Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with passage of this bill, we not only pay tribute to a great American but we recognize in a small way the great culture and tradition of the Puerto Rican people. This bill is the first step in the process of renaming the Hellgate Post Office in my congressional district in East Harlem after Oscar Garcia Rivera, the first Puerto Rican elected to public office on the mainland of the United States. Born in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Mr. Rivera personified all the virtues of hard work, dedication, and commitment to the service of his country that Americans hold dear. After migrating to New York City, he worked in a factory in Brooklyn while studying at night at my own alma mater, St. John's Law School. Like so many minorities of his generation and still today, he found work in the post office, where he later helped establish the Association of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Employees of the U.S. Postal Service. In 1937, he made history by becoming the first Puerto Rican elected to public office in the continental United States. His election to represent what was then the 14th State assembly district was unprecedented. His decision to run was courageous as well in a city in which, in those days, Puerto Ricans were a distinct minority and a Puerto Rican official of any kind was unheard of. Though he served only until 1940, Mr. Rivera was a trailblazer for the more than 400 Hispanic Members of Congress, State Representatives, and judges who serve today throughout these United States. Today that representation--like that of African Americans--is under attack. But I am confident that the spirit of leaders such as Oscar Garcia Rivera will ultimately prevail. During his short time of service in the New York State Assembly, Rivera made lasting contributions, not only to the Puerto Rican community but the labor movement. He defended minimum wage laws, fought for regulated work hours, was a dedicated champion of manual laborers. On the national level--he joined with fellow fighters against Jim Crow and racism by supporting a successful campaign for legislation to outlaw lynching. Oscar Garcia Rivera holds a special place in the hearts of many of my older constituents in East Harlem. While I doubt that many of our younger contemporaries would recognize his name, this simple monument-- a post office on east 110th Street--will give him a permanent place in the history of New York. Oscar Garcia Rivera was a source of pride for his people back in the 1930's and `40's. The recognition that we offer today is well deserved not only by him but by all Puerto Ricans. In wartime they have fought bravely, and many have died to defend our country. They have made contributions large and small to American culture--in the arts, in music, in politics, and in law. Oscar Garcia Rivera reminds us that like all Americans, the people of Puerto Rico are not only entitled but have earned respect. Their culture, their language, their communities, their choices of political leadership should be embraced and never challenged. I wish to congratulate Jose Serrano, my dear friend and colleague from New York who has provided the leadership that has made passage of this bill possible. With his commitment and determination, he clearly walks in the footsteps of Oscar Garcia Rivera.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the remaining speakers that the time that we are on is that of our colleague, the gentleman from California, Sam Farr, who has yielded such time to us in memory of Hamilton Fish. I think we should take that into consideration as it relates to the length of our remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I like to take this time to thank my dear friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. As he and we know, the time that was allotted to the New York delegation had expired and the time we are now on is his special order, and we deeply appreciate you giving this consideration on behalf of our lost colleague, and I would ask the remaining speakers to please take that in consideration as relates to the length of their statements because Congressman Farr still has his time remaining. I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much for that statement. I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the Chair, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and yield to the gentleman from New York, Eliot Engel.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, George Gekas.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the life character and public service of the late Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], let me once again thank him for the courtesies that he extended to his Members in the House and especially the New York delegation.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I thank Ben Gilman. We have always considered ourselves as colleagues rather than partisan. There is hardly anything that we do here that we do not try to do in a bipartisan fashion as well as this order. I also thank our former colleague, Robert Garcia, for taking the time out to pay a tribute to his friend and former colleague.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thought that it was the ruling of this House that this issue was taken off of the floor so that we could proceed rapidly in other matters. Was that the ruling of the Chair as relates to the matter of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Ben Gilman, for getting this time for the New York delegation. A few minutes ago one of the Members on the floor asked, is this only for New York Members? And I did not give a full answer, but, no, Hamilton Fish and his memory will never be just for New York Members or Members of this Congress, because I think when you see where we are today and where we were 2 or 4 years ago, most everybody that was here would say, do you remember the old days of civility, of tolerance, of mutual respect? How we could disagree, and yet have respect for each other? And I am reminded that throughout the rules which govern us in this body, interlaced throughout them are words, such as ``yielding to the gentleman,'' kind and gentle words that allow us to protect the interests of our constituents, and, at the same time, to have this place be one that we respect, and would want not only our constituents to respect us, but history would do it. And who really epitomizes that? We have had a lot of people, Tip O'Neill, Silvio Conte, Chairman Natcher, and even Bob Michel, who fought for the beliefs of his party. Yet, when you think about a person that, no matter what the issue was, Hamilton Fish was not only a gentleman, but he had really the type of class, because he came from class. His grandfather was Governor and Senator and Secretary of State. His dad, who I knew before Hamilton, was not only a member of this body for 24 years, but how would I know him so well was because after serving in Korea, the only veteran's organization that seemed to want a Korean veteran was the 369th African-American Veterans Association, and I had to learn about the history of that group. It turns out that the 15th Regiment, which later became the 369th Regiment, were groups of African-Americans who wanted to serve in World War I and were denied the opportunity. They could not enlist to fight for their country. So what did they do? They marched all up and down in my district on Lenox Avenue with broomsticks, training each other, hoping that America would change its mind and allow them to defend the free world. Eventually they won out and they were trained and they were sent to Europe. And there were some protests among the white soldiers. But the captain of that 369th pulled out his gun and told the white soldiers that were protesting the presence of these African-Americans in the 369th that to defend his country he had to defend his regiment, and he cocked his pistol and said, if you touch one of these soldiers I will kill you dead. That person was Capt. Hamilton Fish, the father of the person that we served with. He took them to Europe and they came back to America as the most decorated unit that served in the entire World War II. And there was not a parade that the 369th veterans ever had, until the time that Hamilton Fish's dad died, that he was not at that parade. When I met his son, I felt as though I knew him because his dad accepted me and the things I believed in because of our military background but was always critical of his liberal son Hamilton. So, then, Hamilton and I go on to the Judiciary Committee, where we found a voice there that was not only there to weigh the facts, to see whether or not they were so serious that we should even think about impeachment, but he was a mediator, a conciliator, one that brought Democrats and Republicans together, not just for the TV cameras, but to sit down, to weigh the evidence and to see whether it made any sense not to impeach or not to impeach but to better understand how important this was for the integrity of our great Nation and to make certain that Chairman Rodino would not have to make anything that looked partisan because he was there to work it out. The funniest thing in the world was seeing Hamilton Fish working out problems and his dad having a press conference saying he should not even be thinking about impeaching the President. Is that not what makes America great? And it was. I hope that in memory of our dear friend that maybe when we are tempted to be angry with each other, maybe when we are tempted to say the things that we all regret after we say them, that we can wonder what Hamilton would want us to do no matter how angry and how many differences we had about reaching that common goal. And so we all lose a dear friend, but I lose someone that is a part of a very, very long tradition. He is a part of the history of the House of Representatives, and he served us so well that we can all know in the State of New York that nobody from any other State could possibly do better in presenting what a Congressperson should be. In his memory I will try to be a more compassionate, a better understanding person, because it is not our individual beliefs that count, it is how do we look as a body that represents not just our districts but the United States of America. He was in New York and we are proud, but he was first an American.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the Chair whether this intervention at all will cause the matter that was before the Chair to be discontinued. In other words, we are not finished with this matter.

