Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate in support of the motion to instruct by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], I would like to say that I do not think that any Member in this House could challenge the fact that if we want true welfare reform we have to talk about education, training, access to jobs and people working with dignity and with pride so that they do not have time to do the things that require dependency on the Government. Maybe one day we will get to those issues instead of talking about punishment, cutting grants, mandatory sentences, and make this country as great as she can be with education, jobs, and productivity. One day when we reach that, that truly will be welfare reform and an opportunity for this great republic to reach the heights that she can reach. (Mr. MYERS of Indiana asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) providing for further consideration of H.R. 3816, energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, we have gotten off the subject now of substantive legislation, and we are now dealing with Presidential politics. Well, let us do it. The welfare bill now has become like a tennis ball in a political volley, and the question is, Does it make more sense to force the President to keep his commitment to change welfare as we know it, or really do we want to get the President in the position that he has to veto the bill? Well, we have tried so many times on the Republican side to find out just what is it that the President hates. Obviously, it was the tremendous cuts that were recommended by the other side as relates to Medicaid. So what was the solution? Continue to make certain it was one package, until it becomes politically expedient to change that and to put another poison pill, and several other poison pills, so you can go home and say the President has vetoed the welfare bill once again. Who really suffers? It is really the voters, or it is our children? This obsession in saying that the Federal Government cannot take care of them has no responsibility to our children, but that the Governors should be trusted. And then to have the Christian coalition to come up and embrace this in a Christian way. Well, thank God we have the National Council of Catholic Bishops that say the program stinks. Thank God we have the Jewish Council Against Poverty that says it is no good. Thank God we have the Protestant Council that says it is no good. It may be good politics, but it is bad for the children of our Nation. The whole concept that we are saying 5 years, but the Governors can say 2: We are relinquishing our responsibility to the children of the United States of America, and it is a bad day in the congressional history.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 1996, I introduced legislation to amend section 832(e) of the Internal Revenue Code to extend the scope of its provisions to financial guaranty insurance generally. Senators D'Amato and Moynihan recently introduced a companion bill, S. 1106, in the Senate. Financial guaranty insurance, commonly called bond insurance, is an insurance contract that guarantees timely payment of principal and interest when due on both tax exempt and non-tax exempt bonds. The bond insurance contract generally provides that, in the event of a default by an insured issuer, principal and interest will be paid to the bondholder as originally scheduled. Internal Revenue Code section 832(e) originally enacted in 1967, applied only to mortgage guaranty insurance. At that time, Congress permitted mortgage guaranty insurance companies to take a deduction for certain extremely high contingency loss reserve requirements imposed by State regulatory authorities, provided that they invested the income tax savings associated with such a deduction in non-interest-bearing tax and loss bonds issued by the Federal Government. Since such bonds are treated as an asset by the State regulatory authorities, this relieves the companies from the substantial cash-flow and impairment of capital problems that they would otherwise face if the deduction was not allowed. At the same time however, since bonds do not bear any interest, the economic position of the Federal Government remains the same had not the deduction been permitted first. When the State authorities applied the same reserve requirements to lease guaranty and municipal bond insurance, Congress amended Internal Revenue Code 832(e) in 1974 and applied it to such insurance as well. State authorities now apply such contingency reserve requirements to financial guaranty insurance generally, including non-tax-exempt debt, such as asset-backed securities, which are a growing segment of the bond insurance market. Therefore, consistent with the reasons why it was originally adopted in 1967, and amended in 1974, IRC section 832(e) should be amended again to apply to such insurance. The superintendent of insurance for the State of New York, Edward J. Muhl, has urged enactment of this legislation. A copy of his letter follows these remarks. I understand that the insurance commissioner of the State of California has written a similar letter to Members of the California delegation. I invite all concerned to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. State of New York Insurance Department, New York, NY, November 9, 1995. Hon. Charles B. Rangel, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Rangel: I write to seek your support of S. 1106, a bill introduced by Senators D'Amato and Moynihan, to amend section 832(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply to financial guaranty insurance generally. Under present law, the tax and loss bonds provisions thereof are applicable to mortgage guaranty, lease guaranty, and tax-exempt bond insurance but are not applicable to insurance of other taxable debt instruments, a growing segment of the financial guaranty insurance business. Article 69 of the New York Insurance Law, which governs financial guaranty insurance corporations, was enacted on May 14, 1989. Article 69 establishes contingency reserve requirements in respect of all financial guaranty insurance corporations where in the past these requirements only applied to insurers of municipal obligations. In formulating this new legislation and establishing contingency reserve requirements applicable to all financial guaranty