think, too, one of the reasons I support it is because this is not just a trade issue, it is a foreign policy issue, and I think the President and the State Department should have more information as to where we can go as a nation and what proper tools we have available to use in order to bring the entire free world around to understanding that democracy really and truly works. It seems to me that boycotts and using trade as a weapon can only work if we have a consensus among the world leaders that we are going to be working collectively. Here we see a situation which should be proven to us by the embargo against Cuba that there are too many countries willing to fill the vacuum that America would leave, if we just decided unilaterally that we had a higher sense of human rights than the people that we were dealing with. It is just hard to see what our history of doing business with dictators in South America and around the world, including the former Soviet Union, than how with China we find this new high moral standard in dealing with them. It is not as though withdrawing and not communicating is going to improve the situation. Most no one denies that job creation in our country can be the difference in whether we trade or whether we do not, or whether someone else gets the jobs. Mr. Speaker, on the question of human rights, I would just like to say that our great Nation exceeds the world in the number of humans that we have incarcerated per capita. If we take a look at the profile of those people that are locked up and have had their liberties taken away from them, and knowing the fact that statistically people who look like them will be ending up in jail, we would be hardpressed on American soil to explain that we are not talking about political prisoners. Most all of these people, at least 80 percent of them, come from poor communities; one way or the other they have been affected by drugs; most of them of color; most all of them are uneducated, untrained, and most of them do not think much about their lives and the lives of other people. It would seem to me that if we really were concerned, we would find out the source, the poverty that exists in communities, the failure of our school system to work, and to see how close to 2 million people could possibly enjoy the benefits of expanded trade which we hope this great Nation will be looking forward to. What I am saying is that we all are seriously concerned about the human rights of every individual, and we should be, but I do not want any country ridiculing or telling my country, the greatest republic in the free world, what we are doing wrong. I do not want anyone setting these standards for my country. I think that the fights that we have, we are able to fight back because we have the opportunity to do it. We have the ability to try to impress each other, to make America better, and I think the only way we can get this idea across to other countries is to be there and let them see who we are, how we succeed to have a better life. I think it is true in Cuba, if we went there and showed them what American capitalism is like, and I think that the United States as an economic showcase has changed the lives of many people in China. Mr. Speaker, by continuing the dialog and creating the jobs on this side of the ocean, I truly believe that is a better solution to the problem than us determining what human rights should be in the Republic of China.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to former Ambassador Omer Eissa, who died in a tragic automobile accident while visiting Sudan on May 20. Ambassador Eissa served with great distinction as Sudan's Ambassador to Washington when Gaafar Mohammed Numeiry was President of Sudan. Ambassador Eissa was a great friend of the United States, and many Members of Congress had the great pleasure of knowing him. I will always be grateful to Ambassador Eissa for the hospitality that he extended to the Dance Theater of Harlem during several of their visits to Washington. Ambassador Eissa had a long and diversified public service career in Sudan. As a member of the Sudanese Parliament, he was chairman of the Committee on Housing and Education. He was also a member of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Refugees. Subsequently, he was appointed as a member of President Numeiry's cabinet, which he later left to become Ambassador to the United States, serving concurrently as nonresident Ambassador to Canada and Mexico. While in Washington, Ambassador Eissa served as dean of the Council of Arab Ambassadors as well as dean of the Council of African Ambassadors. After the coup that removed President Numeiry from office in 1985, Ambassador Eissa made his home near Washington and became an American citizen. I wish to extend my most heartfelt condolences to his wife and children, who can be very proud of what Ambassador Eissa has done for the people of Sudan. Thomas B. Evans, Jr. Washington, DC, May 26, 1997. Hon. Charles B. Rangel, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Charlie, A good friend of mine, Omer Eissa, recently died in a tragic automobile accident in Sudan where he was visiting a brother who was very ill. Omer was always a great friend of the United States and hosted Arthur Mitchell and Dance Theatre of Harlem at the Sudanese Embassy on several occasions. You may recall the time we sat in the Presidential Box with the Reagans to watch Dance Theatre perform at the Kennedy Center. I believe Omer's wife would very much appreciate it if you included some remarks about him in the Congressional Record (a draft statement is attached). Let's get together one of these days when Alma and Mary Page are in town. She joins me in sending our warmest regards to you both. Sincerely, Tom.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay respect and tribute to Audley Moore, affectionately known as Queen Mother Moore, who died in a Brooklyn nursing home on May 2 at the age of 98. She was given the honorary title of ``Queen Mother'' by an Ashanti tribe in Ghana. Mother Moore lived a long and active life, dedicated to public service and improvement of the lives of African-Americans. Born on July 28, 1898 in New Iberia, LA, to second generation freed blacks, she became a revered public figure in Harlem, best known as an advocate for Africa and African-Americans. Moore's ideas and teachings of Pan- African Nationalism was influenced by great political personalities such as W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey. As a civil rights activist, Mother Moore worked on the defense of the Scottsboro boys. Internationally, she spoke on her disapproval of the Italo-Ethiopian war. ``I am not a part-time struggler,'' she once said. ``I'm in the movement for the liberation of African people full-time, 7 days a week, 24 hours per day, for life.'' Her career was influenced by the violence and hatred she endured as a young child and young woman. While in the fourth grade, Moore's parents died and thus ended her formal education. During World War I while in Alabama, Moore was a volunteer nurse who involved herself in the first of her movements for the equality of blacks by organizing support services for black soldiers that were denied by the Red Cross. Mother Moore was drawn to the idea of black nationalism and economic independence by the oratory of Marcus Garvey, founder of the Harlem- based Universal Negro Improvement Association. She became an active member of the organization, and founded the Harriet Tubman Association to