Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to oppose this legislation. It shows that in this great country people can have the same goals, but that in these halls that we can debate the manner in which we hope to achieve it. Mr. Chairman, after the last debate on the bill, one of my friends that took an opposite side on the rule said, ``If you are really concerned about freedom in Cuba, if you are really concerned about getting rid of Castro, why do you not talk more about that?'' So, Mr. Chairman, I elect to do it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, ``Hey, Mr. Castro it is all over for dictators. Communism has failed. Stop blaming America and stop blaming the embargo. Stop fooling the Cuban people in believing that it is the United States' embargo that has denied the Cuban people an opportunity to dream and to think that they can aspire to improve the quality of life.'' ``Stop telling the American people over here in New Jersey, and the people in Miami, to keep putting up this embargo so that you can stay there as long as you want. Yes, Mr. Castro, stop making it appear as though that it is the United States of America, and allow us in these halls of the United States Congress to be able to say that we think the way to get rid of this guy is to let some sunshine in.'' Mr. Chairman, let us see what is happening in human rights. Is the way to show the violation in human rights in Cuba to have a handful of people in Cuba say we cannot go there? Give me a break. We are creating somebody out there. We are responsible for that dictator. Mr. Chairman, if we want to get rid of him, open up the doors of trade. Let in students and doctors and artists. Let us exchange, show them that America is the showcase of democracy. Do not have this bum running around saying, ``Americans in the United States Congress say we cannot sell you food, we cannot sell you medicine, we cannot allow your kids to come here. You cannot come to the United States of America.'' What kind of country is the United States of America that we are going to be afraid of a handful of socialists, or whatever they call themselves over there? This great republic can stand up against the Communists in all of what used to be the Soviet Union, and we are scared of a handful of people that Castro has got over there? We are out of our minds. This great Nation can stand up against a billion Communist Chinese, run over there and spend their money, but we are scared of a handful of guys in uniform in Cuba? This great Nation can go to North Vietnam and North Korea and have our businesspeople trade and have our students sing, laugh, trade information, and come back as Americans and not be afraid of them, but we are scared to death of this bum Castro? Why not let America's voice be heard by what we sell best? We sell democracy. We sell contracts. We sell food. We sell medicine. We sell ideas. And we win at it. Do you colleagues know why we win at it? Because that is why we got the North American Free-Trade Agreement. That is why we have got GATT. That is why the United States of America leads in trade. That is why we have got Ron Brown. That is why we have got the Department of Commerce. We are salesmen. We produce and the world buys. But when my colleagues say ``embargo,'' it means do not talk, do not send reporters, do not let people see, Hey, America has got a great country. Let us see it. Let us see what is going on in Cuba. Who are we to tell Americans that they cannot go to Cuba? That we cannot have protection in Cuba? Are we afraid of this little island country in the Caribbean? They must be selling something that we better take a good look at. Let us stop saying that we are afraid of Castro. The only way to get freedom in Cuba is to act as though America has got so much of it, so proud of it, that we can go any place and everyone would say, ``I want to be like you.'' But if we cannot allow them to come and listen to our music, our poets, our educators; if we cannot listen to their scientists and their doctors; if we cannot prove to them that America has more to offer than this overweight, old bearded guy that runs around there in combat boots, what kind of republic are we? Mr. Chairman, I challenge my friends on the other side, tell the people in Cuba that it is not the American people that are doing this to them. We want to send them our food, our medicine, and our scholars. I think this bill separates Americans from Cuba and it is an impediment to democracy in Cuba.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, but before I state my reasons, I just want to make it abundantly clear that I have the utmost respect for those Members of Congress that seek to find democracy, as probably all of the Members of this Congress would want to see. I must admit that many of them have stronger ties to Cuba and therefore their feelings would be a lot more emotional. By saying that, however, it does not mean that I have any lesser feelings for democracy. Certainly I am the beneficiary of the democracy of this great Nation, and I have fought when my country has asked me to preserve democracies in other countries, specifically South Korea. I too have stood up in seeking to change dictatorships and hostile governments that oppressed the rights of people, yes, in Haiti and South Africa, and suggested the tools of using embargoes when the family of nations thought that this was an adequate thing to do in order to bring down those people who have a complete disregard of the rights of other people. When I thought it was not working in Haiti, and before the President made up his mind that he was going to send in troops, I shared with the President of the United States that I thought it was time for us to review our embargo against the people in Haiti. Certainly in South Africa there were nations all around the world who jointed with us. As a result of the initiatives that we have taken, and even the small role that I played in the Committee on Ways and Means to deny tax deductions to U.S. companies in South Africa that were deducting the taxes they paid to the fascist government of South Africa from their taxes, when that was denied I supported it, and democracy ultimately came. If I thought for 1 minute that the family of nations thought the embargo was the way to go, and that 34 years of an embargo could ultimately lead to democracy in Cuba, I would be standing with my colleagues saying, yes, let us tighten it. Not only do I think the embargo is not working, but I think that we are now trying different ways to see how we can just show who is more for democracy, who is more against communism. We do not find this feeling on the floor when we are talking about Communist China. We do not find this sense