Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, as I ask for opposition to the majority budget proposal, it is with the understanding and the true belief that all of us in this House are really looking for a better America, a more prosperous America, an improvement in the quality of life for all of our citizens. Not too long ago when President Clinton spoke to both Houses, there were a lot of people that reported that he sounded so Republican, that he had stolen every idea that only the genius of the party labeled The Grand Old Party could have. I rather thought that that was a message in saying that we all have the same objectives. We truly would like to have a smaller Government, that we would want to reduce taxes on our constituents and even our own, for that matter; that we are concerned with being able to say that during the time that we were in the Congress, we indeed improved the quality of life. That happened whether we were Republican or whether we were Democrats. I think that next to feeling good about being American, the next good feeling that we have in our country is the dignity and the pride of having a job. You have had to know unemployment, you have had to know the pain of looking at your family in the face, looking at your kids and somehow explaining why that American dream is not yours to share in. You have to understand, even if you had a good job and for some reason you lost a job, they downsized, they merged, how do you explain to your kids and to your family that America is doing much better, trade is expanding, but somehow you got caught in the cracks? I suggest when Members look at this budget, instead of the rhetoric about wiping out the Department of Education and wiping out the Department of Commerce, we should say we are going to increase education. If they are not doing the job, we have got to restructure it. Instead of talking about wiping out the Department of Commerce, we are going to say we are going to expand world trade, we have exhausted European and domestic markets. While we are talking about this and while we are willing to make available moneys for research and development, when do we start talking about training people, giving them access to education, not cutting student loans, not cutting back on education and job training? Saying everybody in this country is going to be able to work, is going to be able to stand up and say that they are going to take care of their family and they will never allow welfare to compete for the hearts of their children and the mother of those children because they have the dignity to work. That is what the earned income tax credit was all about. It was saying if you are working every day, black or white, Jew or gentile, and at the end of the year you end up below the poverty level, that we are not going to advocate that you make the salary of a Member of Congress, but we will give you something to bring you to the dignity of working and being above poverty. So we cut out education, we cut out the job training, and we have the audacity to cut out giving a hand to people who refuse to be on welfare but want to work each and every day with just a little help. When we start thinking about what we are not doing to put people to work in terms of education and job training, when last have we ever heard on this floor that we are spending too much money on our jails? When have we ever heard that mandatory sentences mean more taxpayers' money spent? Why in the city of New York, we have a detention center that costs $60,000 a year to keep a bum kid in, and that is before he is convicted. Yet the fight is between the mayor and the Governor and this Congress as to whether $6,000 a year is enough. So you kick them out of school, you put them in the streets and we end up with drugs, with violence, and with jail. A greater America is a working America, a stronger educated America, and we just made the wrong cuts for this great Republic.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that hits the poor communities most in this country is lack of access to health care. I know how sensitive my Republican colleagues are in talking about cutting the health care budget, so let me put it this way in language that they like to hear. That is that 75 percent of the savings, 75 percent of reducing the rate of increase is coming from health care. Under this particular budget that you have, any old person that goes into a hospital or goes to a doctor, they will know what Medicare charges, but no longer will they know what the doctor is going to charge. Under this, if you push it off to the States, there is no guarantee. So it is just like having a car with full insurance, and you go in and the insurance company says, we are going to pay everything we promised, and Medicare will under the Republican bill. But what they do not pay is what the doctor can charge. Mr. Chairman, I think it ought to be a shame on all of those that have such confidence in the Governors that will turn our older folks loose to be subjected to whatever the hospitals and whatever doctors want to charge them beyond Medicare.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues of the House, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention a very special person in my 15th Congressional District who always seems to go beyond the point of commitment. The woman of whom I speak is Doris Parker, this year's recipient of the Ted Weiss Community Service Award which will be presented to her by the Three Parks Independent Democrats on Sunday, May 5, 1996. Ms. Parker, who is the widow of the late great musician Charlie ``Bird'' Parker, is certainly deserving of this award, for her commitment to the community and her tireless efforts, are well known by many. She serves as treasurer of the 24th Precinct Community Council; recording secretary for the North West Central Park Multiblock Association, Inc.; member of the board of directors for Veritas Therapeutic Community Foundation; member of the board of directors for the Westside Crime Prevention Program; and is first vice president of the Federation of West Side Neighborhood and Block Associations. These are just a few of the many community outreach efforts that Doris Parker gives her time and talents to. New York is blessed to have this hard working and faithful community activist, and I am proud and fortunate to be able to call her my friend. Doris, this is for you.