better the conditions of black women. Through this organization, Moore advocated issues such as higher wages, better education, and the lowering of food prices to help improve the conditions of the poor. Following her brief membership in the Communist party--at the time, the only organization that accepted her radical ideas--she focused her attention on seeking economic reparations for descendants of the victims of slavery, cultural identity, and education. She launched a national campaign in support of economic reparations. Moore believed that economic reparations were the first constructive step in black nationalists ideology. As an orator, her rhetoric on this issue was powerful-- Ever since 1950, I've been on the trail fighting for reparations. They owe us more than they could ever pay. They stole our language; they stole us from our mothers and fathers and took our names from us. They worked us free of charge 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, under the lash for centuries. We lost over 100 million lives in the traffic of slavery. In 1962, Mother Moore met with President John F. Kennedy, the United Nations, and the Congressional Black Caucus about the issue of economic reparations. She later organized and directed the Reparations Committee of Descendants of United States Slaves. One of her last public appearances was at the Million Man March in Washington, DC. Although weak, her poignant speech was delivered by an associate. Her presence was strongly felt and appreciated. Queen Mother Moore's contributions have had a substantial impact on the lives of Africans and African-Americans. She has served as an inspiration to many and will be greatly missed. I send my deepest condolences to her son, Thomas, grandchildren, and great-grandchild.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and all those that made this bill possible. Let me thank Speaker Gingrich. No one in this House has been more sensitive than Speaker Gingrich to the problem that has been facing our Nation as we see our youth being destroyed through a poison that originates outside of this great Republic. We have talked so many times as to how we can prevent this threat to our national security, and yet I can almost say hallelujah for this bill today, Mr. Speaker, because every time I have come to this floor to talk about drugs and youth, instead of talking about education and hope and dreams, we have talked about mandatory sentences, more time in jail instead of what this bill does. And it goes to the American people and asks, save our country, save our community and save our children. There is no bigger fight that we can wage by going to our communities and asking them to give education and hopes and dreams to our children because, once they have it, they are not the ones that end up with lack of hope doing drugs, doing crimes, doing violence and causing this great Nation to be the one that has more people incarcerated than any Republic on the face of the Earth. I hope that this serves as a model where the Congress can continuously go back to the community. One of the things that they will ask us to do is to help us to keep this poison from coming into this country from countries that are producing it. If we can tear down the walls of communism as we have done, we cannot let a couple of nickel and dime countries produce this poison to come in here and have it available to our children. This is what our community would be saying. They will be asking for our Secretary of State to be speaking out, our Secretary of Education, everybody in the Cabinet, because this is a threat to our national security. So I say to Speaker Gingrich, who recognizes that in order to save our kids we have to give them something to live for, this brings the community in. And we do not have to go back home and say how tough we were against drugs based on how long the sentences were. If we are going to be successful, it means that countries can have all the drugs available but our kids would not need them. Why? Because they would be able to say, as we enjoy economic growth, as we move into the next century, as we see international trade being a new way to go, they can say that they will be a part of it. But what do they have today? One thing is certain, that any black family in the United States of America knows that if they have a child, a boy child that they can be guaranteed according to the bureau of statistics that one out of four of those children would end up in jail. When was it that the American dream was that maybe one of these children could end up as President of the United States? So what we are doing as Republican and Democrats is not demagoging an issue. We are saying, can we not work together? Can we not go to the communities and ask them, is it not better to have more teachers than police? Is it not better to go back home to our State legislatures and find that out, that they are fighting to have a university in their district instead of what we find out today, they are fighting to have a prison in their district? Is it not great to find out in the great city of New York, we pay $84,000 to keep a bum kid in Rikers Island, a detention center, and the unions and the mayor are fighting to see whether $7,000 a year is enough? We pay $7,000 a year for a child being born addicted to drugs, $40,000 to pull out a bullet after a kid has been shot in a gang war. And yet we are not prepared to do the things like has been done today, to come together and say, the strength of our Nation is the confidence that we have in our communities and that we are going to work together to make certain as we tore down the walls of communism, we are going to raise the hope so that those people who disrespect international law, who grow and dispense and traffic in narcotics and who know they will be certified because it is the political thing to do, to know that the families throughout this country, rich and poor, black and white say we have had enough of it. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has found a way to allow us to believe in ourselves and the Congress by putting together this bill. Let this be a beginning. Let this be a bridge. Let us forget what we used to do and see whether we can do more of this type of legislation when we respond to the hearts and the minds of the people that are afraid for their children.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, we call this the Congressional Black Caucus budget, but the only thing that we have in common is that our constituents have the same dreams, the same aspirations and the same hopes to participate in this ever-growing economy that we have today. As we take a look at those of us that support it, the President's budget, which had a tax increase in it before, we see that without any Republican support it passed, and we found economic growth except for one group of people, and that is those people that did not have the tools to access, or the education, the jobs or the training to participate in this growth. Now that we are moving forward into the next century where trade and technology is going to lead, what we have tried to do in our budget is not to stress how much money we need for drug rehabilitation and how much we need for cops and jails, but to concentrate on how we can make the best investment, not just by reducing taxes, but by investing in people, giving our kids a chance to get an education similar to the GI bill so that they can participate, be productive, and have a society where we do not have