of being against communists when we talk about North Vietnam. We do not find this sense of communism when we talk about the people in North Korea. No, then we hear that America has to free people through trade. I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means, which has some jurisdiction as it involves trade. I am there, and I am led to understand that the North American Free Trade Agreement is going to be good for America, that it is going to create jobs as we tear down the barriers of trade between nations. I hear in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, these poor countries, that we should not give them fish, we should teach them how to fish, they should be able to trade with us. Trade, not aid. Except for this little island there called Cuba. They are excluded from that. They are excluded from the North American Free Trade Agreement, not by other nations. So we are being asked right here to say that we want to trade with everybody. We are the leaders in promoting free trade, except we say we are prepared to punish our trading partners if they see fit, in their national interest, to trade with Cuba. How arrogant. How outrageous. Who is the United States of America to tell other people, people that we are begging to sit down at the negotiating table to trade with us and other countries, that they should not trade? But why do I oppose this rule? I do not care how you cut it, something in here deals with trade. I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I have worked here a quarter of a century in the Congress and the Committee on Ways and Means. Now for the first time I am on the Subcommittee on Trade. Better than that, I am the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on Trade in the Committee on Ways and Means. Even though I am not nearly as important as I used to be, trade issues come by my committee, unless Republican chairman talk with Republican chairmen and change certain things. So along comes this bill, and where would they send the bill? To a lot of committees, but one of them was the Committee on Ways and Means. I could not wait for the bill. I could not wait for it, until I found out that the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means got together with the Republican chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and said, can we take out anything that would allow us to have any interest at all in your trade bill? Sure enough, they did it, and without a meeting, without discussion. Chairman Archer sends a letter to Chairman Gilman, and therefore ranking member Rangel never sees the bill. So we got a rule to tighten the trade screws on this Communist nation, Cuba. We have got to make certain anyone that trades with her is punished. If anybody, foreign, American, it does not make any difference, believes that Castro took any property, come to the U.S. courts and sue. God forbid if other people start suing America in foreign courts and expect to get a return on it, but distinguished chairman of Judiciary Committees and things like that would straighten out those little international law matters, I am certain. Because in this Congress you do not need a lot of hearings, you do not need a lot of debate. All you need is a lot of votes, and the majority has got it. Let me say this. This bill has nothing to do with this mean-spirited dictator Castro. It has nothing to do with punishing our trading partners who we beg to come to the Uruguay round, to come to the North American Free-Trade Agreement. All this bill has to do is to see how mean you can be in showing who likes democracy best. May the record indicate, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting democracy in this country around the world, I want to stand up with those fighters. But this is a bad bill at the wrong time. It is not in our national interest. The President is begging that you do not put it on his desk. He is going to veto it, and everybody who has worked in any State Department, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, knows that this is not in the national interest of the United States of America. I ask that we oppose this rule and that we defeat this rule and get on with our Nation's business.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, All I am saying is that I share the same feelings about this person who is a dictator, and I hope that that would be understood. I have more feeling that this country has more power than any Communist, whether they were in China, whether they are in the Soviet Union, wherever they are, I have confidence in my Government. When the President of the United States says that this is not in our national interests, when our Secretary of State says this is not in our national interest, as an American, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] said, one President at a time, and that is my only point.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is my dear friend and I know his strong feelings about protecting democracies, wherever they are, and, using trade to do it. I would just like to say that I share those feelings, but I think that we only have one President at a time. I do not care whether it is Republican or Democrat. When it comes to trade and our international interests, I think we ought to give this President a chance, as we did President Bush and President Reagan. Our President asked at this time, do not put this on his desk, and I think he should be respected.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, this will never become law in this country, and the gentleman knows it. It is going to be vetoed and will not be overridden. The gentleman knows and I know that this is theatrics, and it will never become law.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the Republicans for their candor in how they intend to resolve some of the problems. I wish the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was on this floor because now I fully understand, having been born and raised and living in the inner city, that our problems were and have been today the fact that we taxed the rich too much. And if we relieve the rich of this burden of tax, they will come back to the inner cities where they fled. What we are trying to do is to do for those who are held hostage in the inner city the same thing that we do for Americans no matter where they are born: to give them hope, to give them vision, to give them job training, to give them opportunity, to allow them to look forward to raising a family; and to be able to live the American dream. You keep talking about how much money you are giving. Where do we get this idea of reducing the rate of increase? What we are saying is that if the poor are getting poorer and coming up in larger numbers, you do not cut back the resources that are necessary to give them the strength to get back on their feet to become Americans. What have you cut? Have you cut out communism, socialism, or any of the things that Americans want get rid of? No; you are honest enough to cut those things and stand up to the American people, summer jobs for our kids, school-to- work programs, one-stop employment centers--that is not welfare, my brothers and sisters--and drug treatment to have people be able to stand on their feet. It is a shame what you are doing in order to make the rich even more rich.