Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I support the trade provisions in this bill. But I also support the protection of workers in the United States, especially those that have been displaced. And I am more than certain that if Republicans and Democrats would have gotten together and members of the Committee on Ways and Means and explained what we were trying to do in trade and at the same time protect our workers here, that we would not have a partisan bill, but we would have a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to close on behalf of the minority.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is 1:10 in the morning, and I think that all Members of this House recognize that in order for our country to enjoy economic growth, that we have to engage in international trade. We also recognize that the power of commerce and trade remains in this House, but it does not make a lot of sense to believe that 535 lawmakers will be negotiating trade agreements. So therefore, the power should be given to the executive branch to actually negotiate these agreements, but it does not mean that the House of Representatives should give up its authority to protect the American people and American workers as we yield to the executive branch. Why? Because it is the executive branch that yields a part of our power to world trade organizations, to international organizations. All we are saying on our side is that there should be some standard for the leader of the Free World, the United States of America, to be able to say that as we engage in trade, with all of our power and prestige, that there is minimum standards that we expect other nations to follow with their workers, with their right to organize, with their ability to dream, like Americans dream, that their life can be improved. Do we say that it should reach our standards? No. What we are saying is that there should be standards involved. There should be standards involved in protecting what is not ours, not the United States' and not other countries', but what God has given the world, and that is our environment to live in. Something else that we say we should have, and that is the laws of the United States Congress should not be changed by foreign nations. We should preserve that right. So all we are saying is that all of us want trade. We recognize that it is necessary for us, better for developing nations; not Cuba, because of the sovereign State of Florida and the Republic of Florida as they dictate our foreign policy and trade policy, but I suggest this is a bad rule and a bad time to be debating such an important subject.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Operation Adopted Heroes. This project was started by members of the small community of DuBois, Pennsylvania with the objective of providing relief to the grieving New York firefighters of Engine Company 84 and Ladder Company 34 following the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center. The fire station, located in the Washington Heights section of my congressional district, lost seven current and former members in responding to the attack. Firefighter Gregg Atlas, Captain Frank Callahan, Firefighter Dana Hannon, Lieutenant Tony Jovic, Firefighter Gerry Nevins, Lieutenant Glenn Perry, and Battalion Chief John Williamson died in the line of duty on September 11th. Delores ``Dee'' Matthews, a caring and compassionate neighbor who has served as moderator of the New York Presbyterian Church and lives in the neighborhood of the fire station, wanted to do something to allay the grief of the firefighters. She reached out to her closest friends in her hometown of DuBois, Pennsylvania, Judy Hand and Pat Stewart with the idea of adopting these firefighters. Dozens of community members formed what is now known as Operation Adopted Heroes to organize appreciatory events and raise money for the victims' families. With the help of the neighboring townships of Rockton, Union and Sandy Township represented by my colleague John Peterson, Operation Adopted Heroes collected over $10,000 for the widows and children of the fallen firefighters as well as donated 14 wooden chairs and knitted quilts for each bed in the firehouse. On November 17, 2001, representatives of all four townships drove to New York City to present their gifts to the fire station and the families of the fallen firefighters. This generosity continued through the holiday season with presents for the fallen firefighters' children and on June 14, 2002, twenty firemen with their families traveled to DuBois to participate in the local Community Days weekend extravaganza. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting the members of Operation Adopted Heroes for their civic altruism to the 161st Street Fire Station and its fallen heroes of September 11. I introduce into the Record news articles on the relationships developed though Operation Adopted Heroes.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Reclaiming my time once again, under my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, especially for introducing this resolution, but to also point out that, as he leaves the Congress, I, for one, want to say that I have enjoyed the exchanges that we have had. I think that he and I, to a lesser degree, prove the greatness of the country, as we come from different parties, we have different political views, but we have never allowed that to interfere with our friendship. The gentleman from Texas has always maintained his sense of humor, especially at times when this House has needed it during times of tension. And so while we will not miss the negative vote that he has always given for good legislation, we certainly will miss the positive contributions that he has made to make this a better House to work in for the great people of our great Nation.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to our final speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the 6th Congressional District in the Borough of Queens, and to thank him for the great contribution that he has made to the City and our country.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). This tragedy had to occur in somebody's congressional district, and it was the 9th Congressional District; and those people are so fortunate that he is leading the way not only for the economic recovery but for the compassionate recovery of what occurred in that area.