to have welfare programs, but just decide what jobs are best for certain people that are trained for them. We want to make certain that the budget is balanced, not as just economists, because we cannot afford to have the interest on the debt really be further than just the interest that we have in our students. We would think that this great Nation would not want to see every State capital investing more in our prisons and in our jails when we have over 1 million people walking around, unproductive, not producing anything; where what we are saying is, put some human investment in our schools and we will find that the youngsters are dreaming about jobs and hopes and not dealing with crime and drugs. So we clearly have an alternative for those people that have a similar type of community, but even better than that, to make certain that towns like we have in New York where we have detention of children who make mistakes, we pay $84,000 a year to keep a kid in jail, and yet the unions are fighting with the mayors to see whether or not we can spend $7,000 to keep a kid in school. So it seems to me that even though the President had to pull together a bipartisan popular budget, that a courageous thing for all of us to do is to say that we should start cutting the taxes when we have no deficit, we cut the taxes when we are satisfied that we have made the investments in our teaching institutions so that we can effectively compete with our trading partners. For those people that may have to vote on more than one, I would suggest to my colleagues that the Congressional Black Caucus budget is one that one would not be politically ashamed.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you and my colleagues, my support for the release of Wei Jingsheng, one of the world's most important political prisoners and certainly the strongest voice of China's democracy movement. Today, Wei Jingsheng continues to serve a 14-year prison sentence because he chose to stand up against tyranny and advocate democracy for China. He chose to be on the side of human rights. He chose to act on his beliefs for the betterment of his people and for that, he has been made to suffer. I am sure you are familiar with the history behind Wei Jingsheng's imprisonment. Wei was first imprisoned from 1979 to 1993 on charges of counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement. He was accused of passing a military secret he had seen in the Chinese news media, to a foreign journalist. He was arrested in conjunction with his participation in the 1979 democracy wall movement, during which he argued that the government's modernization plans were impossible without democratic reform. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. In 1993, he was released from prison and continued speaking out for democracy and human rights, advocating an open and peaceful campaign for change. However, in April 1994, Wei was detained again and held in incommunicado detention for 20 months. This would soon be followed by a formal arrest, charges, and after given a 1-day trial, conviction, and sentencing. We cannot allow this injustice to continue. Wei Jingsheng is the 1994 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award laureate as well as the recipient of last year's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought which was bestowed upon him by the European Parliament. He received the 1993 Gleitsman Foundation International Activist Award, and since 1995, has been nominated every year for the Nobel Peace Prize. This week marked the publication of his book, ``The Courage to Stand Alone: Letters from Prison and Other Writings,'' the first book-length collection of Mr. Wei's letters and other writings. How fitting it would be to do the right thing, to do the human thing, and set this man free. Therefore, I urge my colleagues here in the Congress to do all within its power to grant Wei Jingsheng's release. He should be a prisoner of conscience no more.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join with my colleagues. I did not come to speak on this subject, but just this Friday I attended the funeral of a sixth grade teacher that I had. She was more than an inspiration to one of the worst kids in the classroom, which was Charlie Rangel, but it was fantastic that the more success I received politically, the better she thought I was as a student. How quickly they forget. I was so blessed to have had her, not only as a sixth grade teacher in Nettie Messinger but as someone who counseled me after I got out of the service, returned to high school and went on to college and law school. There were so many, many students that she took this very, very personal relationship with. She did not just let you play hookey, she had to come by your house to let your parents know that you missed school. On behalf of all of the students from old PS 89, some that get on TV and many others that do not, let me thank the teachers that follow the high tradition of real teaching as Mrs. Nettie Messinger did and join my colleagues in thanking all of our teachers, especially those in the public school system.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of H.R. 1463, as amended, to authorize fiscal year 1998 and 1999 appropriations for the U.S. Customs Service, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. International Trade Commission. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the subcommittee chairman, has reported, the bill came out of the Committee on Ways and Means by voice vote and is noncontroversial. It authorizes the funding levels requested by the President in his budget submission for each of these three major trade agencies. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], with my support, had an amendment that passed successfully that reallocates $5 million of the Customs commercial operations to drug interdiction efforts. We hope that these additional resources will effectively counteract the increased threat of drug smuggling in the south Florida area, as well as continued interdiction along the Southwest border and Puerto Rico. The additional drug enforcement funds will also enable Customs to increase the number of special agents dedicated to counter-narcotics and anti-money laundering activities, including their relocation to high threat drug zones. H.R. 1463, as amended, provides the minimum funding levels necessary for the Customs Service, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the International Trade Commission to carry out their essential trade functions as mandated by the U.S. Congress. I urge support of this bill and urge my colleagues to pass it. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time to other Members.