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio. It is really educational to see how the good, decent people from the other side of the aisle seem to believe in everything that we are trying to do here, but not in this bill. [[Page H 7897]] There is no one more dedicated in fighting drugs than my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. He is going to try to make certain that the countries producing the drugs do not enjoy a friendly relationship with us. However, talking about national disasters, as an American, what is more of a disaster than seeing a child born in public housing, and just because it is a male, a boy, that we can say that that kid is either going to die or end up in jail before he is 15? What is more of a disaster than to see a human being that has the same dreams that you and I have, to one day move to decent housing, to get an education and be productive, and all the statistics would say ``Because of color, because of background, and because they are in that public housing, they will never be able to break out.'' What a great national disaster. Secretary Kemp saw it, and he did not see it from the high towers in some building, he went into this public housing, he talked with the parents, and he felt their dreams and tried to do something. For a lousy $238 million, we are going to say that these kids do not deserve it. What are we talking about? No, it is not jails. That would get the Members excited. It is not mandatory sentences. It is not more cops. That gets the vital juices flowing. It is education, it is mentoring, it is giving someone an opportunity to say that it is not just two strikes against you; that in this country, everyone can make it. For God's sakes, it is Veteran's Day for Korean war veterans. Can we not do something decent? That side already struck out hope for the homeless, they struck out those that just want to get a house and a picket fence, because the house is located someplace that they cannot get insurance. Do not be dictated to and just say what you cannot do, just break out of it sometime tonight and let the conscience that you have say that you are able to do something. Do not wait for some hope or dreams tomorrow. It may be too late. This money merely says ``Just because of who you are, just because you were born in the projects, the United States of America will not give up to you.'' Members did not give up on these kids when they went in the Army. Do not do it tonight.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, July 26, 1995 marks the 47th anniversary of President Harry S. Truman's signing of Executive Order 9981, officially desegregating the U.S. military. I rise to pay special tribute and to extend my profound gratitude not only to President Truman but to the African-American men and women who served in World War II and whose exemplary service made the President's action all but inevitable, as President Clinton reminded us in his courageous stand in defense of affirmative action. The military institution that grew out of that executive order became the model for the society as a whole. The U.S. military is our finest example of equality, opportunity, upward mobility, and full inclusion in our social institutions. As chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus veterans braintrust and a Korean war veteran, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the dedication of those men and women who fought for democracy abroad against the Nation's common enemy and returned home to battle racism and discrimination. During the war, this duality was signified by black troops as the double ``V'' campaign. Last year following the 50th anniversary commemoration of the Normandy invasion, I heard many complaints from African-American veterans, including my constituents in New York. In all of the pageantry, in all of the television coverage, it seemed they had been left out. I took the matter up with President Clinton and Secretary Jesse Brown. The result was President Clinton's participation in a Presidential tribute where he delivered a moving speech during the 24th Annual Congressional Black Caucus legislative weekend. The President's appearance was coordinated by the CBC veterans braintrust, as part of a special tribute entitled ``D-Day and World War II African-American Veterans: The Forgotten Heroes and Heroines.'' The tribute honored the 1 million African-American men and women in uniform during the war, including the nearly 750,000 who served overseas in Europe and the Pacific. The President's decision to attend the veterans braintrust event was an honor that cannot be ignored or forgotten. The President was joined at the event by Secretary Jesse Brown, and CBC members: Sanford Bishop, Jr., Bobby Rush, Maxine Waters, Corrine Brown, James Clyburn, Kweise Mfume, former Congressman Charles Diggs, and was witnessed by a capacity audience in the Ways and Means Committee room. President Clinton described the African-American World War II veterans as ``a distinguished generation in the history of African- American military service.'' As a group, he said they were protectors ``of a legacy older than the Declaration of Independence; one that includes the legendary service of the Massachusetts 54th in our Civil War, the Buffalo Soldiers in the West, the 92d Division in World War I.'' The President continued, ``For decades, African-American veterans were missing in our Nation's memories of World War II. For too long, you were soldiers in the shadows, forgotten heroes. Today it should be clear to all of you, you are forgotten no more.'' While African-American veterans fought and died under the stigma of segregation, one thing is clear: their heroic contributions in WWII marked the beginning of the end of segregated America. The bottom line is that the brilliance of their performance in the war forced President Truman to sign Executive Order 9981, on July 26, 1948, ending the practice of segregation in the military. The performance of African- Americans in World War II sowed the seeds that ultimately forced the Federal Government to reexamine its policies on race and stimulated African-Americans