Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my dear friend and colleague Louis Stokes who once again has called upon the Members of the House to come together to pay tribute to the deeds and accomplishments of African-Americans during Black History Month. It is a great history we have to remember, one that could take us back to the first slave ship that arrived on the American shores. But even as we would rejoice over those many positive developments, from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Voting Rights Act, we must now look around us and consider that many of the gains of our recent history are now threatened by a wave of scapegoating that is sweeping the country. How sad it is that, because of economic frustration and doubts about the future, so many Americans are now pointing fingers of blame to those who are the weakest among us. How unfortunate it is that by doing so, we are allowing many of our political leaders to destroy the safety net that has been erected to protect the poor, the sick, the children, and the aged. It is as if, in their partisan zeal, they would do away completely with the legacy of the great President Franklin Roosevelt.. The first victim in this misguided crusade is affirmative action. It is no secret that even some of our Presidential candidates have made it their target, one even saying that if elected he will make it the first item on the national agenda. Just this week in the House of Representatives, a vote was taken to take down the first plank of the affirmative action structure. No, it was not that well-known or popular because few minorities or women could benefit directly from it. But it was important. By providing tax incentives for the sale of radio and television stations to minorities and women this provision in the law gave those groups a chance to improve the horrendously negative images that prevail in the media. How tiresome and insulting it has been over the years to see nothing but Amos 'n Andy, buffoons and now criminals as the stereotypes of blacks in the movies and on television. This provision was meant to give minority broadcasters a chance to reflect images that would elevate rather than denigrate their children and their families, to broadcast something different from the killers, pimps, and drug dealers that have become the latest stereotypes of black males portrayed on television. This action by the House was the first assault on affirmative action. In California next year, it will be followed by a referendum that would outlaw any preference in the areas of employment, education, and business. That movement promises to be adopted in other States around the country, and may well be addressed by the U.S. Congress even before that. What an outrage it is that in our great country, the home of every minority group, every race and religion, that we should now be taking steps away from having everyone represented in all our institutions. Indeed, we are all Americans, and if affirmative action is what it takes to have us all represented, then affirmative action it must be. What are we doing, after all, but making our institutions better, including the best of every group, painting the gorgeous mosaic, that makes America what it is. The assault on affirmative action is only the tip of the iceberg in what is clearly a broad campaign of scapegoating. The focus is now on African-Americans, but it is expanding to include other minorities, the poor and immigrants. This is a campaign that began in the last election, where the principle themes were crime and welfare. These appeals were not so blatant as the infamous Willie Horton ads in the first Bush campaign, but the objective was the same. The assault has intensified since last November, and has been broadened to include a generalized campaign against high ranking Black officials from Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Both of these officials without being charged with any crime came under the attack of right wing Republicans who found them easy targets for political attacks. Also in the political arena, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in with the strong input from Justice Clarence Thomas, and is now widely expected to shatter, not only affirmative action but the very laws which have made it possible to elect thousands of Blacks and Latinos to public office, from local sheriffs to Members of Congress. The alleged constitutional offense involves the use of gerrymandering to create electoral districts that have made it easier to elect minorities to office. It is the same system that no one challenged when used to enhance the chances to elect Republicans or Democrats. The attacks on Black Americans in some cases has reverted to the cruder forms. Hate crimes reported to the FBI almost doubled between 1991 and 1993, with Blacks accounting for 57 percent of the 1,689 victims. On the cultural front, three books were published in 1994 that renew claims that Blacks are genetically inferior. The current challenge to affirmative action in the Congress, therefore, is only part of a broader effort to turn back the clock on Civil Rights while unraveling the entire safety net that has protected those in our society who have the least. The current campaign to cut $780 billion in taxes over the next 10 years while maintaining defense, Social Security, Medicare and payments on the national debt used to be called Voodoo economics. Now, in the context of the Contract With America, of balanced budget amendments, block grants and welfare reform, it is a recipe for savaging the poor, minorities, the aged, the sick and the children. Indeed much of the Contract With America will trample on the poor, but particularly on African-Americans who disproportionately rely on these benefits. The contract targets not only teen-age mothers who are so bereft of hope that only having a child--in or out of wedlock--will provide any sense of accomplishment. But cutting back on crime and drug prevention programs, the contract turns it back on the youths, especially young, untrained, unemployed Black males who are being left to the whims of streets, with nothing more to look forward to than more jails. The balanced budget amendment puts at risk programs in education, public transportation and other programs most needed by the poor and minorities. During this Black History Month, we must rejoice in the accomplishments of the past, but we must remain vigilant of the challenges in the present. The threat to affirmative action, education, employment and to the social safety meant may be only the beginning.