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, entitled the Education Opportunities Tax Act of 1997, which consists of tax provisions that are designed to expand educational opportunities in this country. My bill would expand opportunities for students in K-12 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 for hope. The bill that I am introducing today is based largely on education tax incentives contained in the President's budget recommendations. My bill modifies the President's proposals in two major ways. Both modifications reflect many meetings with education providers and the business community over the last several years. First, I believe that providing additional financial resources to assist families in meeting the cost of higher education 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 my bill would permit qualifying educational institutions to make this a reality. Therefore, my bill includes provisions 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 my bill contains tax provisions designed to encourage that involvement. Those tax provisions, called education zone tax incentives, are based on the principles of public-private partnerships that underlie the empowerment zone legislation. Second, I believe that a revised Hope scholarship credit is the most effective way of using the tax law to help families meet the cost of higher education. Therefore, rather than including the other education tax incentives proposed by the President in my bill, I have proposed an expansion of the President's HOPE scholarship credit and made modifications to it to ensure that all students, regardless of their family incomes, will receive the full benefit of the credit. In addition to the $1,500 credit for each of the first 2 years of college as proposed by the President, my bill provides a $1,000 credit for the third and fourth years of college education. The dollar limitations would not be reduced by the amount of Federal grants such as Pell grants, and the student would be required to maintain satisfactory academic progress to be eligible for the credit. The HOPE scholarship credit, as originally proposed by the President, would have been refundable and available to low-income families who would not have income tax liabilities. The refundable aspect of the credit was eliminated in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget proposals because of concerns over the difficulty of administration by the Internal Revenue Service. I believe that no family should be denied the HOPE scholarship credit merely because its family income is too low and, therefore, I have provided a refundable HOPE credit in my bill for students from such families. I believe that I have addressed the concerns that caused the President to eliminate the refundability feature of the HOPE credit. In my bill, the refundable portion of the credit would be paid by the educational institutions on behalf of the Treasury Department in a manner similar to that used for other Federal assistance. Although the bill that I am introducing today contains only tax provisions, I recognize that tax provisions alone cannot provide sufficient additional resources needed to assist students in obtaining a higher level of education. Therefore, I have also cosponsored two bills, H.R. 1435 and H.R. 1436, introduced by Representative Bill Clay on April 24, 1977. Those bills would expand the Pell grant program, reduce student loan fees, and provide school construction funds. Although our proposals may differ, President Clinton and I share the same goal. We both believe that a lack of resources should not prevent any American from receiving a college education. A college degree is increasingly vital in our society. Government can and should play an important role in ensuring that all Americans have access to higher education. I firmly believe that expanding educational opportunities is the most efficient way of ensuring equal opportunities in our society. 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 resources available after deficit reduction should be invested in human capital. A recent survey 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 work force 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 summary of the provisions contained in my bill: 1. Public-Private Partnerships The bill contains a financing mechanism designed to provide needed capital and expertise to establish partnerships between public educational institutions and private businesses. (a) Local governments would be authorized to issue special bonds (or otherwise borrow money) to cover the cost of establishing specialized academic institutions. These institutions would have to be located in empowerment zones or enterprise communities or primarily serve disadvantaged students. Because of the tax credit described in subparagraph (b), this capital could be raised with no interest cost to the local government. No bonds could be issued for any school unless there were assurances of private business participation described in subparagraph (c). The required private business contributions and the terms governing the financing would be designed so that each member of the partnership would provide equal contributions. (b) The Federal Government would provide a tax credit to purchasers of the special bonds (or holders of other evidence of indebtedness) described in subparagraph (a). The credit would be paid annually in an amount equal to a percentage of the bond (or indebtedness) face amount that would permit the raising of interest-free capital by the local government. There would be an overall national limit on the amount of financing eligible for the credit. The annual limitation would be $6 billion for 1998, 1999, and 2000. In order to avoid creating a tax-exempt bond with a substantial Federal guarantee, the credit would be included in income of the recipient and subject to tax. (c) In order to be eligible for the special interest-free capital, the local government would have to secure written assurances of contributions from private business. Such contributions could consist of goods, expertise, training, or services. The businesses would benefit from current-law deductions for charitable contributions. The bill also provides a tax credit to employers for hiring recent graduates of the schools established through these partnerships. The amount of the credit would be 20 percent of the first $6,000 of wages paid during the first year of employment if the student is hired before a 6-month period after graduation. 2. hope scholarship tax credit The bill includes a nonrefundable and a refundable HOPE scholarship credit. The nonrefundable credit would be claimed by taxpayers on their income tax returns if they have sufficient tax liability to fully utilize the credit. This credit would be administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Taxpayers with incomes too low to receive the benefit of the full amount of the nonrefundable credit would be entitled to a refundable HOPE credit. The refundable credit would be paid by the institution at which the student is enrolled under procedures similar to those used in providing other Federal educational assistance. For the first two years of college, the maximum amount of the credit would be $1,500 for a full-time student and $750 for a half-time student. For the third and fourth years of college, the maximum amount of the credit would be $1,000 for full-time and $500 for half-time. The limitations will be indexed for inflation. The credit would be available for the first four years of post-secondary education. A part-time student would have to be at least a half-time student for the year. The credit would be available on a per-student basis. To be eligible for the credit, the student would have to maintain satisfactory academic progress and remain ``drug free'' (not convicted of a felony involving drugs). The credit would be available for qualified expenses incurred by the taxpayer, taxpayer's spouse, or taxpayer's dependent (as defined in Code section 151). Qualified expenses consist of tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance. The credit would not be available to married taxpayers unless they file a joint return, and would not be available to nonresident aliens. Expenses for this purpose would be net of grants, scholarships, and fellowships. Pell Grants and other nontaxable Federal scholarship assistance would not reduce the dollar limitation on the credit but like other scholarships would be offset against qualified expenses in determining the amount of credit. The credit would be phased out over the following adjusted gross income levels: Joint filers, $80,000-$100,000; and Unmarried filers, $50,000-$70,000 (indexed for inflation beginning in year 2000). The credit would be effective for expenses paid after December 31, 1996, for education furnished in academic periods beginning on or after July 1, 1997 (the beginning of the 1998 academic year).