to greater activism in demanding their rights. The Presidential awards ceremony honored outstanding World War II African-American veterans associations, units, and individuals who served with distinction, as well as historical organizations who continue to educate the public on the role and contribution of African- Americans in World War II. Sixty awards were presented to the following honorees: Montford Point Marines Association, Prometheans, 715th Veterans Association, U.S.S. Mason (DE 529) Association, 366th Veterans Association, Black Women Army Auxiliary Corp./Women Army Corp. & Women in the Services, 372nd Infantry Association, 758th/64th Armored Regiment Association, 92nd Infantry Division Association, 761st Tank Battalion & Allied Veterans Association, 366th Veterans Association, Tuskegee Airmen, Inc., World War II Black Veterans of the Great Lakes, U.S. Coast Guard National Association of Former Stewards & Stewardmates, Inc., 555th Parachute Infantry Association, 369th Veterans Association, the Golden Thirteen, the 5th Platoons and the Red Ball Express, Dr. Paul Parks, Sr., Waverly Woodson Jr., SSgt. Monroe Blackwell, Willie Woods, Claude Owens, Rev. Elmer Fowler, Charity Adams-Earley, Dr. Martha Putney, Lt. Col. Julius Williams, Gladestone Dale, Dr. Leroy Ramsey, Donald Eaton, Jr., Samuel Phillips, Alonzo Swann, Captain Hugh Mulzac (Posthumously), Leroy Colston, Major Nancy Leftentant-Colon, Clark Simmons, Dr. Robert Allen, Robert Routh, Lt. Col. Jesse Johnson, Jacob Johnson III, Dr. Emerson Emory, Dr. Charles Pinderhughes, Samuel Mildrew, Captain David Williams, Sr., 1st Lt. Prudence Burns Burrell, Lt. Col. Bradley Biggs, Major Augustus Hamilton, John Carter, James Dockery, Dr. Howard Mitchell, Charles Evers, Dr. Roscoe Brown, Percy Sutton, Daisy Winifred Byrd-Beldon, Jean Byrd Stewart, Col. Margaret Bailey, Edna Young Shannon, Dr. Olivia Hooker, Dr. Howard Mitchell, SSgt. Robert Powell, John Silveria, Dr. John Garrett, World War II Heritage Commission, Committee for the Aviation Mural Project Success, and Black Military History Institute of America. Again, on behalf of a grateful nation, I speak for the Congressional Black Caucus in expressing our deep appreciation for the contributions, dedication, commitment, and national service of the African-American men and women who served in World War II. Their job was done well, and will forever be remembered.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, Speaker Gingrich, and also Senator Gramm. I do not think in our lifetime or perhaps in history have they gone out of their way to show you the difference between the Democrat and the Republican. I think that is important. As I understand the argument, if you are sick, if you are poor, if you are blind or disabled, that is not a Federal problem and it entitles you to absolutely nothing. The fact is, as the Speaker said before, it is time to give the tax money back to those people that earn it. The fact that rich people earn it means you give it back to rich people. Therefore, the poor should rely more on charitable organizations, not-for-profit organizations, even though I understand the Republicans want a flat tax that would even withdraw the incentives to make contributions. Mr. Speaker, I really believe that what is going on now is revolutionary. The Supreme Court has said that you cannot elect people based on their color. We are going after affirmative action and now we are going after the rest of the poor. Congratulations, you have made history. Mr. Speaker, the way I look at it, while it is so easy to identify the poor among us sometimes, when people really see that we are making these cuts in order to return this money to the rich, that ultimately the poor, the sick, and the aged are not going to go away. True, when you give a block grant, you say that we do not have any responsibility; let the Governors do it. After all, they are closer to the problem. The Governors will say let the mayors do it, and the mayors will say let the churches and the synagogues and the temples do it. Even when someone comes back and they say they want to change, the Democrats didn't do the right thing, they never meant that we would just take our responsibility and throw it back to the communities that cannot afford to raise the taxes to do what has to be done. I do hope when the American people finally wake up and see exactly what we are doing to them, it is clearly supporting tax breaks for those whom God has blessed with the riches among us, and going after programs and saying it is not a Federal entitlement, leave it up to the charitable organizations.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Is the gentleman saying he would hope that his amendment would apply to any country that is not abiding by the constitutional principles that is in their Constitution, and that this little island country was not singled out for this kind of treatment?

Mr. RANGEL. I would like to withdraw some harsh statements I made about the gentleman, because I am reminded by your statement that unlike so many others that are positioned in that side of the aisle, that you constantly have talked about the restoration of democracy in Haiti, even to the point that you had a place where you thought the new government should be. But I guess my point to you, sir, is that why would this little island government need your direction with its constitution as to when our great Nation cuts assistance?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] who authored this original amendment had indicated that support for the Government of Haiti seemed to be coming from liberals or something that would denote that there was a different type of thinking with liberals, and conservatives, and people of different backgrounds, as related to a poor country that has really suffered tremendously over the last decades. It seems to me that the amendment is a political statement: I did not like Aristide when he first was elected. I did not like Aristide when he came to the United States. I did not like Aristide when we went in to restore the government, and, notwithstanding the fact that he has done each and every thing that everyone expected him to do, they could not find one thing to say except, ``Something must be wrong. I don't know what it is, but, if anyone finds out what it is, then we cut off aid.'' As my colleagues know, I am more concerned about the politics of when it is made known to the President of the United States than anything in this statement because, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] knows better than most Members of this body, everything that was made known to the Presidents of the United States was made known by the Central Intelligence Agency, and it