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in the Record, I guess my remarks will appear last for my dear friend, Sam, who decided to leave the Congress and to leave the Committee on Ways and Means. Politically and legislatively that puts me as the No. 1 Democrat. But, quite frankly, we are losing the No. 1 Committee on Ways and Means member, a person that served with Wilbur Mills, a person that has been on the committee since 1969 even though he came to the Congress in 1962, one that no one challenges has done more to promote U.S. trade with NAFTA and with GATT as well as being the lead person with President Johnson on social issues. We are going to miss Sam because he is the only one on the committee that had a sense of institutional memory. And I know one thing, I feel a lot more strong knowing that Sam will be there with me in the next year whereby every possible poll and every moral reason, the Democrats will be in charge of this particular House. So Mr. Speaker, we will make certain that the gentleman's leadership carries on in the House and try to reverse some of the setbacks that we have had in terms of legislation that gentleman has been promoting, and I regret that I am last, but I am glad that I got here in time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Michigan for managing this bill for my dear friend Ron Brown. One of the questions that I have found most difficult to answer was what made Ron Brown so different. I have to admit that I do not really have the answer, but one of the things that I think that made him different was the depth of which he loved this country and the fact that the country gave him an opportunity to show just how good he was. When you think about that, you have to take a look at the history of our country, where we were and where we are going, and was Ron Brown not the right guy at the right time. Everything that we have been taught in this country in our history deals with our relationship with England and with Europe. But now that they have their Common Market, we have to find other places to sell our goods: Central America, South America, Africa, China, all of these markets. And we have to do it in a way that we are not so hung up with our European connection as much as we are with our human being connection, and that was what Ron Brown was all about. Ron Brown saw despair. He saw the need for economic development. He knew what a job would do for a person in terms of family values and dignity and planning a family and having a place to live. When he went to these countries, he did not just see a place to sell airplanes. He saw the pain and the misery and the opportunity to help build their economy, build friendships and, of course, while doing that, to create the jobs and the dignity and the disposable income that would be necessary for trade. That is why when I have had the opportunity and the honor to travel with him, that he never just stayed with the big shots. He always went out there with the beneficiaries, the poor, those that sometimes seemed to be without hope. Even in South Africa, where he went to Soweto and spent more time than I would normally spend to see the people in Soweto, to sing their national anthem in his honor and his presence, meant that he did more than just sell goods to these people. He was selling the United States of America. I hope those that have targeted the Commerce Department would realize that Ron Brown electrified everybody in Commerce. They love their country and they love what they are going. Whenever Ron Brown went overseas, our embassies turned overnight into being satellites of the Commerce Department, and our business people, instead of seeing staid diplomats and ambassadors, they saw those people that were there making deals for them. I hope as this Congress moves forward and we have to go to the North American free trade countries and we have to go to China and Japan, that we really give other Americans the opportunities and change the complexion literally of the State Department, as Commerce has changed, and give America a better chance to show how good we really are.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote 122 because I was at a meeting in a room that the bells did not ring in. Had I been here, I would have voted in the negative.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, later on this evening, the gentleman from New Jersey, Don Payne, and other Members of Congress will continue to pay tribute to my fallen buddy, Ron Brown, but I just want to share some views as I saw Ron and 33 other coffins arrive in Dover, these flag-draped coffins covering the bodies of people that were in the business of selling the United States of America, and then heard the tributes that were paid to all of them, as well as attending at Arlington cemetery. As the bands were playing and the flags were unfurled and the cannons were blasting, I could only think what a great country we live in and how many things we just take for granted; that here a young American who comes from one of the poorest communities can, in such a short period of time, capture the love and gain the respect of not only the President of the United States but so many Americans from seashore to seashore, and, at the same time, to know that in so many foreign countries, some not as friendly as we wish that they would be, that they lowered their flags at half mast for this great American, Ron Brown. I think that when we start thinking about loving America, we have to think about what kind of person could love his country so much that he would try to climb mountains that other people would not even attempt, not only to show how great America was and what products we wanted to sell, and not how superior we were, but to actually talk with trade ministers and prime ministers and presidents in terms of the needs of their country. The poverty, the disease, the sickness, the hunger, the unemployment, the joblessness, and to be able to say to that country that America was there as a friend that wanted to help. This was a part of the world that we never spent that much time in. This was the part of the world that we had to develop markets in. This was the part of the world that we had to increase their ability to have disposable income so that as we had once done in Europe under the Marshall plan, that we could regain the leadership that we have possessed since World War II. And how they loved him, because it was not just selling America, it was the interest he had in them. I saw at the funeral Ambassadors that had flown in from Mexico, India, South Africa. They spoke, they talked, they loved, they cared. And I said what a wonderful country it is that we have in the United States of America, people that come from every country in the world. Unlike other countries where you just look at the country and you can feel just the narrow culture interest that they have, there is no country in the world that we cannot reach and show that Americans come from all over. To see what investing in the education of a Ron Brown, or Ron Gonzalez, or Ron Lee, or the women that have been denied the opportunity to show, to be given the opportunity to show that they are Americans, this is a great country, and go abroad and find out that they are making friends for us, as well as creating trade. Mr. Speaker, I have received notices, as well as telephone calls, from Senator Dole and from Haley Barbor, who is the chair of the Republican Party, to say to me, as they have said to others, this issue is too big to look at party labels. It is too big to look at the color of American skins. It is American to be able to say that we can make our country a greater place, create more jobs if only we cared enough to train our people for these type of opportunities and to share our talents with so many other countries in the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge the adoption of this legislation. As I said earlier, it is supported by both sides of the aisle and the President. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original cosponsor in strong support of H.R. 3074. This legislation would authorize the President to proclaim duty-free treatment for products of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and industrial zones that may be created in the region. Similar treatment is granted products of Israel under the United States-Israel free-trade agreement implemented in 1985. In return, the Palestinians have agreed to provide duty-free access to United States products, to prevent illegal transshipments, and to support an end to the Arab boycott of Israel. This legislation is supported by the Israeli Government. The administration supports extension of duty-free treatment as part of the Mideast peace process to promote investment and economic development in the region. I am not aware of any opposition to this bill, and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, when there was a different majority, we used to have a little pamphlet called How to pass a law. I know the freshmen had a chance to read it before they took it off. But it used to go something like this: A Member introduces a bill. It is forwarded to a committee. The committee assigns the bill to a subcommittee. They have hearings on the bill and people who are for it and against it, they listen to the testimony. Then the committee members amend it, they change it. But when they pass it, they take it up to the full committee. The full committee, they too sometimes have hearings, and they have people to listen to it, to see whether it makes sense. Then they amend it and they report it to the floor. And that is the way it used to be, before the new rules come in. Nothing goes to the committees anymore. You can sit on the subcommittee, the full committee, and all you have to do is be in the back room with the Speaker and let someone have a great idea and pass it to my dear friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, and Mr. Solomon brings it to the floor. I do not mind that. When you lose, you are entitled to be subjected to this type of legislative oppression. I never complain. But do not mess with my Constitution. Do not do that to the American people. Do not send it to a public relations firm on the day that we are supposed to pay taxes, and to believe that this document that allowed our country to survive for 200 years can now be distorted just because you are down in the polls and you are trying to make a couple of points. No, no, no, no. The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over this, and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary should be entitled to have hearings with scholars, with judges, and with those people who hold this document precious. Mr. Speaker, oh, it is a good gimmick. I would use it if I could. But the thing is that I would not use it on the floor, not to be a hoaxer to the American people to believe that this is going to become law and we are going to change the Constitution. We can take a lot of tomfoolery, we can take a lot of jokes, a lot of hoax, a lot of hypocrisy, but somewhere in your hearts you know that, when you want to amend that precious and sacred document called the U.S. Constitution, that at least the committee of jurisdiction should hear it, should have hearings, and report back to the House. Mr. Speaker, I know it is an election year. I know it has been done before. We like to have flat taxes. We like to have fair taxes; we like to make certain that everyone pays an equal amount. But when the time comes, since you have the votes to put in a bill, to have hearings on the bill and to vote if you want the flat tax, vote for it. You have the votes to pass anything you want in taxes. But I warn you, do not mess with our Constitution. Do not do that to this Congress or to the American people.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in the well has made it abundantly clear that he is addressing his constituents in Texas somewhere and his eyes are directed at the camera so that it is difficult for me really to know whether he is talking to me or making a political address to his constituents. I thought that violated the rules of the House.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that this is April 15, the time that we are supposed to pay taxes. But some of my colleagues think it is April 1, that is, April Fool's Day, because the whole idea of passing a constitutional amendment has been aborted. Normally a bill would go to the committees that have jurisdiction so that we could really find out the impact of this bill on the American people and especially the American taxpayer. But my dear friend from Texas, Mr. Barton, did not ask for the House Judiciary Committee that is headed by Chairman Hyde who everyone knows is an expert on the Constitution, he just went to his friend James Perry of the Americans for Tax Reform. I see that 17 pages was sent in support of the Barton amendment. There is nothing here from the Committee on the Judiciary because they never had hearings. My distinguished chairman, at least chairman for the rest of this year, Bill Archer, was here, and this really talks about how this thing is supposed to work, and there is an asterisk next to Mr. Perry's name, but no place here does it say who he is. But it is not important. I would rather have seen something from the Committee on Ways and Means that would just answer certain questions. Under this amendment if we wanted to protect the Social Security system or to protect the Medicare system and if we had to increase the premium, we would need a two-thirds vote in order to do that. On the other hand if we wanted to raise taxes for education or health care or Social Security or anything, we would need a two-thirds vote for that. But suppose we wanted to close the loopholes, because I refer to this as a lobbyist amendment, not a constitutional amendment. Suppose those people were supporting corporate welfare or wanted to strike it out, close the loopholes. That would mean an increase in taxes. And we would need a two-thirds vote or lock in the lobbyists who are protecting the corporations. On the other hand, it seems to me that when the majority party decided it was going to increase the taxes of the earned-income tax, the benefits that we give to the lowest, the poorest working people we have in the United States, they just waived a provision that they have in the rules. Someplace they would say this to the taxpayers as they said, and let me read this section here from this paper that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has given to me. This is not a committee report, this is not a Ways and Means report. This is not a Judiciary report. This is a report from Americans for Tax Reform and this is how they open this debate. That millions of Americans while they are standing out there in front of the post offices paying their taxes, for the first time would see these Republicans on the floor on TV, drive-time radio talk shows will offer live coverage as the votes and hearings proceed. What hearings? As the vote proceeds, and for the first time this resolution will give guaranteed live media coverage. And so, my friends, enjoy your gimmick, enjoy your public relations, but let us not treat the Constitution that way, and you should have more respect for the American taxpayers than to do this gimmick on this particular day.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, cleverly the gentleman has wound up his speech once again addressing his taxpayers back home. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding young man, Aaron Michael Einbond of New York, NY. Aaron, a senior attending Hunter College High School in Manhattan was chosen on Monday March 11, 1996, as the fifth place winner in the prestigious Westinghouse Science Awards. Since 1942, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search has identified and encouraged high school seniors to pursue careers in science, mathematics, and engineering. The search is sponsored by Westinghouse Electronic Corp. through the Westinghouse Foundation in partnership with Science Service, a nonprofit organization. Over the years, more than 113,000 students from all over the country have entered projects into this prestigious competition. This year, 735 high schools from all 50 States submitted entries to the Westinghouse Science Talent Search. Only 40 students may participate in the final round of judging and from that pool of 40 students, only 10 finalists are awarded scholarships. Aaron's project explored a new protein domain through the use of protein sequence database searches. It resulted in the isolation of two human genes. Aaron is not new to winning awards. He is a three time winner of the Manhattan Borough Science Fair competition and a multiple winner of various school science fairs. This talented young man is also an award winning composer and gifted musician who plays the clarinet. This fall, Aaron will enroll as a freshman at Harvard University where he will have the opportunity to pursue his two loves: music and science. I congratulate Aaron on his accomplishment of being awarded a Westinghouse Science Award and I salute the Westinghouse Science Talent Search and all the winners for acknowledging the hard work of young people like Aaron.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, One of the legislative accomplishments of which I am most proud is my association with the passage of the Caribbean Basin Initiative [CBI] in 1982. The CBI was truly bipartisan legislation, introduced by President Ronald Reagan and embraced by the Democratic Congressional leadership led by former Chairman Dan Rostenkowski of the House Committee on Ways and Means. The CBI has been truly a success story, a great example of what President Reagan called friends helping friends in the letter that he sent me after signing the legislation to provide our Caribbean neighbors with greater access to our market in the United States. I don't believe that we fully appreciated at that time how much mutual benefit there would be over the years in CBI. Now the Caribbean has become a significant purchaser of goods and services from the United States, helping to create jobs here at home. The CBI has been responsible for a decade of unparalleled growth in trade between the United States and the Caribbean, acting as a catalyst for exports, investment and employment creation in the economies of the United States and the Caribbean. As the growth process in CBI economies has been strengthened by increased United States investment in increased purchases of United States goods and services. Each dollar spent by the Caribbean generates 60 cents per dollar of United States exports. Jamaica, for example, purchases more than 65 percent of its imports from the United States. Trinidad and Tobago purchases more than half of its imports from the United States. In 1991, the last year prior to the embargo, Haiti purchased 61 percent of its imports from the United States. Restoring the economy of the new Haiti, therefore, is not a matter of charity or foreign assistance, it is a policy that is rooted in the realization that there is mutual self-interest for Haiti and the United States in making the Haitian economy viable. The Caribbean is a significant market for United States exports and these exports produce jobs in the United States. Ambassador Bernal, in his editorial, addresses this reality and challenges us to keep the United States-Caribbean trade relationship vital by providing parity to access to the United States markets to that provided by our trading partners in NAFTA. As one of the original cosponsors of the Caribbean parity legislation which was reported out of the Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Trade last year, I am looking forward to working with Chairman Crane and the administration to achieve its passage in the present Congress. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 22, 1996] A Jamaican's Case for Trade Parity With NAFTA (By Richard L. Bernal) U.S.-Caribbean commercial links have generated American jobs at a rate of nearly 17,000 a year since the mid-1980s. U.S. overall exports to the Caribbean have expanded by more than 100%, and Caribbean exports to the U.S. have climbed by roughly 50%. By the end of 1994, combined U.S.-Caribbean trade stood at $24 billion. The 24 nations of the Caribbean Basin--among them Jamaica, Trinidad, the Dominican Republic and all Central American countries--have enjoyed these strong economic and trade relations during the past dozen years largely through the mechanism of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). But recent changes in U.S. trade law have put the long-term viability of this relationship in jeopardy. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, Mexican exports now enjoy access to the U.S. market exceeding that accorded to Caribbean exports. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade implementing act has exacerbated these effects by phasing out a program that regulated the importation of textile and apparel products from all countries. As a result, Caribbean countries are now forced to compete in their largest market at a substantial competitive disadvantage. In the two years that Nafta has been in effect, there has been a steady diversion of trade and investment away from the Caribbean Basin nations. In the textile and apparel sector alone, Mexico has displaced other Caribbean countries. It is now the single largest source of U.S. garment imports from this hemisphere. Such diversion has begun to erode U.S.-Caribbean trade relations, weakening the employment base of hundreds of thousands of Americans who depend upon strong U.S.-Caribbean trade links. During a visit with Central American leaders last month, Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced that President Clinton will include in his fiscal year 1997 budget request a key proposal to strengthen U.S.-Caribbean Basin economic relations. Coming on the heels of Cuba shooting down two unarmed civilian planes. Mr. Christopher's announcement underscores the compelling U.S. national and security interests in maintaining strong economic links with the Caribbean region. Secretary Christopher's announcement advances a bipartisan proposal currently before the Congress that will correct the unintended adverse effects of Nafta on the Caribbean Basin. The prospect of enhanced U.S.-Caribbean trade links enjoys wide-spread support, and has been endorsed by many Carribbean heads of government and countless business and community leaders, both in the U.S. and in the Caribbean. As currently envisioned, the proposal will insure that Caribbean and Mexican exports enjoy equal access to the U.S. market during the next 10 years. During this transitional period of ``Nafta parity,'' Caribbean countries will be required to take reciprocal steps to expand market access for U.S. products, strengthen investment guarantees, expand worker's rights, and improve intellectual property protection. By the end of the 10-year period, the U.S. will have strengthened its commercial relationship with the Caribbean region while the CBI countries will be in a better position to join a hemispheric-wide free Trade Area of the Americas. The benefits of Nafta parity would be felt strongly over the next few years in both the Caribbean and in the U.S. Presently, the U.S.