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me join with my colleague from Florida in complimenting the legislators on the committee that worked on this very sensitive piece of legislation. It is so difficult for us in the Congress to attempt to regulate or legislate things that concern love and emotion and separation of mother and child, and that is why it is so important that those people, who mean well but want to fine-tune this, might do well to believe that the Congress cannot, as they have said so often, make one size fit all according to Federal standards. I think all of us agree that when it comes to a child that is living in a dangerous or an abandoned situation, that we all want to do what is in the best interest of the child. We do not have all of the answers here in Washington, even though we Democrats are accused of trying to provide all of them. But one thing is clear, that the facts and circumstances surrounding the condition and the welfare of that child is closer to the State than it is Washington, DC. So I do hope that those who have particular problems or have seen it back in their home State might concentrate on trying to change those provisions at home and kind of leave the work that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] have put together in a very well balanced way. It just seems to me that they have taken in consideration the very, very difficult decisions that have to be made even by social workers. When is the time that a child should be adopted? When is the mother's rights terminated? Is there an area of rehabilitation? All we know is that this bill would at least allow the resources for these very sensitive questions to be addressed in the proper way. All we can do is hope the best that we can that we have facilitated in taking children out of harm's way into loving homes and thereby making a stronger and more productive country as these youngsters grow up to be productive. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has every reason to be proud, and those that have really not spent that much time discussing this, I hope that they might allow this legislation to go through as it is drafted and to make certain that their considerations are brought to the local communities in which they serve, because situations that we have in New York may not prevail in Los Angeles or in other parts of the United States, and I really want to protect the work that has gone into this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining be turned over to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the drafter of the bill, on our side at least, the codrafter, and that she be given the opportunity to yield the remainder of the time that we have on this side.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Jackie Robinson, the first African-American to play major league baseball in the 20th century. Jackie Robinson, came from humble beginnings and was born on January 31, 1919. The son of a sharecropper, was never one to let adversity or racial discrimination stand in his path. He attended the University of California, where he won acclaim in basketball, football, baseball, and track and field. Jackie's collegiate experience was cut short in 1941 because of financial hardship. Jackie was forced to leave the university. To support his family, Jackie enlisted in the Army in 1942 and was subsequently commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1943. In 1947, the Brooklyn Dodgers signed Jackie up as a player. He became the first African-American to play major league baseball. During the early years, his debut into professional baseball was anything but easy. Jackie was forced to face facial discrimination, hatred and bigotry from white major league baseball players and fans on an almost daily basis. Yet, despite this hostile environment, Jackie achieved fame as one of the greatest baseball players. Before his retirement in 1956, Jackie had compiled a career batting average of .311 and had played for six pennant winners and one world championship team in Brooklyn. He was named Rookie of the Year in 1947 and Most Valuable Player in the National League in 1949, the year he led the league in stolen bases. Although Jackie played many positions, he was primarily a second baseman. Jackie's lifetime accomplishments go well beyond the limits of a baseball diamond. He was a noted civil rights leader, devoted family man and shrewd businessman and banker. Harlem was his adopted home. Today is indeed a special occasion, for it marks the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut into the professional baseball league. Jackie has been a positive role model for so many aspiring youth. We have only to look at the recent accomplishments of Tiger Woods. Please join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut into professional baseball.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I took advantage of the opportunity to go to the Hershey retreat in an effort to see whether or not we could get along better than we have since the majority was gained by the Republicans. I thought it was very useful. In that light, I view this constitutional amendment, one that should have really been brought to the floor on April 1 rather than April 15, I assume that this is a jocular type of thing that is being done to allow the American people to believe that the majority is not everything that they think it should be. It seems to me, if there was any sensitivity about reducing taxes and cutting spending, that after I reviewed the Contract With America, it said that the rules of the House are not changed, that majority ruled. This was a point that my dear friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], was making who serves on the tax writing committee. It may be interesting to note that some of us that have been assigned to this committee, which is the constitutional committee to raise the revenue for the United States of America, not the other body, have refrained from speaking on the floor in favor of this type of thing because we respect the membership to do what the voters want. To me it would make a lot of sense if we had a Contract With America and we said we were reducing taxes by $300 billion, the first thing we would do is count the amount of votes that we have. And there sure are more Republicans than there are Democrats. It seems to me that, when the Speaker of the majority of this House says that he wants to eliminate inheritance taxes for the wealthy and just eliminate all of capital gains taxes, the staff estimates it costs $450 billion. But I am a minority, my colleagues are the majority. I am on the committee. I do not see any bill to reduce taxes by $450 billion. I have not seen a bill coming from the majority since I have been on the committee. I remember when the candidate for President, he upped the ante $500 billion. But