really surprises me, with the type of information that was gathered out of the sewers of the intelligence community, that was made and proven to be false to misguide the President of the United States, that we would have this vague type of language as to the President would cut off any assistance to the Government of Haiti when it is made known to the President. I really would not want to start laughing here by asking the distinguished gentleman from Florida just who would he think, or what agency would it be, that would be mandated to make information known to the President of the United States as would be in Haiti sometime. If we take a look at the history of the CIA in condemning our country, in condemning a man, and continuously condemning someone that has been elected by the people, we will run down the line and say the man was psychotic based on what? Information collected. The man was addicted to drugs. The man was responsible for murder. There is no support for the man on the island of Haiti. It is the army, it is institutions, it is the people that were paid, the people that were on the payroll. Everyone that opposed the man when he was in this country was paid for by the CIA and other people that just could not tolerate the idea that they did not have a puppet controlled by the United States of America. And so I know, I know, that certain people are just born in this world that is going to have to carry a heavy burden, and I do not mind carrying it at all. I think it was our distinguished Speaker who said, ``You just got to worker harder.'' So that goes for the gentleman that comes to become president of Haiti. But the question has to remain how much does a country have to suffer, how much does a man have to do, in order to get certain people off of his back? Now, until there is reason to believe that something was wrong, that the election was fraudulent, do my colleagues not think this body and the President has the power to move forward? The reason I support the Meek amendment is because it is done the way the United States of America should do business, and that is we are going to assume that things are done legally, we are going to assume that the Congress and the people have good intent, and if anyone, anyone, misuses that, then this Congress would respond. Well, what the gentleman is saying and what the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] is not saying is that we make it a negative thinking that it is going to happen, and she is the American that has hope that, when our troops went over there, got rid of the tyrants, got rid of the CIA people that were on the payroll, that was actually stopping the United States ship from coming into it when they were chased out of the country because of the spirit of fine young American boys, we are going to send a message to them, ``Yes, you did a good job, but wait until you see what happens because we got an amendment that will take it all back.'' This is not the U.S. Congress that I am proud to be a Member of. This is not the United States of America. We should laud our esteem for doing what the international community asked him to do, and I, for one, was proud that I supported him before, and I do now.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention and to the attention of my colleagues here in the house, a story about a very dedicated doctor committed to helping save the lives of our children in the Harlem community and beyond. This guardian angel of which I speak is Dr. Barbara Barlow, chief of Pediatric Surgery at Harlem Hospital Center. Her push for prevention in helping keep our children on the playgrounds and out of emergency rooms, was depicted recently in a story in Parade Magazine, April 16, 1995. I am proud to have such a remarkable and devoted individual caring for the children in the Harlem community. Her Push for Prevention Keeps Kids Out of ER (By Peter Hellman) Dr. Barbara Barlow still recalls the 4-year-old boy who arrived at Harlem Hospital Center 20 years ago, soon after she had been appointed chief of pediatric surgery. ``He tumbled head-first out a fourth-floor window while his mother went to answer the phone,'' she told me. ``Multiple fractures. Brain dead. An only child. It was just so incredibly sad.'' Dr. Barlow was then treating an average of one dozen children annually who'd fallen from windows. ``I only saw kids who were still breathing,'' said Barlow. ``Others had been taken directly to the morgue.'' Convinced that ``prevention is better than sewing them up,'' Dr. Barlow decided to get involved. She knew that installing inexpensive window gates would remedy the problem and that a new law required New York City Landlords to install the guards upon request. But compliance was spotty, so Barlow put her energy into a campaign, started by the city's health department, called ``Children Can't Fly.'' Harlem students acted our dramas about window falls. They were sent home from hospital clinics with window-guard request forms. At the culmination of the campaign, ``Children Can't Fly'' balloons were tied to window gates all over Harlem. The result? Last year, Dr. Barlow treated only one window- fall victim. If window falls could be so decisively reduced by attacking root causes, reasoned Dr. Barlow, why not also the other kinds of trauma injuries to Harlem's children? Through the mid-1980s, they were being hurt at a rate that was double the national average. Now, thanks to the Injury Prevention Program that Dr. Barlow established in 1988, admissions of children with trauma injuries to Harlem Hospital have been reduced by 44 percent. Dr. Barlow first focused on Harlem's dirty and dangerous playgrounds. Emergency-room data showed that they caused many injuries. To help upgrade the playgrounds, she persuaded the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of Princeton, N.J., to provide a $240,000 grant. (``A very untraditional use for our money in terms of health care,'' admitted Michael Beachler, a program officer for the foundation.) Though she was outwardly confident, Dr. Barlow remembers ``lying awake all night and thinking, `What if we can't get anyone to fix these playgrounds'?'' But it turned out Barlow could put people together as well as schools and volunteer groups (she calls her own role ``coalition-building''), more than a dozen playgrounds were made safer. Metal swings--which too often smashed into children, sometimes fracturing skulls--were replaced by soft rubber ones. Broken climbing bars with jagged points also were replaced. Pocked asphalt, which so easily tripped dashing feet, yielded to rubberized surfaces. Graffiti-strewn walls were painted over with cheerful murals by schoolchildren. Five entirely new playgrounds with Harlem motifs were