insurance corporations, there was no intention to create a disparity between insurers of taxable and tax-exempt obligations in respect of their ability to invest in tax and loss bonds. Section 6903(a)(7) of Article 69 provides that ``any insurer providing financial guaranty insurance may invest the contingency reserve in tax and loss bonds purchased pursuant to Section 832(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (or any successor provision) only to the extent of the tax savings resulting from the deduction for federal income tax purposes of a sum equal to the annual contributions to the contingency reserve.'' This provision of Article 69 expressly contemplates that all financial guaranty insurers would be entitled to benefit from an investment in tax and loss bonds within the limitations provided by the insurance law. S. 1106 eliminates the disparate treatment of insured mortgages, leases and tax exempt bonds, on the one hand, and of other insured taxable bonds, on the other, which the provisions of IRC section 832(e) now create. Your efforts to secure enactment of the proposal will be most appreciated. Very truly yours, Edward J. Muhl, Superintendent of Insurance.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a report issued following the Third Annual Narcotics Control Conference I and several of my colleagues attended in Taipei, Republic of China this past February. This report outlines the important and successful steps Taiwan has taken in their antinarcotics efforts, as well as their commitment to international antinarcotics cooperation. This conference was part of an on-going effort between the United States Congress and the Government of the Republic of China to improve bilateral and regional cooperation in the antinarcotics effort, and I would also like to thank Congressman Ed Towns who participated in this conference with our delegation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to personally thank Dr. Ying-jeou Ma, Taiwan's Minister of Justice, for his outstanding dedication and personal attention to our joint antidrug efforts, and I wish to commend him for a job well done in his role as Minister of Justice. Third Annual Narcotics Control Conference summary Representatives Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). Edolphus Towns (D-NY), former Rep. Lester L. Wolff and former Rep. Frank Guarini participated in a 3 day conference in Taipei, Republic of China on Taiwan entitled the Third Annual Narcotics Control Conference, from February 14-17, 1996. Conference included the following host country officials: Ying-jeou Ma, Minister of Justice; Dr. Cheng-Hao Liao, Director General, MJIB; Chuan Cheng, Deputy Director General, MJIB; Wei-Herng Hu, Director, Taipei City Psychiatric Center; Shih-Ku Lin, Chief, Taipei City Psychiatric Center; Szu-Yin Ho, Institute for International Relations; Mr. B. Lynn Pascoe, Director, American Institute in Taiwan; Harvey A. Somers, American Institute in Taiwan; and Eric Wu, Former Member of Legislative Yuan. Consultative meetings were also held with the following dignitaries: Lee Teng-hui, President; Frederick Chien, Foreign Minister; Stephen S.F. Chen, Vice Foreign Minister; and Chung-ling Chiang, Minister of National Defense. The primary purpose of this conference was to discuss narcotics control issues facing the Republic of China on Taiwan, U.S.-RoC counter-narcotics efforts, and discuss cooperative solutions to the narcotics threat in Southeast Asia. In response to the shift from narcotics interdiction to ``in-country institution building'' by the current U.S. administration, the conference focused on the Republic of China's efforts in formulating a cohesive anti-drug strategy which focuses on law enforcement, public education, and drug treatment (including rehabilitation). background Although according to the U.S. State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Taiwan is not a significant cultivator or producer of illegal narcotics, the illegal consumption of both heroin and methamphetamines does present a serious social problem. In recent years, Taiwan has faced a growing problem with heroin trafficking, to which the government of the Republic of China has responded with a major effort to stop the flow of Southeast Asian heroin into Taiwan, the United States and elsewhere. Taiwan continues to implement an aggressive domestic counternarcotics program, which has led to a decline in drug trafficking, demonstrated by lower seizure rates and consumption in Taiwan. Taiwan's cooperation with U.S. anti- narcotics efforts (conducted under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan) has substantially expanded over the past year, and the appropriate offices representing the US and the RoC are negotiating a new MOU on even broader counternarcotics cooperation. New legislation is under consideration to augment existing counternarcotics laws and bring Taiwan into conformity with the 1988 UN Convention and recommendations of the Financial and Chemical Action Task Forces relating to money laundering and precursor chemical controls. Narcotics Control Conference The Narcotics Control Conference consisted of a series of meetings and fact-finding visits to various ministries within Taipei in order to receive information and exchange views on Taiwan's counternarcotics efforts. These ministries included the Ministry of Justice, Taipei City Psychiatric Center, Investigation Bureau (MoJ), Ministry of National Defense, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Investigation Bureau, Ministry of Justice On Wednesday, February 14, the delegation was received by Director General Dr. Cheng-Hao Liao, and Deputy Director General Cheng at the Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice. The delegation was given a thorough briefing on RoC narcotics issues, with particular emphasis being placed on efforts for increased international cooperation and coordination with U.S. efforts. Discussions were held concerning the RoC's efforts on halting the illegal trafficking of narcotics to Taiwan, in addition to stopping the illegal transit of narcotics through Taiwan's international ports. A useful exchange of views followed this briefing, covering various areas of mutual concern to both the Republic of China and the United States in their anti- narcotics efforts. Following these discussions, the delegations was then