-Caribbean commercial relationship supports more than 260,000 jobs in the U.S. and countless more throughout the Caribbean. The Caribbean Basin is now the 10th-largest export market for the U.S. and one of the few regions in the world where U.S. exporters maintain trade surpluses. Nafta parity will build on this framework as elevated trade levels generate thousands of new jobs each year in the U.S. and the Caribbean. The benefits to U.S. industry for this program are clear as well. Nafta parity will enhance international competitiveness of the U.S. textile and apparel industry by building on the productive relationship already enjoyed by U.S. and Caribbean firms. Since Caribbean garment exports rely upon U.S. components and labor for as much as 70% of their value-added, and expansion of the Caribbean garment industry directly benefits U.S. firms and workers. Many Caribbean governments already operate programs that successfully fight illegal textile transhipment from East and South Asian countries, so Nafta parity will strengthen a framework that protects the domestic industry from quota violations. Finally, as Caribbean governments take steps to strengthen intellectual property and investment protections--as Jamaica has already done--many other U.S. industries will gain. This trading relationship means that overall economic growth and development in the Caribbean Basin can directly translate into expanded export opportunities for the U.S. Roughly 60 cents of each dollar the region earns from exports to the U.S. market is spent in the U.S. buying American-made consumer goods, food products, raw materials and capital equipment. In this context, Nafta parity has emerged as a cost- effective economic and foreign policy instrument to promote regional development. Increased trade activity will provide many additional commercial opportunities, which are so crucial for healthy economic growth in cities and rural areas throughout the U.S. Stronger trade links will inevitably lead to better cooperation in other areas, such as narcotics interdiction, anticorruption activities, and efforts to fight terrorism and international crime. Moreover, as Caribbean economies prosper, they will become less dependent on U.S. foreign aid at a time when foreign assistance is getting close scrutiny. In many ways, therefore, Nafta parity represents a tangible ``trade, not aid'' approach, which has taken on new importance in light of the U.S. budget debate. Numerous studies have shown that strong regional economic links are crucial not only in creating economic opportunities throughout the U.S. and the Caribbean Basin but also in supporting stable and mutually beneficial security relationships. Congress should advance U.S. national security interests in the region by moving quickly to enact Nafta parity.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think the Republicans should be lauded for attempting at least to pick up the pieces of what has to be a concern to all Americans, and that is inadequate health care for most of our citizens, especially those people who are working and do not have access to insurance. They are not insured by the Federal Government, because they make too much money, and, of course, they do not have enough money to get their own insurance. But why the Republicans would come in with an insurance plan that allows tax exemptions for people who can afford just to put it in a bank account and if they make certain that it is a high deductible, that is that the only time that they can use it is for catastrophic diseases, then it just seems to me that what we are doing is allowing the insurance companies to cherry-pick and select those people who are healthy and then those people who are not insured by that can come right back and fall on the regular public system that is there. What we do need is a comprehensive insurance program that really was the one that was initiated before, and perhaps it was too much to consume at one time, but we cannot forget that there are 40 million people out there in the United States that have no insurance at all, and these are the people that are the most vulnerable and these are the people that cannot afford to have these type of savings accounts which are there to protect those who already have. I think that instead of just selecting those parts of the people that they believe would give political support, that what we have to have in this country is an insurance, a health insurance system where every American, regardless of how much money they have or whether they do not have any at all, can say in this great country that people will not die just because they lack access to health care. All over we see we are cutting back the public share. If we want to do more in the private sector, let it be fairer.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker and Members of this great body, It is said, ``give me my flowers now while I am still around to enjoy them''. I rise to pay tribute once again to an individual who really needs no introduction * * * to one who certainly in his lifetime has made an impact on the world as a great American, an ambassador of goodwill, a musical genius, and without a doubt, a living legend. If you have not guessed by now, the person of whom I speak is none other than Lionel Hampton. On Tuesday, March 19, I, as chairman of the board of the Apollo Theatre Foundation, Inc., and executive producers Grace Blake and Bill Titone, will present ``Swing Into Spring''--A Harlem Tribute to Lionel Hampton. This star-studded musical tribute marks an opportunity to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Lionel Hampton by his many friends, admirers, and those who have benefited from his work and musical greatness. Whether you are familiar with his musical accomplishments or not, over the years, Lionel Hampton has known no status where he was not eagerly accepted, as he has been well received the world over by Presidents, politicians, kings, and queens. His very music has caused the walls of Communist nations to come tumbling down. However, it is not only for his music that Lionel Hampton is well known for he is also a staunch leader in the community. His fame has not let him forget the homeless and the hopeless. A long supporter of public housing, he developed the Lionel Hampton Houses in the early 1970's and upon completion, built the Gladys Hampton Houses, named for his late wife. To this day, those projects are considered among the best in the Nation. The Lionel Hampton Community Development Corp. has built more than 500 low and moderate income apartments in my congressional district of Harlem alone. Lionel Hampton holds more than 15 honorary doctorates and received the gold medal of Paris, its highest cultural award, from its Mayor, Jacques Chirac. He was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center in 1991 by President George Bush, and in December 1992, he was awarded a prestigious Kennedy Center honor for his lifetime career achievements as a musician and teacher. Since then, he continues to produce educational events and considers the real highlight of his career as having the music school at the University of Idaho named for him--the Lionel Hampton School of Jazz. Whether you are black or white, rich or poor, Democrat or Republican, I am sure you would agree that Lionel Hampton represents the very best of America. It is in this instance that March 19 will be proclaimed ``Lionel Hampton Day'' in New York City and New York State.