created. Dr. Barlow didn't stop there. When a child was raped in the darkness of unkempt Jackie Robinson Park in northern Harlem, where the lights had long been out, she demanded that city officials get the lights back on. Now, Little League teams once again play on the park's renovated fields, and two of the teams are sponsored by Harlem Hospital. While sports have their place, they can't give a child what gardening can, according to Bernadette Cozart, a gardener for the city parks department. Her ``Greening of Harlem'' project works in cooperation with the Injury Prevention Program. Under Cozart's eye, children fill vacant lots and playground plots with flowers and vegetables. Typical is the garden at P.S. 197, an elementary school. Roses, lilies, tomatoes, eggplants, even collard greens thrive there. ``I have kids who wouldn't eat anything green until they started growing it,'' said Cozart. Like gardening, the hospital's popular dance program might seem far afield from injury prevention. But time spent dancing is time away from the mean streets of the inner city. ``Why shouldn't these children be loaded up with afterschool activities, just like suburban children are?'' asked Dr. Barlow. No Harlem child, however, can avoid the streets: 48 percent of pediatric trauma injuries at Harlem Hospital involve motor vehicles. So ``Safety City,'' a course for third-graders on how to be a safe pedestrian, is part of the Injury Prevention Program (aided by the city's department of transportation). Another part of the program is the Urban Youth Bike Corps, which provides helmets and bicycle-repair instruction, while the KISS (Kids, Injuries and Street Smarts) project educates teens about gun violence. So varied has the Injury Prevention Program become that it's easy to assume Dr. Barlow has little time left for old- fashioned doctoring. That would be a mistake. She still takes a turn of duty every fourth night, though, as a department chief, she doesn't have to. Dr. Barlow's pioneering program is now going national, thanks to a new $1.1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Pittsburgh, Chicago and Kansas City, Mo., are the first cities to replicate it. At Harlem Hospital, meanwhile, the surest sign of the continuing downward trend in trauma injuries is a dark corner of the pediatric ward. ``We used to have patients hanging off the rafters when I first came here.'' said Dr. Barlow. ``Now I`ve closed off six beds. We don't need them anymore.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my very dear friend, the Reverend Larry Jones, head of Feed the Children, a humanitarian organization dedicated to feeding hungry children and helping people to lead normal and productive lives. Feed the Children has delivered food and medical supplies to such countries as Haiti, Bosnia. He has also delivered food to cities across the United States. On several occasions, Feed the Children has distributed tons of food to needy families in my congressional district in New York. For these efforts, and a lifetime of humanitarian service, Reverend Jones has been recognized as Oklahoman of the Year for 1994 by the magazine, Oklahoma Today. Reverend Jones discovered his calling to help suffering children while on an evangelical mission in Haiti where he witnessed heart- wrenching scenes of hunger. Then he vowed to dedicate his life to service in behalf of hungry people all around the world. I recall toward the end of the Haiti crisis last year, Reverend Jones and I arranged to have two planeloads of medical supplies and food delivered to aid the suffering people of Haiti. The military dictators then in power attempted to block the visit, but Reverend Jones persevered and after a few days delay, he took the plane full of supplies to Port-au-Prince. Reverend Jones has a very deep understanding of the problems of the suffering of the poor. Earlier this year in testimony to the Ways and Means Committee on the welfare reform bill, he reminded Congress that in its zeal to reform the system, they must not forget those who have been left out of the mainstream of our wealthy society. Reverend Jones was joined at the hearing by spokesmen from Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant denominations in an appeal for compassion that has crossed religious lines. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a friend of Rev. Larry Jones who has dedicated his life to helping those who are less fortunate. In tribute to him and for the edification of my colleagues, I call attention to an excerpt from an article in Oklahoma Today, in which he was recognized as the Oklahoman of the Year for 1994. The profile of his organization, on the other hand, has never been higher. In 1994, Jones' Oklahoma City-based charity delivered truckloads of donated canned vegetables, antibiotics, wheelchairs, hams, coats, underwear, water purification tablets, books, powdered milk, Christmas candy, and stuffed animals to seventy countries around the world. His organization has heated orphanages in Romania, started loan programs in the Philippines, and supported prenatal clinics in Russia and a home for disabled children in Africa. Jones traveled to Rwandan refugee camps, to Bosnia and Croatia in the midst of war, and during last summer's trade embargo, delivered a planeload of food and medicine to Haiti just hours after President Bill Clinton announced the U.S. Marines were going in. Here in the United States, Jones' trucks delivered millions of pounds of supplies to food pantries in places known to be wanting, like Appalachia and Harlem, and places where hunger is more hidden, like Vermont and Denver. He bought a vacant college campus in the heart of Oklahoma City and established a job training program there, then loaned one of the buildings to Head Start. His organization provided disaster relief during catastrophic flooding in south Texas and pinpointed the eight most destitute school systems in each of the fifty states and sent each student a care package at Christmas. All of this--the $90 million charity, the fleet of trucks, the rides sitting on sacks of food in armored cars into countries at war--has happened, Jones maintains, without any planning on his part. ``Imagine,'' he says, ``you're standing there, and someone hands you a rope and asks you to hold it. Turns out the rope is attached to a hot air balloon, and you just go.'' For fifteen years, that ride has been Feed the Children.