escorted by Dr. Liou to the Investigation Bureau's extensive laboratory complex, in order to view the Republic of China's state of the art processing and research facilities. This equipment, purchased from the United States, is used to conduct research, analysis, chemical testing, and identification processing for use in criminal investigations and law enforcement R&D. After an extensive tour of the laboratory and discussions concerning similar approaches by the Republic of China and the United States, the delegation was then escorted to the narcotics depository and storage facilities where confiscated drugs are kept under strict control. This storage facility is held under tight security arrangements, where narcotics are kept for use as evidence in prosecuting drug-related crimes. After their use in trials, the narcotics are then held for public destruction and anti-drug education purposes. The delegation was very impressed with the laboratory and storage facilities at the MJIB, and in the progress made in developing enforcement capabilities. Taipei City Psychiatric Center The delegation was next received by Dr. Wei-Herng Hu, Director of the Taipei City Psychiatric Center (TCPC) to learn more about the RoC's treatment and rehabilitation efforts. TCPC is the major municipal psychiatric hospital in Taipei city, and plays a key role in the treatment of heroin addicts. The hour long discussion with Dr. Hu included issues such as drug abuse prevention, treatment methods, and educational efforts aimed at stopping narcotics before it starts. The delegation also toured the center's patient wards, where medical personnel briefed the delegation on rehabilitation efforts for recovering addicts. TCPC has conducted extensive research in the treatment of heroin addiction, including: the use of tramadol in heroin detoxification, the relationship between substance abuse and criminal activity, pharmaconetics of heroin use in Chinese drug abusers, group psychotherapy, drug abuse screening, naltrexone maintenance trials on parole patients, and out- patient drug free program management. Ministry of Justice Following the tour and discussions at the Investigation Bureau and the TCPC, the delegation continued its conference program with extensive discussions with the highest ranking law enforcement official from the Republic of China, Dr. Ying-jeou Ma, Minister of Justice. Dr. Ma, a Harvard educated S.J.D., enjoys wide popularity among the citizens of Taiwan and is widely respected among his colleagues for his efforts in tackling narcotics and corruption issues during his tenure. Dr. Ma outlined various developments within Taiwan concerning the narcotics situation, including an account of the largest narcotics seizure ever to take place in Taiwan's history. ``On May 12, 1993, while conferring medals and awards on meritorious officials taking part in the seizure, Premier Lien Chan formally declared war on drugs. The RoC's anti-drug campaign thus entered a brand new era.'' As Dr. Ma reported, in the later half of the 1980's, a double-digit economic growth, low inflation, and minimal unemployment steadily pushed economic prosperity in Taiwan towards new heights. The process of political democratization further loosened the social discipline. Since 1990, methamphetamine suddenly replaced soft drugs as the most popular drug in Taiwan, and its abuse spread at an astonishing rate. Meanwhile, heroin consumption also started to jump during 1990-93. Since 1994, however, both the volume of drugs seized and the offenders convicted have declined at an increasing speed. Taiwan's Anti-drug Strategy Dr. Ma related, in sum, that narcotic drugs from Southeast Asia and mainland China had invaded Taiwan in an unprecedented fashion. As late as seven years ago, drug abuse was still unknown to the majority of people in Taiwan. It is no wonder that the legal and medical communities were caught off guard initially. But since the RoC Government declared war on drugs in May, 1993, government agencies have beefed up their efforts to tackle the problem. Dr. Ma compared some of the measures being taken in various countries throughout the region, having just returned from a fact-finding tour throughout Southeast Asia and Golden Triangle area. Dr. Ma's extensive knowledge and dedication was considered by the delegation to be a great asset to the Republic of China in their anti-narcotic efforts. A discussion was also held during this phase of the conference with AIT Director Lynn Pascoe, who confirmed the RoC's efforts in international cooperation. Dr. Ma, however, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the fact that the Republic of China had been singled out as one of the transit countries in the INCSR report over the last few years, and stated his view that the transit allegation was being applied without concrete evidence. In fact, Dr. Ma stated, since 1990 there had only been one case where it was proven that Taiwan had served as a transit point for narcotics, and that given the huge volume of international shipping that goes through Taiwan, these incidents would be a great deal higher if Taiwan was being used as a transit country. He stated that the Republic of China had given its utmost effort in handling this issue, and stated his hope that the delegation would note his concerns and relay this information to the U.S. government. The delegation noted Dr. Ma's concerns and stated that all views would be presented in their report of this conference. Dr. Ma went on to outline the RoC's anti-drug strategy. The overall strategy is simple: supply and demand reduction. And implementation takes a three-prong approach: law enforcement, public education and drug treatment (including rehabilitation). In the RoC, law enforcement agencies include the National Police Administration (NPA), the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau, the Military Police Command and the Customs Service. International cooperation is also important. In the last three years, the MJIB has called three international conferences to discuss drug enforcement problems with participants coming from more than 24 countries. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of the U.S. Department of Justice has shown interest in setting up an office in Taiwan to coordinate intelligence cooperation with NPA and MJIB. The NPA and MJIB are also building up ties with Southeast Asian countries near the Golden Triangle. Finally, Dr. Ma pointed out that, while the RoC is not a party to the United Nations Convention against illegal narcotics trafficking due to the PRC's deliberate obstruction, the RoC has taken steps to start regulating the importation and use of precursors, chemicals, and solvents in conformity with the U.N. convention. China External Trade Development Council and Other Activities On Thursday, February 15, the Congressional delegation visited the China External Trade and Development Council and the Taipei World Trade Center to discuss trade matters between the United States and the Republic of China. The delegation was briefed on the current balance of trade between the two countries, in addition to various other trade related matters. The delegation was next received by the Hon. Frederick F. Chien, Minister of Foreign Affairs where current issues facing the U.S.-RoC, RoC-PRC, and U.S.-PRC relationship were discussed. The delegation also paid a visit to Vice Foreign Minister Stephen S.F. Chen, who hosted a dinner in honor of the delegation the following evening. Also on Thursday, Representative Rangel and Representative Towns were joined by Representative Bill Brewster (D-OK) and Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) in meeting with President Lee Teng- hui. Bi-lateral issues including trade, narcotics and recent political developments were discussed, and President Lee commented on the importance of keeping the pressure on narcotics traffickers and on the efforts of the RoC government in halting the transit of illegal narcotics through Taiwan. As reported in the United States International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, recent efforts by the RoC government has led to ``a major effort by the Taiwan authorities to stop the flow of heroin and reduce domestic usage. Taiwan continues to implement an aggressive domestic counternarcotics program which has led to a decline in drug trafficking, demonstrated by lower seizure rates, and consumption in Taiwan.'' The delegation pledged its continued support for Taiwan's counternarcotics program, and a continuation of the close bi-lateral relationship the two countries have enjoyed.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of treating China like any other trading nation. They call it most favorable treatment, but actually what we are talking about is free trade and trying to see how we can best improve the economy of the United States and create more jobs here. That does not mean that I have any less sensitivity to human rights. How more sensitive can I be? These Chinese, these Communist bums, shot me over there in 1950. I do not like them worth a darn. I do not like any Communists. I do not like the North Koreans, I do not like the North Vietnamese, but I do not know whether the United States of America has to have a litmus test with who we trade with. The Cubans, my God, I know they are vicious people, Communists, and violate human rights, and we look like the village clowns at the United Nations. Every one of our partners that trade with us are now suing us because they say we cannot have secondary boycotts against them. We say Iraq, Libya, Iran, you name it, we get sick and tired, by our standards of disliking someone, so we give sanctions. Hey, I like sanctions, if we are going to win. I like feeling powerful. The United States of America, we have a code. If countries do not live up to our code, they do not have a democracy, then we do not play the game with them. But somehow we have different standards for different countries. Is there any difference between the Communists in China and the Communists in Cuba or the Communists in North Korea? I do not like any of the Communists, so why are we picking them out? And we talk about human rights. Do my colleagues know that some of these scoundrels believe that we violate human rights here? Do my colleagues know some of them have checked out the jail population and found out we have a million and a half poor folks in jail, most of whom did not commit any crimes of violence? Do my colleagues know that some of these scoundrels are critical of this great country? At our worst we are better than all the rest of them, and yet they are talking about the number of minorities that all of a sudden find themselves not even being able to be elected to the Congress. Do my colleagues know that? For 200 years they found out how to gerrymander and cut the blacks. Out comes a law and they say do not do that any more. And now the Supreme Court has said do not take color into consideration. We are now colorblind. I just think they do not understand our American way of life, and I darn sure do not understand them. What I do understand is this: That there are millions of people in jail, more millions of people without jobs, without education, and without hope, and I do not have any hope that this Congress is going to support tax money for education. Oh, we believe in it, we just do not want to pay for it. I do not believe that this great Nation can keep up with international competition unless we make that investment. If we are not prepared to do it, then I am not prepared to allow local school boards to determine the level of education and job training that we have in this country. The only way to get this money is to expand our economy, the only market is outside of our borders, and this is the only way to go.