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from the 17th Congressional District, the County of the Bronx, the borough de Bronx, the city and State of New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from the 9th Congressional District (Mr. Weiner), a newer member of the delegation, but an energetic and productive member.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, we thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great borough, the Bronx, New York (Mr. Serrano), an outstanding Member of the Congress and a great New Yorker who is always there when we need him, and we need him now, and he has been just one of our strongest supporters.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). All Americans felt the pain of the lives that were lost, but the gentleman from New York and the County of Queens has felt it personally.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the City of New York, the County of Richmond, the borough of Staton Island, the 13th Congressional District (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and before I yield to my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), I would like to add on to what the majority leader has said in terms of the schedule as relates to the visit to New York for this historic occasion. The mayor has authorized me to share with the House that soon the Visitors and Tourists Bureau of the City of New York will soon be sending an invitation to those Members that would want to stay over for the weekend after the historic ceremony, and those expenses will be paid, and a list of the activities that would be made available should be received before this week is out. I will be glad, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), to share with the Members what information there is before we leave this week. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my friend, the gentleman from upstate New York, (Mr. Gilman), a friend who is the senior Republican for the New York State delegation, a person that I have enjoyed his friendship and worked with over the years. We have fought against drug trafficking and addiction in this country and all over the world but, more importantly than that, we have shared our personal as well as political experiences together. It has made both of our political lives a lot easier to enjoy the type of friendship that we have. I can say publicly what I have said privately, that this House is going to miss the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) tremendously. We thank him so much for the unselfish contributions that the gentleman has made, not only for the people in his congressional district and the great State of New York, but for the people in this country and throughout the world. This may be the last official thing that we may be doing together, but whatever the gentleman decides to do with the rest of his life, I do hope that I will be included in the future as much as we have enjoyed working together presently and in the past. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but on behalf of the New York delegation and the people of New York, I would like to thank the leadership of the House of Representatives and that of the other body for supporting this resolution that would allow a joint session of the House and Senate to take place in the City of New York. Being born and raised in New York, it just surprised me how many things that we take for granted, how many problems that we thought were so horrendous, how many differences we had as black and white and Jews and gentiles and Republicans and Democrats and, yet, on September 11, none of these things seemed important. It really did not make any difference what borough we were from, whether we were from the inner cities or the suburbs; as a matter of fact, whether it was upstate or downstate; we all recognized how privileged and fortunate we are just to be Americans. This feeling was felt not only throughout my city, but throughout the State. When our delegation came to the floor of this august body and felt the love and affection but, most importantly, the support in recognizing it was not just the lives of the people that were in the Twin Towers, but it was the lives of Americans that were there. And the heroes were not people that were in planes or ships or on the battlefields, but they were ordinary people that fought and worked every day for a better America. To think that this Congress would take time out, and especially our majority leader, who was misquoted and, as a result, felt sometimes an emotional response for those who thought that he did not want this to happen, and for a man as big as him in size as well as big as him in spirit, to say that he wanted this to happen, and it was just a question of how it would take place, I think that I personally would want to thank him, as well as the entire leadership, for making us in New York feel that not only are we appreciated, but the President, the national government, the Congress has responded, and we are so thankful that we will be coming to New York as a body in order to show how much we feel for those people who lost their lives for the United States of America. So I yield to the majority leader for an explanation of the bill, and again thank him personally for the leadership that he provided to make this bipartisan, indeed, this American dream become a historic reality.