Mr. RANGEL. And so this matter can be returned to, notwithstanding the unanimous-consent request?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal]. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the President will make note of this contribution that we are making to his campaign and the great opportunity that we have given to him. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend Clay Shaw who has worked so hard to protect the children of our great Republic and who made so many attempts to make this a bipartisan effort closed his remarks by saying, ``And who would want to be in a position of defending the status quo?'' Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has no idea what a powerful political statement he made. Because the answer should be, ``Nobody.'' There is widespread feeling in this Congress and in the United States that anybody that can work should be working, and anybody who freeloads is inconsistent with the ideas and the ideals that made our country the great country it is. Nothing gets to a taxpayer more than seeing a freeloader living at their expense and not making any attempt to pay their own way with the dignity that a job brings to them. Having said that, if I understand this bill, this is not just reform because you call it reform. President Clinton said you can put wings on a pig but it does not make it an eagle. Why should I accept the fact that just because it is different, it is reform? ``Trust the States.'' I trust the States. Give them the Federal money, they are closer to the problem. Put in a safety net. Make certain the children are protected. We are not talking about aid to dependent mothers. We are talking about children. Whether you are Democrat, conservative, liberal, or Republican, OMB says 1 million kids are going to be pushed into poverty. Why? Because people have arbitrarily said, ``Trust the Governors.'' After 2 years they decide if the mother is not working, kick the kid off. Well, I do not know what would have happened in the manger at Christmastime if that attitude had prevailed, but I think that Mary and Joseph would have had a harder time under today's bill than they had 2,000 years ago. The fact remains is, if you say go to work, is there not a responsibility to have a job? If someone plays by the rules, makes a mistake, the boyfriend got killed, they were on their way to the church, they looked for the job, they took the training, but there were no jobs. Oh, the Governors will work out something. If we are providing Federal funds and for the first time in 60 years are saying we wash our hands of this problem, it is now a State problem and you, Rangel, trust the Governors, you have been there for 40 years, that is a heck of a thing to tell to a child that is being denied food stamps, that is being denied health care because we have a problem with the mother. But if you do not have a problem with the mother and she has worked hard and there is no job for her to find, you say if it is 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, it is OK with you that she has not got a job. I say if we want to turn it over to the States, I think it is wrong, but I would support it. But we have an obligation as a Congress, as a Nation to put a safety net there for those kids. They have not hurt anybody. But it is not there in any of these bills. What has really happened is that the question before us as we adopt the resolution that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has is not whether or not this is a good or bad bill. It is the question that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], my friend, raised: Who is prepared before this election to protect the status quo? It is not me, but that does not mean that this flying pig is an eagle. It means that we have to do something before the election. Democrats have to have a vote on something and so do the Republicans, unless, of course, which I know never entered the minds of my friends in the majority, unless we can make the President look worse by having to veto it. So now good-thinking people are wondering in the Congress do they really want a bill or do they really want to embarrass the President. And that is what we are talking about today. The urgency to get this bill out is based really to get it out before we go to the election. All I am saying is, if the bill is so good, why does Catholic Charities say it is so bad? Are they dealing with such a higher authority that they cannot reach the Christians outside of the Christian Coalition? If the bill is so good, why is it my Jewish friends who take care of kids every day in the Jewish Council Against Poverty, which every year, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], my good friend, and I are there saying that poverty is not black or white or Catholic or Protestant or Jew or gentile, hey, they are against the bill. And the Muslims are against the bill. The Protestant Council said it may be a good concept but it is bad for children. I tell my colleagues one thing, this is the best medicine we can find to have food for an election. So I retain my time to yield to other Members, but I really wish that we could hurt the people that should be hurt and provide the jobs and the opportunity for those people who played by the rules; but there is no provision there to protect them. One day when we are talking about welfare reform, we will concentrate on education and dreams and training and have people that have more time to be prepared to get married and to get the picket fence and to have the same dreams as other people. But I realize that that issue is a local issue. We will leave that to the local school boards, and we will tackle the big ones like welfare reform and let the Governors tell us how well they are doing.