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Now, that was a real introduction. Mr. Speaker, I thought the name of this game was how to get economic growth. I now find that this foreign policy, this trade policy, that normally set by the President with bipartisan support, is now dependent on just how much we hate these bums that are running China, and If I had only known that, I would not even know why we are doing business with Japan. I mean I wan younger then, but it seemed to me that they were not very nice people then. And Germany; my God, the atrocities that were committed then. And Italy; they were not considered friends of ours. My God. And when it comes to personal experience, those North Koreans, they were chasing me all around North Korea, and the Chinese shot me. And still we got sanctions against Cuba, and really they have not bothered me too much. But the truth of the matter is, what are sanctions, and what is most- favored-nation treatment? It is not most favored nation. We are saying, if the United States does not get there first, then our so-called friends are going to get there. We also are saying if we get out of there, our great friends will be in there before we can pull out our equipment. And so this is not a question about who you like and who you do not like, because I am certain that this is not going to be an anti- Communist type of thing with my friends supporting trade with North Vietnam, with my friends supporting trade with North Korea. My God, the Communists, all around us. They are just not shooting us, they are buying things from us, and they are creating jobs from us, and what choices do we have? If we apply sanctions against them and it is a unilateral sanction, how do we hurt them? We do not have any friends in the United Nations that can depend on our credibility. We now have already told the United Nations, ``Elect who you want for a secretary general, we're vetoing ahead of time.'' We now told people that are doing trade with this little island in the Caribbean, ``You dare do trade with them,'' or, ``You do trade, have your companies any place where any Cuban says he has a piece of land, and we're going to take away your visas and have sanctions against you.'' Who believes us any more? Why cannot the United States have credibility? Why cannot we believe in something and say what the name of the game is? Do we want to find atrocities? Answer: ``You bet your life.'' And we are doing business in Africa with countries. We say we are going to have sanctions against Nigeria. Who is joining us with the sanctions? If we are going to hurt somebody, make certain that we win and stop teasing around throwing out sanctions or we are not going to trade with them when other people are going to trade. I say, ``Don't hurt yourself just because you're dealing with a bunch of bums. You're dealing with 1.2 billion dollars' worth of good people led by a bunch of bums. Well, what's your option? You just going to say, `I quit; I am not going to play the game; you didn't pass the personality test'?'' It is dollars and cents. It is hard bucks. They already said we have to balance the budget, and of course my President now finds it very convenient to adopt most of these ideas. He says balance the budget. He already said we have to cut revenues, and my President says, makes some sense, too: We have got to have tax cuts. He already said that we have to shrink Government. Well, my God, Government is being shrunk. But a strange thing is happening in this country, and that is that the old people are living older, and since they believe the answer to every social ill that we have are penitentiaries, they are building more jails. Oh, we are not going to spend on education; leave that to the local kids. Well, the local kids are failing, they are in the street, they are jobless, they are ignorant, they have no training, they end up with drugs, making kids, getting violent, going to jail. Oh, how are we going to deal with that? Well, the only name that we have in town is expanding the economy, and the only way we can expand the economy is not consuming everything that we make but by selling it to somebody even if we do not like the people we are selling it to.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention a church in my congressional district which is celebrating its 200th anniversary this year, and is the oldest African- American congregation in the State of New York. The church I am speaking of is the historic Mother African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, affectionately called Mother Zion. Mother Zion Church is the mother of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Connection, who was popularly known as the Freedom Church because of its pivotal role in the abolitionist movement. Many conference churches, including Mother Zion, served as stations on the underground railroad. Mother Zion Church has been served by 29 pastors in its history; two were elected bishops: Rt. Rev. James Walter Brown and Rt. Rev. Alfred Gilbert Dunston. As the pastor, Dr. Alvin T. Durant, and the members of Mother AME Zion Church rejoice in this bicentennial year ongoing celebration, I extend to them my congratulations, friendship, and support as they go forth honoring 200 years of Christian service.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage and that of good Americans across this great country at the wave of suspicious fires that have swept at least 30 churches in the South in recent months. Churches and synagogues are the cornerstones of our communities, providing the moral and spiritual cultivation that our society so desperately needs. I ask all my colleagues in the House to voice their condemnation of these deplorable acts. Vandalizing places of worship is not a partisan issue. I also call on all the moral leaders of our Nation and those of every religious background to stand against these acts of terror. Every synagogue, mosque and church is vulnerable to the same acts of terrorism committed against our black churches and it is crucial that leaders of every religious denomination speak out against the vandalism of our Nation's houses of worship. It is a shame that the history of violence and intimidation toward black people in this country is repeating itself. Will we allow hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, skinheads, and other white supremacist organizations to rise again? Will we allow the historic achievements of our courageous freedom fighters who sought to create a nation of fairness and racial harmony to be further defamed? In our society, arson of a church attended predominately by African- Americans carries a unique and menacing threat to individuals in our Nation who remain physically vulnerable to acts of violence and intimidation because of their race. Such threats are intolerable and individuals responsible for such acts must be aggressively pursued and apprehended. As churches burn from flames of hate and intolerance, there are those in our society who would dismantle civil rights legislation and affirmative action that have provided assistance to groups in our Nation who have been discriminated against due to their race, sex, or religious beliefs. We as a Nation must not allow the practice of scapegoating others because they are of a different race or nationality or poor to continue. Our Nation was built on diversity and we must refute any beliefs that condone or support an atmosphere of blame and intolerance against those in our society who are defenseless, particularly our sick, poor, and aged. Just as the churches, synagogues, and mosques shelter our weak and defenseless, we as Americans have an obligation to protect those houses of worship from vicious attacks. I commend President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on their quick responses to investigate these criminal acts of terrorism and I hope those who make such treats will be prosecuted and will serve sentences commensurate with the cowardly and despicable nature of their actions.