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this is a political piece of legislation for fear of offending my friends, so please look into the Federal Election Commission, and ignore all of these campaign contributions that are pouring in here to Members that have taken the position that now is the time to get the murderer through locking up the people in Cuba. For those people that are offended because someone suggests that it might be political, let me make it clear. The fact that the only Democratic opponent I had in a primary in the last 25 years, that 85 percent of his campaign funds came out of Miami, hey, that is not political, and I challenge people who would even think that. But let us get down to the merits. We are outraged at murder. The Speaker is gone; he was here. What do we do about it? Hold the people of Cuba American hostage and tell them that they have to fly over Cuba and put pamphlets down there in order to get Americans' attention? Cut off food, cut off trade, cut off relationships with the people in Cuba because we do not like the bum that is running it? Are we in love with whoever runs China? As my colleagues know, what are we going to do there; put an embargo on China, on North Vietnam or North Korea? No. There are no votes in the United States for those people. My colleagues know it and I know it. They sure got my President's attention; let us see what we can do now with these Republican candidates. Let us get it on their agenda, and let me congratulate the authors of this historic piece of legislation. I thought it was born dead. But the courage of four Americans out of Miami has not only given it new life, it has shattered reason and common sense as relates to trade and foreign policy. Let me say this. This is a done deal. We cannot do anything about it. But do me a favor. Tell our brave Cuban Americans in Miami do not risk any more lives, mission accomplished, they were brave enough to take the gamble, they won, they won, the bill is here, no one challenges it, the President. Everything that was bad about this bill, four murderers now have corrected it. Wow, is that a legislative history. But if people are breaking our laws, breaking international law, flying over a country, and we would know it, and we condone it, and we do not stop them from saving their own lives, that is morally wrong. Are we saying that if these pilots want to go off in a storm against their best interests that we cannot stop them? Let us hope that these courageous acts of these people who were shot out of the sky are not mimicked by other people who believe we have to take it one step further. Oh, I know there are some of my colleagues waiting for the invasion, and if we send that signal that we are ready to go in like Haiti and we are ready to do whatever we can do, we may have 4 more pilots saying let us do it at least between now and the general election. We made mistakes; we will make others. I am not nearly as concerned as I appear to be because this law is written so poorly we cannot even enforce it. They are not going to be angry with us, my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], not our allies. They are going to feel sorry for us. No great Nation like ours can have the arrogance to tell some other country what they can do with their foreign trade. And the whole idea that this is going to be something to bring down Castro is one that I do not think the authors believe. After the Democratic victories in November, come, can we not talk together?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the House, and I guess, since this is an emotional issue votes will not be changed, but I am in opposition to this rule, and most of what I am saying I hope I am saying for the Record as opposed to being against the deep feelings of my friends and colleagues that are in support of the rule as well as the bill. A couple of weeks ago the President of the United States reviewed this bill, and he had indicated that he had serious reservations about this bill interfering with our foreign policy, our trade policy, about it abusing our court system, in that he said in its present form he would veto it. A couple of weeks ago the Helms-Burton bill was, I think politically speaking, put on the back burner in this body. A couple of weeks ago all the Republican candidates were dealing with the issues that they thought were important, but democracy in Cuba never got on anybody's agenda. What happened between that time and this political legislative rush to do this as fast as we can for democracy? What happened? Four dedicated Americans, loving democracy enough to risk their lives, continued on a mission that went beyond just searching for those who may be lost in the ocean trying to reach the United States, few as they may be in recent days. They were determined to make certain that the issue of the overthrow of Castro and the restoration of democracy in Cuba would not be forgotten. I do not care what my colleagues' beliefs are; if they believe that was sincere and they did these things, we have to pray for their souls and their families and not ignore the courage that they had in doing these things, not once, but many times, in order to focus attention on the injustices, that were being committed in Cuba. Did they believe that they would be shot down as civilian planes with no weapons? I would hope that no one would believe that in this world that we have people who would say, ``Because you have provoked us, because you have made us angry, that we are prepared to blow up your planes and to murder you,'' and so the United States leads the world in terms of outrage in saying whether those planes were over Cuba, within 12 miles, outside of 12 miles, we just do not do this to people. If one wakes up in the middle of the night and they think there is a burglar that intruded in their house, and they pick up a gun, and they go, and then they see it is a child that is fleeing without an arm, they may have the legal right, they may have the emotional feeling, but they do not shoot down a defenseless child no matter how much that child provoked them. No matter how we measure the patriotism, the dedication, of these pilots, nobody can make the accusation that they were a threat to the security of the people in Cuba. So we all have to do the best we can to show not just Castro but anyone that thinks this way it is an outrageous thing to do, but how do we respond as a civilized nation? Do we run there, and grab Castro, and shake him, and say never again? No, our response is that we are going to enact this bill. We are going to show him how tough we are. And what do we do in this bill? We say that we are going to not only tighten the trade embargo against Cuba, but we are going to take it out of the hands of the President. Who can trust the President? We have got to make it statutory. We have got to say when it comes to embargoes in foreign countries we know best, not Presidents know what is best. And what else are we going to do? We are going to say that our embargo was so effective that once we tightened the screws on our so-called friends, they will capitulate to this United States pressure and join in with us, as they did in South Africa and Haiti, and say this is the moral and the right thing to do and then collapse goes Castro. Give me a break. This bill has nothing to do with Castro. It has everything to do with our friends and our voters in Florida. Do my colleagues think for 1 minute that the Organization of American States is going to say I was outraged, too; please