in my committee, what we were doing is having hearings on ripping up the entire tax system. So if the chairman of my committee is having hearings on pulling the tax system up by its roots and the candidate for President is interested in using the same system but decreasing taxes for $500 billion, for God's sake, before we ask the courts to decide our tax policy, can we not get along? Can the majority kind of tell us, what is it that they want that they cannot get with the majority of the vote? Why give up and throw up our hands and say, we have got to make it impossible for us to be able to raise taxes because we need two-thirds. We cannot get a majority on anything. So if we just want to take away the House's ability and constitutional right to assume this responsibility, why do we not at least try the other side? They have got bills over there now. They say they are going, they do not have the constitutional right to get it over here, I mean to enact it over there, but it still has to come here. Why do they not tell us with the 450 billion cuts, how are we going to pay for it? We all started out with the Republican leadership in reducing the budget. I really think that the President went along with everything when he indicated that he would do it in 7 years because it seemed like a great figure to me, so the Speaker said he thought it was a nice number. So he adopted the nice number. Now how are we going to get the $450 billion tax cut that the other side, at least they have a bill, unless we know how we are going to pay for it? Have we given up on deficit reductions? Or is this something that really comes up every April 15 where we can tell the American people that we are going to reduce taxes? If I was partisan, and since the retreat I am not, I would think that the American people would think there is some kind of hoodwinking going on here. How year after year after year you are saying we are paying too much taxes and it should be reduced by half a trillion dollars and you cannot get a bill together to reduce it by $1. You cannot come together with anything. That is a challenge that comes from our side of the aisle. The way this system is supposed to work is the President proposes we dispose. So we are in a minority. We do not have a bill yet. We are waiting for the majority to come up with something to tell the President, we do not like what you have done. We have got a plan. The last plan you had, the Contract With America, was very politically successful, and that is to adopt President Clinton's proposal that you rejected. And ever since then you have said that you can enjoy bipartisanship since you lost your candidate on the way to the polls. But that is behind us. Now is the time for us to work together to see what can we do in the House of Representatives. If what you are saying is that having won the majority, having taken your contract to the people, that we now have to have a constitutional amendment and turn it over to the courts, you missed April fool's day by 2 weeks.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I join Michael Manley's many friends and admirers who mourn his loss in paying tribute to his remarkable life. Michael was my friend for more than 20 years and I greatly admire his visionary and inspirational leadership. He was a delightful personality with wide ranging interests who was always aware of, and involved in, the issues of the day. He was a committed patriot of Jamaica, a man of the Caribbean, and a person who represented all who struggled for justice, equality, and opportunity. Michael was a teacher and a leader on the issues which have defined the challenge facing developing nations as they move from political independence toward sustainable development and economic viability. Michael had the capacity to envision a better world for all, the ability to articulate his vision, and the leadership to inspire us individually and collectively to aspire to goals beyond our reach. Michael Manley's leadership was a global significance and impact. His struggle against apartheid in South Africa was internationally recognized by the award of the United Nations Gold Medal in 1978--the highest award of the Special Committee Against Apartheid. In addition, his work on economic issues, particularly the New International Economic Order, and the external debt problem of developing nations, marked him as one of the preeminent international political and economic thinkers of the contemporary era. His prolific writings on economics and politics include Poverty of Nations, 1991; Up and Down Escalator, 1987; Jamaica Struggle in the Periphery, 1982; A Search for Solutions, 1977; A Voice of the Workplace, 1973; and Politics of Change, 1973. He was a visiting professor at, and received honorary doctorates from, numerous institutions of higher learning in the Caribbean, Great Britain, and the United States. Although retired from political life since 1993, he continued to be active in public affairs. Michael Manley played a pivotal role in the restoration of democracy to Haiti and the transition to majority rule in South Africa, to which he led the Commonwealth Observer Mission that won praise from the new Government of South Africa. I had the opportunity to work particularly closely with Michael in recent years, in the restoration of Haitian democracy, and I can personally attest to his influence in mobilizing the Organization of American States and the United Nations to become engaged in negotiating the return of President Aristide to complete the term to which he was elected as President of Haiti. Michael Manley showed me his commitment to justice and his love for the Caribbean as he applied his formidable intellectual and persuasive powers to the cause of democracy in Haiti. He had similarly committed a good portion of his public life to the struggle for self-determination in Africa and especially was a leader in the effort to end apartheid and bring about majority rule in South Africa. Michael's global view did not make everyone comfortable. In the 1970's, the United States Government opposed his friendship with Cuba and his support of the Cuban troops sent to Angola to stop the advance of the South African apartheid regime. Michael suffered the wrath of the United States for his independence and was labeled a Communist sympathizer. Michael was more than a Jamaican, more than a man of the Caribbean; he was a man with a global reach and vision who saw the challenge of reducing the great and tragic gap between the rich and the poor through the creation of a new international economic order. Michael had the capacity to learn and change, to adopt new tactics to accomplish his goals in recognition of new and different circumstances. His economic message changed from the 1970's when I first met him and defended him against charges that he was a Communist. In the 1990's he emphasized private sector-led growth and development. Throughout he was a prime minister beloved of his people because he opened opportunities for participation to the disadvantaged and removed historical disabilities of gender, class, and privilege. His loss will be felt in Jamaica, the Caribbean, the hemisphere, and throughout the world. Michael Manley's intellect, energy, and passion were universal in their commitment to freedom, equality, and justice. His extraordinary impact will be forever remembered.