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage and that of good Americans across this great country at the wave of suspicious fires that have swept at least 30 churches in the South in recent months. Churches and synagogues are the cornerstones of our communities, providing the moral and spiritual cultivation that our society so desperately needs. I ask all my colleagues in the House to voice their condemnation of these deplorable acts. Vandalizing places of worship is not a partisan issue. I also call on all the moral leaders of our Nation and those of every religious background to stand against these acts of terror. Every synagogue, mosque and church is vulnerable to the same acts of terrorism committed against our black churches and it is crucial that leaders of every religious denomination speak out against the vandalism of our nation's houses of worship. It is a shame that the history of violence and intimidation towards black people in this country is repeating itself. Will we allow hate groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, skinheads, and other white supremacist organizations to rise again? Will we allow the historic achievements of our courageous freedom fighters who sought to create a nation of fairness and racial harmony to be further defamed? In our society, arson of a church attended predominately by African- Americans carries a unique and menacing threat to individuals in our Nation who remain physically vulnerable to acts of violence and intimidation because of their race. Such threats are intolerable and individuals responsible for such acts must be aggressively pursued and apprehended. As churches burn from flames of hate and intolerance, there are those in our society who would dismantle civil rights legislation and affirmative action that have provided assistance to groups in our Nation who have been discriminated against due to their race, sex, or religious beliefs. We as a nation must not allow the practice of scapegoating others because they are of a different race or nationality or poor to continue. Our Nation was built on diversity and we must refute any beliefs that condone or support an atmosphere of blame and intolerance against those in our society who are defenseless, particularly our sick, poor, and aged. Just as the churches, synagogues, and mosques shelter our weak and defenseless, we as Americans have an obligation to protect those houses of worship from vicious attacks. I commend President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on their quick responses to investigate these criminal acts of terrorism and I hope those who make such threats will be prosecuted and will serve sentences commensurate with the cowardly and despicable nature of their actions.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2754, in opposition to the Bateman amendment, and also to thank Sam Gibbons who for so many years has been active in these very sensitive negotiations which involve not just shipbuilding today but shipbuilding tomorrow. We are all pleased that America now is going into an era of peace, that we are moving swiftly from defense into commercial shipping, and that we now are going to have to make certain that we can have a plane, an equal, a flat playing field as we move forward in economic competition with other shipbuilders, and that is exactly what this agreement has done. It prevents other countries from manufacturing, making ships, and dumping them on our markets for less than the price that they actually paid for it. It really sets the rules for all of the countries that have sat down and realized that there are pluses and minuses in every agreement. The subsidies that we have now, sure, we can continue those, which are higher than other countries, but that does not mean that other countries cannot change if there is no agreement and put in for deeper subsidies. So what we are talking about is a war between which country is prepared to subsidize this industry more than the other. We know that we have the expertise, we have the ability to excel, and all we ask is that other governments play by the same rules. It took 5 years for the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and for other countries to try to figure out what is in their best interests, and that is what international treaties are all about. It means that those who have an advantage now will not have that advantage next year. So I think that after all of these years, we cannot have America say, yes, we agree; yes, we spent time at the table; but here again we find some people that believe that they got a little edge now but are not looking at the long picture as to where America will be if we do not restrict other countries from depending on subsidies and allow us to depend on our expertise, our experience, our high-technology, and know that those people, whether they are in military vessels or not can succeed in a fair market.