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, some time ago some remarks were attributed to me indicating that I was calling my colleagues Hitler or suggesting that they were Nazis, and I want to publicly apologize to anyone that was offended or thought that the inference, as related to Hitler or to Nazis, had anything at all to do with the people I work with every day. The point that I was trying to make and I make today, and perhaps not as well as I wish I could, is that during the time of the Holocaust, when the Jews were the targets of the failure of the German Government to provide a decent economy, he decided that he was going to scapegoat the Jews, but so many people that were also on his list, they never heard about what was going on. They did not believe that they were involved. The Christians were not involved. The Pope did not know what happened. Even Franklin Roosevelt never knew what happened. And today there are some people who say it did not happen at all. An analogy that I was making, as bad as it may have been, is that there is an assault today on the poorest of the poor in the United States, an assault on Medicaid, an assault on our aged. There is an assault now even for minorities who are trying so desperately hard to be on an even playing field. It is not that I am talking about affirmative action. Heck. White folks have had affirmative action all their lives and their daddy's lives and granddaddy's lives. The only time blacks get affirmative action really is when it is time to go to combat and you see who is in the infantry and see who is flying the planes. All we are saying is those airwaves belong to us just like they belong to you. And we are not asking for you to give us the money to buy them. This is some scheme that was created that allowed the seller to look for minorities, so that they would be able to be the beneficiary of what they do in the old boys club. Now, I am saying if you do not like the scheme, let us come up with a better one. But do not use health care as a reason to knock out a preference that we have to allow Hispanics and Asians and native Americans just to be able to look at television and see on it something that we like to see for your wives an our families. How dare anyone say that it is fair to tie up a good bill to extend health care to the self-employed with this vicious act without a hearing, without a report, just because someone says that this black guy got too big a deal. I am telling you, if you do not like this deal and you feel that retroactively you can put out a press release or pass a law and knock out the deals, I wish I had known this when we had the savings and loan thing coming across, because we had some deals there that never passed the smell test. But this is what we are doing for the future. Let me tell you this: You are firing the first shot across the bow regarding knocking out affirmative action and preferential treatment. We can use that tax code for other things too.

Mr. RANGEL. Then the Budget Act is not relevant when the point of order is being waived by the Committee on Rules?

Mr. RANGEL. So my last parliamentary inquiry is if we want a bill funded and we do not have the money for it, all we have to do is go to the Committee on Rules and tell them to waive it, and then we do not even have to fund it, is that correct? Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? have the authority to waive all necessary points of order.

Mr. RANGEL. I knew that. But I am asking the Chair, when we have a violation of the Budget Act, and this is something that is very sacred to Republicans and Democrats, that the only thing that we have to do when we do not provide the funding for a particular piece of legislation is go to the Committee on Rules and ask them to waive any violation that we have as relates to the Budget Act? I mean is that the Chair's ruling?

Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, I hope we take a good look at what is going on here today and see whether or not we want to project this type of conduct in the future. First of all, the health benefits that we are talking about expired in December, and there should be very few, if any, Members in this House that would not want to continue to make certain that we give a deduction and we encourage the self-employed to have health insurance. Now, the committee had notice that we were going to take care of this from last year, but then comes the question of how we are going to pay for this. And would Members believe the committee had no notice of how we were going to pay for this until a day or two before the actual meeting to markup. Now, we have had the subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means study the question of Viacom and to report back to the full committee. Well, we have not had any report on this Viacom deal and how all of a sudden this was selected to pay for the extension of the health benefits. Now, Members will tell you that Viacom received $400 million, $500 million as a result of selecting a minority, that a contract was signed and that this was not the intention of the legislation because originally it had something to do with radio and television people getting rid of their property because of the law. But we also know that this law was amended. And the person that was the beneficiary of getting the minority station was working for the FCC under President Carter. And he has subsequently gotten four pieces of TV and/or radio stations as a result of the law. And this one he was about to do except someone said it did not pass the smell test. No one said it was illegal. No one said it was immoral. No one said that it violated any regulations. And I assumed it would be just out of taste to say that because this guy was black and was enjoying the benefits of the law that was written by this Congress, that we have now said we are going to stop the