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that 25 years ago we had the same debate, and Mexico was cooperating then. We have had any number of declarations of war, and yet it seems as though we send the DEA, we send so many people over there, not with the bullets and the resources even to attempt to negotiate a truce as the situation worsens. How ironic, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] over there and me over here having drafted the bill on which we are working today; and I think everyone is saying, it just does not work. For those that join with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and some on the other side to say, let us get out of the business of certification, let me join. It was a good-faith effort. I thought war meant war. But I do not throw sand in people's faces unless I am prepared to bury them. There is no sense running around insulting people and threatening people if you do not intend to do anything. With all the wars that we have had, one office has never been on our side in the war, and that is Secretary of State, no matter whether it was a Democrat or Republican administration. I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I have negotiated with them on the North American Free Trade Agreement. Do my colleagues think we might be able to talk about drugs when we are talking about this historic treaty? No, the State Department says, that is apples and oranges. The Trade Representative said: You cannot insult the Mexicans in talking about drugs when you are talking about legitimate trade. So now we have sanctions here. I tell my colleagues who is going to get the sanctions: Cuba, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, any country that does not matter to us as it relates to trade or diplomatic relationships. So what have we done? We have just embarrassed ourselves. Now we are just dealing with the sensitivities of the offending nations. I do not think a Nation as great as ours should be shaking their finger at the people on the other side of the border where they know, if we have the decertification or not, nothing, nothing is going to change.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 5, legislation to waive certain provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with respect to the nomination of Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky to become the U.S. Trade Representative. This legislation is necessary to complete the nomination process of Ambassador Barshefsky. The Ambassador has broad bipartisan support and deserves to be our next Trade Representative. Last week the other body approved her nomination and the waiver legislation before us today by overwhelming votes of 99 to 1 and 98 to 2, respectively. During her 4 years, nearly 4 years, of service at the Office of the USTR, first as Deputy USTR and since April of last year as Acting USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky has compiled an impressive record, opening foreign markets for U.S. exporters and defending U.S. trade interests. Recently, she concluded successful multinational agreements which will reduce or eliminate tariffs worldwide on trade and information technology products and which will open foreign markets for basic telecommunication services. Last December, she concluded a bilateral agreement with Japan on insurance, which opens that market for United States insurance providers. Last year she also struck an agreement with China providing for stronger enforcement of United States intellectual property rights in that country. Clearly, the Ambassador has shown that she is tough and a skillful negotiator internationally. More important, however, Ambassador Barshefsky understands that international trade and our Nation's trade policies have an impact on the lives and future of all Americans. For that reason she consults closely with Members of Congress and the public at large on her action, and she clearly recognizes that trade policy is a shared responsibility of the executive and legislative branches and carries her responsibilities out accordingly. For those who have questions or concerns about this waiver, it must be noted that Congress has previously passed legislation to waive a statutory requirement on who may serve in a particular Government position with respect to a specific nominee. It should also be noted that as Deputy USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky was specifically exempt from the provisions in question in the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The Senate Finance Committee carefully studied her record in the private sector and agreed unanimously that a waiver was entirely appropriate for Ambassador Barshefsky. Mr. Speaker, in the past several years I have come to know, admire, and work with Ambassador Barshefsky, who is a tireless, dedicated person on behalf of the American people. I heartily endorse the legislation before us today and urge my colleagues to support it. Ambassador Barshefsky will be a U.S. Trade Representative of which all of us will be proud. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 5, legislation to waive certain provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with respect to the nomination of Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky to become the U.S. Trade Representative. This legislation is necessary to complete the nomination process of Ambassador Barshefsky. Ambassador Barshefsky has broad bipartisan support and deserves to be our next U.S. Trade Representative. Last week, the other body approved her nomination and the waiver legislation before us today by overwhelming votes of 99-1 and 98-2, respectively. During her nearly 4 years of service at the Office of the USTR, first as Deputy USTR and since April of last year Acting USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky has compiled an impressive record opening foreign markets for U.S. exporters and defending U.S. trade interests. For example, she recently concluded successful multilateral agreements which will reduce or eliminate tariffs worldwide on trade in information technology products, and which will open foreign markets for basic telecommunications services. Last December she concluded a bilateral agreement with Japan on insurance which opens that market for U.S. insurance providers. Last year, she also struck an agreement with China providing for stronger enforcement of U.S. intellectual property rights in that country. Clearly, Ambassador Barshefsky has shown that she is a tough and skillful negotiator internationally. More importantly, however, Ambassador Barshefsky understands that international trade and our Nation's trade policies have an impact on the lives and futures of Americans. For that reason, she consults closely with Members of Congress and the public at large on her actions. She clearly recognizes that trade policy is a shared responsibility of the executive and legislative branches and carries out her responsibilities accordingly. For those who may have questions or concerns about this waiver, it must be noted that Congress has previously passed legislation to waive a statutory requirement on who may serve in a particular Government position with respect to a specific nominee. It should also be noted that, as Deputy USTR, Ambassador Barshefsky was specifically exempt from the provisions in question in the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The Senate Finance Committee carefully studies her record in the private sector and agreed unanimously that a waiver was entirely appropriate for Ambassador Barshefsky. Mr. Speaker, in the past several years I have come to know and admire Ambassador Barshefsky's work and tireless dedication on behalf of the American people. I heartily endorse the legislation before us today and urge my colleagues to support it. Ambassador Barshefsky will be a U.S. Trade Representative of which we will all be proud.