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I rise today to recognize one of our Nation's most celebrated and talented actors, writers, and directors and a true friend of mine, Ossie Davis who recently hosted the fourth annual National Memorial Day Concert on the West Lawn of the Capitol in Washington, DC. Mr. Davis, a veteran who was a surgical technician in North Africa during World War II for years avoided Memorial Day celebrations. This year's event televised on PBS marked a significant transformation in his life. As a veteran of the Korean War and ardent supporter of our Nation's veterans I want to acknowledge the contributions made by the veterans of this Nation and I can think of no one more qualified to host the fourth annual National Memorial Day concert than the incomparable Ossie Davis. For the edification of my colleagues in the House, I would like to share the article written by James Zumwalt in Parade Magazine on May 26, 1996 titled ``We Should Pay Tribute.'' [From Parade Magazine, May 26, 1996] We Should Pay Tribute (By James Zumwalt) Tonight at 8 p.m. EDT, Ossie Davis will be the host for the fourth year of the National Memorial Day Concert, held on the West Lawn of the Capitol in Washington, D.C. The PBS telecast (check local TV listings) will include performances by the National Symphony Orchestra, as well as dramatic readings and archival footage from various wars in American history. A special segment will be dedicated to the women who worked statewide in World War II. And tributes will be made to Desert Storm veterans and to American soldiers now serving in Bosnia. Davis, now 78, served as a surgical technician in North Africa in World War II. Yet, until a few years ago, he had never participated in any Memorial Day celebrations. ``I did not want to get involved in anything that glorified war,'' he told me. While in Africa, Davis witnessed not only the horrors of battle, he said, but also pronounced racism among fellow American troops. He recalled watching a white soldier choose to die rather than accept care from the only medics available, because they were black. And he watched troop trains in Africa--returning U.S. servicemen home after the war--in which blacks were segregated while whites shared cars with German prisoners who, he said, were granted more dignity than the African-American troops. ``I felt betrayed,'' Davis recalled. I had come to feel that I had been not only a patriot but a fool. I left the Army very depressed.'' On returning home to Georgia, Davis turned briefly to alcohol. But in 1946 he got two lucky breaks: He landed a part in a Broadway play, and he met his future wife, the actress Ruby Dee. They have been married for 47 years. Davis went on to distinguish himself not only as an actor but also as a producer, writer and director. Recently, he appeared in The Client and Grumpy Old Men. Through the years, Davis' anti-war sentiments remained strong. Why, then, did he agree to be the host of these concerts? ``I realized that no matter what I thought of war, we should pay tribute to those both living and dead who sacrificed,'' he explained. ``The military also has made significant strides,'' he went on. ``Colin Powell who will speak at the concert was no accident--he was an affirmation of what has changed. One of the things I'm proudest of about America is that once she got into it, she came up with a color-blind Army.'' Davis also believes that the ignobility to warfare shouldn't lessen the tribute we pay to those who served. ``They gave what Lincoln called ``the last full measure of devotion,'' he said. ``They did what was required to defend something greater than they were.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think this is going to be an historic vote. The Republicans have been forced to bring to the floor a minimum wage bill so they had to put some sweetness in there, of course, for small employers, where they get a few tax breaks, and, hopefully, we would have a good sweetener. But when we see how they are going to pay for this it is almost like those old enough to remember when we had to take castor oil. They used to mix it with the orange juice. Well, we have got the orange juice with the watered down minimum wage bill, but the castor oil is how do we pay for it? I would guess that, following Republican logic, we will pay for it by going to the poorest people with the weakest political posture and, if we can find any Americans that cannot vote, then hit them where it hurts. We get $4.8 billion over the next couple of years, not in grants for health care or for housing, but in order to create jobs. And, again, it gives it to the corporations to encourage them to invest there. Some people say it is too much for the corporations. Some people say it is too expensive of a project. Well, they might be right. But if we are going to take 3.8 million Americans, and every time there is a war we call upon them to get in a suit and go over to fight for the United States of America; if we are going to take 3.8 million Americans who stand up to the United Nations and say we are no colony, the United States is no imperialistic nation, we are citizens of the United States, but we decide for sweetness for those on the mainland that we are going to whack it to them. Well, listen, if they have the votes, they should do it. I understand that. But should they not do it with hearings? Have we reached a point that we are dealing with tax bills that the tax committee does not even look at it; we just get it? Has it reached the point that we do not have hearings anymore? Have we fallen so much in common decency that we do not ask the duly elected representative from the 4 million people what he thinks? They have a Governor. I do not know what people think about him, but he has the responsibility for the health, for the welfare, for the economy. Do we say to him, ``What would you like to do; do you have a substitute?'' Or do we just take away $4 billion because we have the power to do it? I tell my colleagues one thing, I am not here to defend 936. Whatever the economists and the people in Puerto Rico think is good to encourage jobs for them, good. But I notice one thing, especially when the chairman of the committee says, ``Oh, Charlie, I know you like 936 companies.'' Oh, no, the chairman likes 936 companies, because in this bill the only people that are protected are not the people of Puerto Rico but the American companies that are in Puerto Rico. They get 10 years to get their money out. But there is nothing there to encourage one nickel of investment, as these companies now have 10 years to look at other parts of the Caribbean or Ireland or any low-wage based country. So what we have said now is that we cannot find enough poor on the mainland to beat up on. We have already hit them when we talked about the earned income tax credit. If we are talking about housing for the poor, we put a damper on the low-income housing credit. We have done everything we could, but somebody said we have some poorer Americans in Puerto Rico, hit them, and that is exactly what the Republicans have done. All I can say is, Mr. President, wherever you are, do not sign this bill.