deal. Now, if we have been doing this type of thing all along with every S&L contract that did not pass the smell test, I would join in and say, anything that Congress does not like, let us get involved and stop it. It does not sound too Republican to me, keep the Government out of business. Let the free marketplace work its will. But I just wonder if we can issue a press release and put people on warning, is that the type of reliance that we want on our Tax Code? My good friend, the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Archer, says we should not have the FCC making these determinations, that it should be with the Treasury or should be with the IRS. I do not have any problem with that. I never said it should be the FCC. But if we want to knock out preferences that minorities get so that they, too, would be able to be proud to see their images on the airwaves, that they would not have to look at themselves as being clowns and walking slowly and telling jokes and being demeaned as criminals or people on welfare, if we want Hispanics to be able to say that they can look with pride at their own programs, if we want the world to say that the United States is not sterile, it is not white, it is not male, it is a beautiful combination of a whole lot of cultures and the whole world is made up of these people and we should make certain that we are not talking about affirmative action and preferential treatment, we should have our board rooms and our airwaves reflect what America really is, people of all colors. And if we are going to knock out the minority provision, we should at least have hearings on it and do it in the open rather than look at this one deal, knock this out retroactively and then say that, hey, by the way, we have got to knock out the whole section because we do not like the FCC involved in making the decision. We could reform this. If we in our hearts wanted to make certain that everyone had an equal chance, maybe this law was bad. Maybe we should substitute it with something else. Maybe we could have hearings and come up with something. But, no, they say that they want to make certain that this does not happen again and they wipe it out completely. Now, I want Members to think with me, because I am not an economist, but what we are saying here now is that somehow this Viacom was going to make something from $400 million to $500 million in tax benefits and deferred payments of their capital gains tax. All I want to know is, if this deal was going to cause us to lose $400 million in revenue, how does canceling the deal, where there is no transaction, raise the money to pay for the health bill? We cannot have it both ways. If the Viacom deal was based on taxes, and it was, and we shattered the Viacom deal to Washington, where in the heck is the money being raised? There is no transaction here. I submit to my colleagues, if we have to do health, do health. If we want to knock out set-asides, knock out set-asides. If we want to set aside the hopes and the dreams of minorities that had this, well, go ahead and do it. We have the votes to do it. But I am suggesting that we do not have to do it in the middle of the night. This is the beginning of a folly. It started in the campaign. We now find some gentlemen who are running for President in the other body suggesting that if elected they will strike out all preferences, that 62 percent of angry white males voted for the Republican party. Well, I tell my colleagues this: close to 50 percent of the American people did not vote for anybody. I think America has gone a long way in getting rid of the vestiges of racism. We have a long way to go. But if we have differences in how to get along as brothers and sisters, if we have differences in how all of us should make certain that we are treated with equality, I say, do not do it in the middle of the night. Come up. If we differ, let us fight about it. But this is no place to be wiping out a minority tax preference and color it under the cloud that we are trying to improve the quality of health for the self- employed.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington, for attempting to really try to help the self-employed in getting deductions for their insured, for insurance. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, health insurance has nothing to do with what is on the floor today. Health insurance is the sugarcoating for repealing the FCC provision. Mr. Chairman, I do not mind that happening, but if they are going to shoot me down, do it with a hearing. My distinguished chairman tells me that he is color blind. Mr. Chairman, I thought he was putting me on when he first said it, but then I checked with some of his friends, and I understand he does have a physical problem in detecting color. However, when we go into the board rooms in these great United States, and let me make it abundantly clear, there is no greater country in the world for anybody than these great United States, but somehow, Mr. Chairman, we have to believe that not everyone has the same defect. They are not color blind. If we go into the television board rooms, the editorial board rooms, the people that tell us what America is all about, they are not color blind. If we want to correct the injustices that are here, let us have hearings and let us do it right. To do it in the middle of the night is not fair, and to make it retroactive is not good law.

Mr. RANGEL. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that you can bust the budget.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that all points of order have been waived by the Committee on Rules, and my parliamentary inquiry is that if in fact there is no funding mechanism for the provision of extending health care for the self-employed, does the waiver of the point of order prevent anyone from going into the funding mechanism as it relates to the Budget Act?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will be brief. Let me make it abundantly clear that the only reason that the big, rich, white folks get the tax benefits is because the minorities are not a part of understanding when these benefits are there. This is given to them to search out for minorities so we can get our foot in the door.