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I say to my colleagues, congratulations, your contract obviously is going through. I never thought I would see the day when I would look and the other body would be trying to clean up this garbage that we are sending over there. But God is good. It may happen. Someone said that we should really support this capital gains because it means jobs, jobs, jobs. Well, welcome to my district. Around this country we got congressional districts with 30, 40, 50, 60 percent unemployed, people without homes, without jobs, without hope. For God's sake, what water are you drinking so that I can come tell them that we are going to find the wealthiest Americans that have no problems and living in the luxury of this country, some of them we are even going to allow, to permit them to renounce their citizenship and pay no taxes, but we are going to allow them to get a 50 percent reduction on capital gains, not for themselves, not to get richer, no. We are doing this for jobs. But at the same time we are doing this, the poor kids around this country that like to believe that a part of this American dream belongs to them, you are cutting out education, job training and opportunities for them. Indeed if they are minority, and they ever get to become an adult, and are seeking a job that has been locking them out, then we say if there is any chance that any affirmative action will be there for you, we will shatter it. If the kid did get an education, and did get some of the capital gains and wanted to play the capital gains game with you, we would say, ``Well, we don't like it, it's too big a deal, and it's a minority preference, so let's knock out that deal, knock out all preferential dealings with the FCC, unless, of course, we know someone that was involved with one of these deals.'' I say this: You are having a ball, you are enjoying the fruits of victory, you are having a party. But America is going to wake up with this hangover because you cannot push this fraud on the American people in a hundred days. One day the people are going to wake up and find out that what you have tried to do is to dismantle the so-called New Deal that you hate so much to destroy the opportunity for the Federal Government to provide a safety net for people and to have anytime you're talking about welfare in this Congress that we would know that we are talking about just oil depletion allowance or rapid depreciation or investment tax credit. That kind of welfare continues to go on. But the welfare of the American people that says that no child in this country should go without medicine, without food, should be hungry, whether or not the mother is married, these things now will be shuttled off to the Governors. Why? Because for 40 years we did not perfect the system of how we take care of the poor. No, you are not getting rid of it to reform it; you are getting rid of it because you hate the word ``entitlements.'' You are saying if you are poor, if you are sick, if you are blind, if you are crippled, if you are disabled, that the Federal Government has no responsibility for you. Those are the days of Roosevelt. Wine and roses. This is the day of capitalism. Give it to the rich. They know better how to create jobs. And if the Governors do not do it right, and they do not have to, if the governors do not allocate the money, and there are no mandates, if the governors run out of money and they cannot tax it, that is no big deal. Government never said you were promised anything. They die. They have poor in other countries. Why not this great Republic? And if the cities and the local governments cannot do it, you are speaking to them adopted. Go to Boys Town. What has happened to the sense of feeling for our people, giving everyone opportunity? Let everyone dream that yes, they can cut coupons, but before they get to that, give them a chance to have a job. Do not be able to say that you are so mean-spirited that you think that just by cutting out people and dealing with the wealthiest of the people here, that you are doing the right thing. Because today we know that with the mistakes that we are making, if that other body does not correct it, we will have gone back 40 and 50 years in this great Republic. Do not let it happen just because you have discipline. Have common sense to go with it.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr Speaker, in August 1993, I had the privilege to attend a Regional Counter Narcotics Conference in Taipei, Republic of China. The conference was held in conjunction with the Republic of China's Ministry of Justice, and was attended personally by Justice Minister, Dr. Ma Ying-jeou. The decision to hold the conference in Taipei, together with Minister Ma's participation, was yet another indication from our friends on Taiwan of the seriousness of their antidrug efforts. I have just received a letter from Benjamin Lu, the Republic of China's Representative here in the United States, which details some of the further steps undertaken by the Republic of China since the conference. I would like to include it in the Congressional Record, because I feel it is important that such efforts do not go unnoticed here in the Congress. I strongly commend the Republic of China's antinarcotics efforts, and submit the following letter from Representative Lu: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative, Washington, DC, March 14, 1995. Hon. Charles B. Rangel, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Rangel: I am writing to update you regarding an issue of great importance, international narcotics control. This is also a matter of mutual concern to the United States and my country, the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. According to reports released by the Ministry of Justice of the ROC, drug related crimes such as drug abuse, trafficking and money laundering were increasing in the Taiwan area in recent years. However, the ROC government has taken effective measures to put the problems under control, and the achievements were duly noted by American authorities. As commended by the ``International Narcotics Control Strategy Report of 1995'' of the United States Department of State, officially released on March 1, my government has launched nation-wide anti-drug programs and passed harsher laws against traffickers. In addition, although not a member of the United nations, the ROC has introduced ``legislation in conformity with the 1988 UN Convention in the areas of money laundering, precursor chemical controls and `illegal drug' schedules.'' Both the record-breaking volume of drug seizures and an impressive number of offenders indicted in Taiwan in recent years proved that our efforts have been fruitful. The report also noted that ``the Taiwan authorities have mounted a concerted effort to attack the heroin trafficking problem and seizures of heroin have increased rapidly in the past few years. . . '' Nevertheless, a unilateral effort of any country is not enough to win a complete victory against drugs. My government, therefore, has thoroughly cooperated with American as well as other international law enforcement agencies to crackdown on all drug related crimes and will continue to do so. The State report also indicated that, in the last year, the ROC government not only ``continued to cooperate well'' with the Drug Enforcement Agency but also explored with U.S. authorities the possibility of signing a bilateral counternarcotics agreement. The people and the government of the ROC are as committed as you are to fighting drug problems. We hope you will take note of our strong commitment and vigorous actions on this important matter. With warmest regards, Sincerely, Benjamin Lu, Representative.