let me break every agreement that I have with Cuba? Do my colleagues think that the World Trade Organization is going to say since we have a murderer as a dictator, all the investments we have in Cuba, we got to tell them to forget it. Do my colleagues think the United Nations is going to do anything except condemn the United States in trying to perpetuate our domestic and, indeed, to stretch the word, our foreign policy, to include them? No. The truth of the matter is that we do not care what they believe. We are doing this because we feel good about doing it, and do my colleagues know why we are doing it? Because we got the votes to do it. And do my colleagues know why the President is doing it? Because he wants the votes to continue to be President. I tell my colleagues this: The people who want democracy in Cuba, do not change those ways, do what feels good, but let some of us who want democracy and freedom at least try some different way to do it. I just do not believe that they are doing anything except saying to the poor people in Cuba who are hopeless, who are jobless, who are suffering, who are in misery, who need food, who need medicine; do my colleagues think for 1 minute that they are marching up and down the streets of Havana saying, ``My God, Castro, you made it worse for us, now the whole world is condemning us''? No, Castro is saying their misery and their pain is due to Americans who singularly have an embargo against them. Is he blaming himself for the failures that he has had in the socialistic communistic government? No. So who is supposed to be responsible for everything that is going bad? The embargo. And what do we say? Forget what you see, what you hear, it is working, man; it is working, man. And it is working so well, all we have to do is tighten this, and then all of the Cubans will be in such misery and pain and hunger. Do my colleagues know what they are going to do? No. What will they do? They are going to organize and revolt. Oh, my God. Meaning they are going to overthrow the government? Oh, yes, hungry and sick and tired, without rifles, they are going to this fat, overtrained, overfed army and say, ``Oh, thank God, the Americans have made life miserable for me, we are getting rid of you.'' I tell my colleagues one thing: If we do reach these people, we will get rid of them, and they will be on the rafts, and they will be on the boats, and they will be in Miami, but they will not be fighting that Communist Cuban Army in Havana. My colleagues can believe that. But I say this: As we bleed for the families of those heroic pilots, I see something new happening here, too. We are, indeed, encouraging other people that, if they do not like our foreign policy, they just get themselves an airplane, buddy. Just put in for a flight plan. Just go where they want to go. And when they say the jets are coming, then say, hey, forget it, I am dedicated. Let us see what is happening in Ireland. As my colleagues know, let us put out some pamphlets there. Let us go to the Middle East and see whether or not they are really prepared to really move the peace process. Let us check out Korea, North and South, and Vietnam, and let us legislate it, do not let the President with his flip-flop self determine 1 day what is good and what is bad. The Congress knows, and who knows better than the Republican majority here about everything? So this is not a contract for America. This is a contract for the world. If you are for democracy, squeeze the people that are hungry, stop the food and medicine from going, tell American businessmen not in Cuba will you invest, and at the same time support trade in NAFTA, support it in GATT, support it all over the world, but do not support it in Cuba. I suggest to my colleagues I have the same outrage for murderers that they do, but I hope this country does not embark on having this concrete and firmed up as what we do as a nation and as a Congress when we are outraged.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the congressional narcotics abuse and control caucus, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention the following article, ``Just Say `Whoa' '', written by former First Lady Nancy Reagan, which appeared last month in the Wall Street Journal. I rise to thank and congratulate her for her editorial, ``Just Say `Whoa' '', which appeared in this week's Wall Street Journal. The article correctly described how apathy, neglect, and irresponsible attitudes have corrupted efforts to stem the trafficking and abuse of narcotics in this country. I share her outrage, but I am heartened to know that Mrs. Reagan's commitment to this Nation's future--our children--continues. As Americans, we all hail from different backgrounds. Our ethnic, cultural, and spiritual diversity have served us well as sources of community, strength, and pride but occasionally test the strength of our Union. The one virtue that unites us all however, is our goal to provide a better future for children. This shared sense of destiny will always include a world free of drugs and the associated violence, crime, disease, and death. Increased drug use and tolerance by our children however, turns our dreams into nightmares. As discourging as the increase in the use of drugs by teens is the silence and indifference of responsible policymakers who have ignored the fears of our children. Worse still are the people, both conservative and liberal, who perpetuate misguided rhetoric supporting legalization of this scourge. Such irresponsible behavior further erodes the ability of teachers, mentors, and parents to shield children from the seductive lure of drugs. Instead of equivocating on the harms of drugs, we need to inspire, educate, train, and employ our young people. Opportunity and responsibility offer perhaps the best alternative to drug use. Instead of endlessly incarcerating our children at a shameful rate, we need to lift them up with hope and show them alternatives. It's time to act. The article follows: Just Say ``Whoa'' (By Nancy Reagan) Statistic released last fall from the annual Household Survey of Drug Use and, more recently, from the 21st annual Monitoring the Future Survey show that marijuana use among teenagers was up again last year. Where is the public outrage over this finding? When will this country realize that as long as we don't wake up and adopt a zero tolerance for drug use, we are heading down a path of no return? Must we lose another generation of children to the horrors of crack addiction? Must the statistics soar to all-time highs before we bother to take notice? Last March I was invited to testify before a congressional committee, at which time I said: ``I am not here to criticize or place blame, but after the great strides that were made just a few years back, I'm worried that this nation is forgetting how endangered our children are by drugs. I'm worried that for the first time in many years, tolerance for drugs and the mistaken perception that `everyone is doing it' is creeping back into our national mentality. And I am worried that the psychological momentum we had against drug use has been lost. ``[Y]et it's more than worry,'' I pleaded. ``This weakening vigilance against the drug threat can have a tragic effect on this country for many years to come. . . . How could we have forgotten so quickly? Why is it we no longer hear the drumbeat of condemnation against drugs coming from our leaders and our culture? Is it any wonder drug use has started