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 group of young men who have been doing it right for the past 25 years. An outstanding article which appeared in the Daily News, December 11, 1994, speaks of the choir's humble beginnings to the celebrated musical success they take pride in today. Please enjoy. Quite a Choir (By Sharline Chiang) ``Guys, it's pianissimo,'' the burly choir director bellowed. Then, clapping twice, he ordered: ``Don't half do it. It must be right!'' Doing it right. That's what the Boys Choir of Harlem has been specializing in for the past 25 years. It hasn't always been easy. ``It's been a long process of convincing people--classical purists--that we were real,'' said Walter Turnbull, choir founder and director. Evidence of real musicianship and diversity can be found on the choir's first solo album, ``The Sound of Hope,'' which celebrates the group's silver anniversary. The album, released in October by EastWest Records America, offers everything from pop and R&B to jazz and gospel. In 25 years, the choir has been turned from a group of rambunctious boys in the basement of Ephesus Church in Central Harlem to a major international attraction. In 1987, the Choir Academy of Harlem, a satellite of Community School District 5, was born. Today, the academy teaches youngsters ages 8 to 18 and offers a Regents high school program. More than a year ago the academy moved from a smaller building in Harlem to its first permanent home--the former Intermediate School 201 building at Madison Ave. and 127th St. Aside from proving itself to critics, keeping the school financially stable through the years has been a challenge, Turnbull said. Performances for royalty and Presidents alone don't cover the costs of tutors, pianos and more than 100 worldwide tours each year. Ticket revenues cover only half its $2.7 million budget. Despite generous patrons, cutbacks in city and corporate funding have made some tours impossible. Nevertheless, as funding shrinks, the number of young people who audition continues to grow. Last year 2,000 hopefuls tried out for 200 seats in music, dance and drama. The school's population also is growing. Six years ago the choir reinstituted its program for girls. Now the choir consists of 300 students. The 35 to 40 boys who make up the touring choir are chosen from the 150-member concert choir on a rotating basis. Although more than 90% of the students go on to college, Turnbull said, not everyone reaches graduation day. He loses some students to the lure of the streets. ``It's hard,'' the director said. ``Some you can't reach.'' But for many, like 12-year-old Nilelijah Scott, the Boys Choir of Harlem is a sanctuary, a place to get into music and off the streets. ``Instead of hanging out with friends and getting into trouble, I just come here after school and go to rehearsal,'' said Scott, a two-year veteran soprano and an aspiring accountant. ``When you graduate from here, you gain a sense of self-esteem.'' Osman Armstrong, 14, sings first alto. A choir member since age 9, his favorite song in the program is Haydn's ``Te Deum.'' ``My mother loves it that I'm here because I get to travel,'' said Armstrong. ``And I'm getting away from the city.'' Some graduates, like William Byrd, return. A Boys Choir assistant conductor and music theory teacher, Byrd, 26, graduated in 1986. After earning his computer science degree from Hunter College next spring, Byrd hopes to attend Westminster Choir College in Princeton, N.J. ``The school helped me home in on my ambitions and skills,'' Byrd said, ``to become my own person.'' Looking ahead, Turnbull dreams of helping others set up similar choir schools in major U.S. cities. Music teachers from Houston and Detroit have expressed interest. But for now, creating an endowment through fund-raising and corporate projects is the Boys Choir's main goal, Turnbull said. He said an endowment will allow the Boys Choir of Harlem to celebrate the tradition of ``doing it right'' for another 25 years. ``It's not just about the choir, it's about discipline,'' he said. ``It's about feeling good about yourself--that's hope.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 259, a bill provisions of Federal law that provide special support for, or burdens on, the operation of Amtrak as a passenger rail carrier, and for other purposes.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, obviously, the House is seeking clarification of the rules. The Chair has ruled that he will give rulings only when the Member is challenged. Until we can really find out what is said and what is not said, it is going to be acceptable conduct, forgetting this present subject. My predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell, was voted out of office 25 years ago because of allegations made on this floor. I would like to know what restrictions do I have as a Member that I would know that no one could ever challenge this statement successfully. And the only way I would know is by the Chair clarifying its ruling.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], made inquiry of the Chair as to whether or not the Chair could rule on a remark that was made by a Member if, indeed, that remark was not taken down and not challenged by another Member. I believe the Chair ruled in the affirmative. My first parliamentary inquiry is, Is not a Member entitled to know, before he or she is challenged, as to what the rules are of this House before they make any statement?