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, maybe they have changed the rules, but I always thought that when the Senate presented something to us that they had an opportunity as conferees either to accept it or to reject it. I thought when we look at a Senate offer, we have the opportunity to do it. The gentleman saw fit to reject this provision that was in the Senate and because of his powerful persuasive personality, they agreed to it, but the rejection formally was made by the House under the gentleman's leadership to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I agree with the chairman that providing this incentive for self-employees, millions of people who we want to make certain that they have adequate health insurance, is very important, the Congress has promised it, and the Congress is now fulfilling that promise. We do regret that, while we have taken care of the employers, that we did not see fit to take care of the employees who do not have health insurance. Yes, we had to pay for this, and it seemed to us that, as relates to the earned income tax credit, as given to us by the President, that we could have and should have indexed such income allowing the poor of the working people to be able to receive the amounts of income from interest and dividends and still qualify for the earned income tax credit. We do believe that such income should have been indexed, and we have the assurances of the Chair and colleagues in the Senate that this would be revisited. Also I am greatly disappointed that in the rush to fund this well- deserved tax deduction that a Federal Communication Commission minority preference section 1071 was used as a vehicle to wipe out any incentives that could be there so that minorities would own and participate in radio, television, and cable television. It seemed to me that, if there was one case which was used as a target, and the Viacom sale transaction and deal was one, that the committee should have had hearings, that the full committee should have found out exactly what went wrong and that we should have corrected it, as we do with so many other areas that we find in the Tax Code, and we should not have found a need to retroactively go on after one deal, and certainly, if we did not do that, then there is absolutely no reason to see why we wiped out the entire program without hearings instead of trying to find out how we could have improved it. As has been said many times on the floor, that when we went into conference we had the opportunity to discuss and to push for abolishing another loophole that only the richest of Americans have been able to find, and we just could not find the guts and the courage to grab this and to close it. Some of the proponents of leaving this alone at this time have said that to deny an American citizen who has gained wealth the opportunity to renounce that citizenship and not to pay taxes would somehow violate civil rights. I think I heard someone saying that we have a lot of Cuban-Americans that have come here and become millionaires, may one day want to return to Cuba, and they will be denied that. There may be a lot of reasons why people would not want to close the loophole that allows Americans that have enjoyed all of the freedoms of a free market system, all of the education, and input and training of the American work force, all of the benefits of having one of the lowest tax rates in industrial countries, there may be reasons why we do not want to look at this and to close this loophole. But I know one thing, that the American people, no matter what complaints they have, there is one thing that we value more than anything else in life, and that is being an American. We may have our disputes politically, we may have our differences as groups and cultures, we even may have our difference as it relates to economic classes, but money has never been a reason why any American would think that they would renounce the most precious gift that we have, and that is our citizenship. I would hope that one day we will just publish the names of people that America has given so much to and that they care so little about that citizenship that they would flee in order to avoid taxes. Having said that, we cannot hold these people hostage, as we have held those that have been involved in the FCC hostage, and it is abundantly clear that our major obligation and the reason for the legislation in the first place was not to raise revenue, but to give assistance to self-employers who need this incentive in order to be able to deduct the expenses of health insurance very short timeframe as to time to file income tax returns are upon us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. are talking about already have an exemption, for a single person, of $5 million of their accumulated assets and $10 million for a married couple. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui, a hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did.

Mr. RANGEL. Let me make it clear to the gentleman: I signed the conference report to get the issue before the House of Representatives and to make certain the American people know what we have done. When I go to conference, I go into conference on behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Republicans control it. So I am not there to fight in conference. I am here to fight on this floor for a rule that allows the voters of the House of Representatives to do the right thing.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there is no one that I have more respect for in this House than the gentleman from Tennessee. We have enjoyed that friendship over a number of years. There are times, however, when committees think that they are working their will or the will of the party when they are in the Committee on Rules and sometimes we do the same thing in the Committee on Ways and Means. If there was no objection by the Democratic Members when the rule was perfected, well, those things happen. But we do not have to accept that rule on the House floor when we see that.