climbing again, and dramatically so?'' Regarding the drug use survey, NBC News reported: `` `Just Say No' was an effective message in the '80s . . . in the '90s much more will be needed,'' Denver drug counselor Bob Cota emphasized, ``Kids have to be shown why they need to learn it early, in the third and fourth grades--and it has to be repeated often.'' Repeated often--like in the '80s when the national leadership was vigilant and visible. And yes, we do need even more now. In response to the 1994 Monitoring the Future Survey, Joseph Califano Jr., chairman and president of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), warned: ``If historical trends continue, the jump in marijuana use among America's children (age 12- 18) from 1992 to 1994 signals that 820,000 more of these children will try cocaine in their lifetime. Of that number, about 58,000 will become regular cocaine users and addicts.'' In a 1995 survey by CASA, adolescents said that drugs were their ``number one'' problem. Our children are crying out for help. While drug use is on the rise, the perceived risk of drug use is on the decline. The two go hand in hand. Only a few short years ago, the constant message to young people--in the media, in their classrooms, and in their homes--was that drugs lead to destruction. But where are those messages today? Those messages, those lessons, are what change perceptions, change attitudes, change lives. Each of us have a responsibility to bring back those messages--loud and clear. Before the drug-use increases of the past three years, we really had seen marked progress. As I told the members of the committee: ``A decade of effort was beginning to pay off. Attitudes were being changed. I don't mean to sit here and say that we had won the battle against drugs. I think it's plain we had not.'' However, between 1985 and 1992, monthly cocaine use declined 78%, or to an annual rate of 3.1% from its peak of 13.1% in 1985. It's the same story with other numbers: Annual use of any illicit drug by high school seniors dropped to 27.1% in 1992 from 54.2% in 1979. ``The battle was going forward one child at a time,'' I said in March. ``There was momentum, unity, intolerance of the exaggeration and glorification of drug use by the media--we were building peer support for saying `no.' Children were being taught resistance skills--in short, there was progress.'' Now there is silence--and not without consequence. In 1994, twice the number of eighth-graders were experimenting with marijuana as did in 1991, and daily use of marijuana by high school seniors in 1994 was up by half from 1993. The 1995 Monitoring the Future Survey shows that daily use has made another jump. We should all, as citizens of this great nation, be frightened by the latest drug statistics. We should all question what they mean to our futures and those of our children. We should all resolve not to be silent any longer. By the latest drug statistics and the renewed calls for legalization of marijuana, it is painfully obvious that our ``letting up'' is going to let down the young people of this country. It's time to just say ``Whoa!''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recognized on the question of privilege.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am going to try desperately hard to be nonpartisan in my remarks, because I think we have reached that point as a Congress that the general public is just fed up with all of us and are not taking the time to determine whether it is the so-called Republican leadership or whether it is the House of Representatives, the Senators or even whether it is the Government of the United States. All of us have had the opportunity to explain what our job is here in the House, and we are honored to serve in this House, and whether we are dealing with adults or whether we deal with children, compromise has never been a dirty word in explaining the work of the subcommittees, the full committees, what we do in conference and what we send to the President of the United States. If we are going to change the rules here, you are changing the rules not just for individuals and parties, you are changing the rules for every one of the Members of this House whether they are participating in this or whether they are not, and you are not giving them choices. You are not playing by the rules. You are not playing by the rules we were sworn in to endorse. Those rules are simple rules. You do not like what the President has done. You do not like the veto; you override the veto, that is what you do, and if you cannot override the veto, you try to come back and work out something. Oh, I know, you are in a hurry. You cannot talk about it. You cannot talk about compromise. All of a sudden this beautiful word has now become a stigma, because a handful of people have snatched what they think is principle, and they are threatening the United States of America's integrity throughout this world. You can do what you want with your party or with your members. But it is unfair, and it takes away from our prerogative as sworn Members of this House to threaten the economic life of the United States of America and the free world by holding a debt extension hostage in order to reach your political end. Politics are played at the polls, and they should not be the reputation of the United States that is being played on parliamentary maneuvers.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was just talking to my dear friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who sits over there, but I asked him to yield when he was reading the paper there, because I wanted to make it abundantly clear that as he extends this debt limit, as he gives us the ability for the United States to pay off its obligations, that he is only doing it for the old people on Social Security, he says, he says. So it means that these people have a lot of compassion, but they give it to us a little bit at a time. Who knows, maybe the disabled veterans will get some political attention over there, and we will get another 15 days. How about the widows of those who died defending our country? How about the crippled, the veterans in the hospital? Oh, I know, you want to make Clinton change the rules. You do not want to do it at election time. You cannot do it with overriding a veto, and so what we are going to do is select who will receive their benefits. Do you think the United States Congress should be doing this? And of all of the committees that is doing this to the American people, it is the Committee on Rules. What substance jurisdiction do you have to select one group of Americans, people who serve their country, which groups you decide will receive their checks on time? And we get 15 days. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman for 15 days we get. Thank you. Maybe when we come back, the rest of the veterans and all the Americans who deserve their checks, you might give them 10 or 15 days, and ultimately the rest of the world would say, Can you trust the United States of America? Just as far as you can check with the chairman of the committee that determines when they pay their debts. All I can say is this, if you think we screwed this place up for 40 years, you have broken the record, because you have brought to this Congress Members who are more anxious to change the policies that we have had in the last 40 years than to legislate. We are not doing this by legislating. We are doing it by fear, and it is wrong.