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Americans for Democratic Action, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. ADA is a prestigious organization whose achievements should be recognized. It is one of the largest and oldest liberal advocacy groups in the country, with a membership in excess of 25,000. As one of ADA's past presidents, I am indeed honored to have this opportunity to highlight some of the accomplishments of this most important organization. Also, it is only fitting that I point out that New Yorkers have had a long and favorable association with the organization. In fact, many are founders of the ADA. The list of New York citizens credited for founding ADA includes the following: union leader David Duminsky, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Also included on that list of notable New Yorkers is a Manhattan Borough President Stanley Isaacs, a Republican. As a former president, I have first hand knowledge regarding the importance of this organization. During my tenure, 1989-1991, I was delighted to watch ADA grow in membership, stature and program. Our staff and membership doubled during that time and we waged relentless battles against the excesses of the Bush administration. As an example, the ADA performed a thorough review of the Bush administration's foreign policy record relating to Panama and Granada, and concluded that a failing grade should be issued. Additionally, ADA evaluated the Bush administration's performance on budget issues, and once again issued a grade of F for programs which rewarded the wealthy at the expense of the Nation's neediest. ADA is also credited for telling the truth about the real rate of unemployment. The effort to provide more accurate unemployment information resulted in the release of similar such statistical information by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ADA's leadership in this arena culminated in our being able to better gauge the number of job training programs required for those unemployed. The ADA has been a leader on may different fronts, including civil rights and civil liberties issues, nuclear arms control, apartheid in South Africa, workers rights, women's issues, increases in the minimum wage and Federal budget and tax policies. Most recently ADA provided support for the international family planning resolution, which sought the early release of 1997 funds to international organizations. The ADA is an invaluable organization, whose efforts need to be recognized. Its history is one of influence and effectiveness. May it continue for another 50 years.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to pay special tribute to the more than 30 million Americans for whom it has become a tradition to pause during the month of February to celebrate black history in the United States. I want to thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus who each year set aside a time during February for a special order to which all of my colleagues are invited to reflect on the significance of black America's contribution to our history. My special commendation goes out to my colleagues, Representative Louis Stokes of Ohio and Representative Maxine Waters of California, the new chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, for convening this special order. Thirty years ago this month, the House of Representatives was preparing to take one of its most infamous actions. On March 1, 1967, the House voted to exclude from the 90th Congress Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., my predecessor as the Congressman from Upper Manhattan and Harlem, and one of this body's greatest Members. Two years later, that action was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, and Representative Powell returned to his seat, stripped of 22 years seniority. I recall this incident not only as a commemoration of an injustice committed against one of the greatest figures in black history. During this period in which President Clinton has designated education as a national security issue, it is again fitting to recall the career of Adam Clayton Powell. Much of Powell's greatness is attributable to his support of education as well as his urgings to our Government to pay greater attention to Africa and the developing world. During Powell's first term as chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, which he assumed in 1961, the committee passed not only the minimum wage bill, but legislation creating training programs for practical nurses, student loans, and manpower and training development programs. All of these were enacted into law. Years earlier, in the 1950's, Powell was a lonely crusader for increased U.S. involvement with Africa and the developing world, going against the grain of U.S. policy, which was obsessed with the rise of communism around the world. Powell was a man of many dimensions, in ways, ahead of his time. A vocal warrior on the forefront of our struggles for racial and economic justice, and education at home, he at the same time preached a gospel of international involvement. Even before our Government recognized that our destiny in trade and commerce was moving away from Europe, he understood that we continued to ignore Asia and Africa at our own peril. Today, as we prepare for the challenges of the 21st century while reappraising the gains of the civil rights movement, we find that we are riding the shoulders of those great leaders, such as Powell, who came before us. Through their efforts, we have overcome the legal segregation and discrimination that dehumanized us as a people. Through their efforts, a viable black middle-class of successful professionals, homeowners, and college graduates has emerged. But many challenges remain, some in the very areas in which Adam Clayton Powell made a mark decades ago, working toward the eradication of poverty, joblessness, drug addiction, crime, and sickness. If we are serious about addressing those challenges, and maintaining our competitive edge in the global economy, we must refocus our attention on the goal of providing the best education possible for all Americans of every race. In the environment of budget balancing and tax cuts in which we exist, that challenge cannot be met by Government alone. The private sector, which has the most to gain from an educated work force, must join in partnerships with Government, the schools, and the communities to see to it that our young people are qualified to compete in the high-technology marketplace, that they are trained to take their place in the 21st century economy. As a nation, we must admit that our future as a worldwide economic leader is no longer tied to Europe, but increasingly to the economics of the Pacific rim, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa. And even as we recognize the importance of people of color around the world, we must also recognize the folly of failing to utilize the talents of America's black and brown people who have contributions to make in international business, in foreign affairs, and diplomacy. More than anything, America must continue the work of our past leaders, including Adam Clayton Powell, all of whom recognized that education was the key to social, economic, and racial justice.