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may be right about this 936, but we do not have a vote on that. That was not allowed by the rule. And we never had any hearings as to how we could improve, eliminate or substitute 936. We have just said the poor people in Puerto Rico have to take our word for it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, all we are saying is that in this form of Government we do not make these determinations in the backroom. If our colleagues think that really is big corporations that is the beneficiary, then let us have hearings on it, let us bring the economists from Puerto Rico, let us bring the elected officials from Puerto Rico, let us bring the businesses, and let us do the right thing. But it is unfair for people who cannot vote not to have hearings here and just make the determination that the benefits go to the corporation. If our colleagues bring a bill out, we will talk about it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished elected representative in yielding, did anyone ever go to Puerto Rico, to his Governor or to him, and ask him to study this bad bill and report back?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, when you have the votes, you have the votes. But this is very interesting. We are talking about a tax issue with the eminent chairman from the Committee on Ways and Means here. The only point we raised was that we never had any opportunity to determine whether 936 was effective. But it makes a lot of sense. It is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget that comes to the floor. He needs some money. The Committee on the Budget needs some money. Does the Committee on the Budget hold hearings? Does the Committee on the Budget find out what programs work or what do not work? Does the chairman of the Committee on the Budget go to Puerto Rico to talk with the Governor? No. The Committee on the Budget chairman dictates to the Committee on Ways and Means, do not have hearings, just bring the money. That is exactly what we did.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I am.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend from New York, Ben Gilman, has the right idea about this. We have got to tell these oil companies that we mean business, that this is not supposed to be just a windfall thing. Why, it took the gentleman from Kansas a long time to come up with this one, took the President a shorter time, of course, to adopt it, but this is that time of the year. But I think my Republican friend is saying that it is time to let the oil companies know that in the House of Representatives we put the consumer first. That is why I am going to give you an opportunity, when we have a motion to recommit, to vote and make certain that these oil barons pass on this 4.3-cent tax cut to the consumer. If they do not do it, then of course we will make certain that they pay back the 4.3. The last thing I know my friends on the other side of the aisle would want is that this 4.3-cent tax, which in 7 years really can come to $30 billion, not end up in the pockets of the oil people or the refineries. What we want to do is to make certain that each and every voter, or to put it another way, each and every motorist remembers us in November that we reduced the price for them by 4.3 cents. So I hope that some of my colleagues that are a little skeptical about these oil people or those who know best might join with me at the end of this bill to make certain that we are talking about consumer protection. I want to thank the gentleman for his good feeling about this.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do know that election time causes us to do a lot of strange things, and certainly if anyone is serious about taking off 4.3 cents from the Federal gasoline tax on a permanent basis, then we are talking about some $31 billion. Now, it may be true that we have just learned about balancing the budget, but certainly for those of my colleagues that have been advocating this for so long, what a heck of a time to be thinking about balancing the budget and cutting back revenue. Now, when I was on the committee trying to make certain that this bad idea, at least that it would be the consumer that would be the beneficiary, the protectors of the oil companies said, ``No, if you are trying to pass this through to the consumer, then you're manipulating the marketplace. What you have to do is to trust the oil people. They'll do the right thing. They'll pass it through to the consumer.'' And so my motion to recommit merely says that we should make it mandatory, requiring the oil companies to pass the full tax savings on to the consumer and reimposing a tax if the company violates this requirement. So I want people to listen very carefully to those people who advocate this reduction in taxes. Please, do not tell me that it cannot be done because the whole idea is not to give the benefit to the oil companies. Even if our cousin Jake does have a gas pump, he should be getting the break to pass through to the people who come by his gasoline station. Now, if my colleagues are going to tell me that it is too complicated to do or that they do not understand the free market system or that we cannot find out where the 4.3 cents is going to go, then why do we not quit the sham and get on with something else? If it cannot go to the consumer and my colleagues do not know how it is going to get to them, then let us leave this thing alone and try to find something else for the campaign. God knows we got a couple of months left. But if my colleagues want to help the consumer, then all they have to do is say this: We mandate that the 4.3 between now and election passes on to the consumer. And everybody has to say on the penalty of having the tax reimposed that they would pass it on to the consumer, and that should not be a very complicated thing for our colleagues to figure out. But just in case there is a problem, our colleagues have in their bill a method in which they have a General Office of Accounting finding. We will mandate that there be a General Office of Accounting report on November 1 before the election to see whether or not the Republican tax removal is passed on to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].