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the attached article on Rep. Matsui featured in the Monday, July 22, 2002 edition of Roll Call entitled: Bob Matsui: the Democrats' Balancing Act. Rep. Matsui has been an outstanding and exemplary Member of the United States House of Representatives for 24 years. On the Ways and Means Committee, which I am privileged to serve as Ranking Democrat, Mr. Matsui has been a stalwart protector of Social Security and a champion of expanding free and fair trade. It is with pleasure and pride that I ask that this article, which profiles his unwavering commitment and service to the committee, this august body, and the American people be included in the Congressional Record. Bob Matsui: The Democrats' Balancing Act (By Ben Pershing) Roll Call--July 22, 2002 Monday Try to get Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.) to talk politics. You won't get very far. After 24 years in Congress, he's no stranger to polls and tactics, and he's happy to explain why Democrats are better than Republicans. But he'd really rather talk about policy, which is why the current uproar over accounting practices and corporate governance suits him so well. On an issue in which the politics are all about policy and reporters are writing breathless front-page stories about off-balance sheet partnerships, wonks can be weapons. And that's where Matsui comes in. As a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, Matsui, who currently serves as ranking member on the panel's subcommittee on Social Security, has had to spend the past several years playing defense. He's expended most of his energy trying to combat Republican proposals, with little opportunity to advance his own. But as he sees it, the current climate gives Democrats a chance to attack. And he doesn't think there is much the GOP can do about it. ``To some extent--and this is my belief,'' Matsui said in an interview last week, ``They are somewhat immobilized because they've received so much help from corporate America they really can't take them on in an effective way.'' An Opportunity Democrats have certainly received plenty of corporate contributions themselves and have also played a role in blocking reforms in the past. But Matsui thinks charges that Republicans are in bed with big business fit neatly into a long-established Democratic storyline, meaning GOP efforts to fight back will fall on deaf ears. ``Just like the public knows that the Democrats are better on Social Security and Medicare and the Republicans have historically been better on defense, they know that Republicans are beholden to the business community,'' Matsui said. ``Republicans can't change that, and for them to try to deny that would almost be counterintuitive.'' Matsui is part of a group of more than two dozen senior Democratic lawmakers--dubbed the ``extended leadership''--who meet in Minority Leader Richard Gephardt's (D-Mo.) office every day at 5 p.m. when the House is in session. Lately, ``business-gate'' has been a prime topic of discussion. Democrats see the business scandals as a way to segue into their other top campaign issues--prescription drugs and, especially, Social Security. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out daily press releases accusing GOP lawmakers of ``breaking the trust,'' and now Democrats charge that Republican plans for Social Security reform will take money promised to seniors and give it to those same scheming Wall Street brokers. When House and Senate Democrats held a press conference July 12 to hit the GOP on corporate issues, Matsui's contention that ``Republicans have a secret plan to privatize Social Security'' was CNN's sound bite of the night. Aside from pointing out that much of the corporate malfeasance now being spotlighted happened during the Clinton administration, Republicans also hope that the Democrats may go too far and paint themselves as the anti-business party. Matsui is not particularly worried about a backlash because he is 100 percent convinced of the efficacy of Democratic policies. ``I think the business community knows that the Democratic Party has been essentially responsible for the growth in the economy in the last 50 years,'' Matsui said, echoing the common Democratic refrain that the current economic downturn coincided with the Republicans moving back into the White House. Man in the Middle Democrats believe it makes sense to deploy Matsui on the corporate scandals because he is seen as a relative voice of reason on the Ways and Means minority roster. ``He doesn't have a long list of sort of knee-jerk, anti- business stuff,'' said a senior Gephardt aide, arguing that Matsui's relatively moderate record on economic issues lends him added credibility. Matsui is by no means the only--or even the most prominent--member of Ways and Means to focus on this topic. With Gephardt and ranking member Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) coordinating, committee Democrats such as Reps. Richard Neal (Mass.), Sander Levin (Mich.), Jim McDermott (Wash.) and Lloyd Doggett (Texas) have all carved out their niches. Matsui's specialties are Social Security and trade, though he is comfortable with just about everything in Ways and Means' broad portfolio. ``He knows the subject well, but he also knows how to place it in a larger context,'' said Levin. ``He knows the forest and the trees.'' In terms of style, Matsui sits on the Ways and Means median. He gets less attention than Rangel, the party's political standard-bearer on the panel, and he is not as liberal as Rep. Pete Stark (D-Callf.), who is just ahead of Matsui and behind Rangel on the seniority list. But Matsui is also less inclined to cut deals with the GOP than someone like Rep. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.). ``You look at those three, he always seems to play the middle,'' an aide to a GOP Ways and Means member said of Matsui vis-a-vis Rangel and Stark. ``You always have Matsui trying to sound like the voice of reason among those three.'' But the aide cautioned that, while Matsui is pragmatic and relatively easy for Republicans to deal with, ``don't let that fool you, He's very partisan.'' ``There's something in between being low-key and being a table thumper,'' suggested Levin. ``He's in the middle.'' Matsui's most prominent policy role in the past several years has been on trade promotion authority, also known as fast-track. An avowed free-trader, Matsui whipped his fellow Democrats to support fast-track in 1993 and 1997, and he backed permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000. But Matsui doesn't support the current version of trade promotion authority, arguing that it may give the World Trade Organization the power to undermine American domestic laws. The bill passed the House last December by just one vote, with only 21 Democrats voting in favor. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) worked very closely with Matsui on trade issues in the past when the two lawmakers were on the same side of the fight. But Matsui's more recent stances on trade bills have meant that, on a professional level, ``that relationship has become somewhat strained,'' said Kolbe, hastening to add that he still likes and respects Matsui personally. ``We miss him a lot on the trade issues. I wish we could get him back.'' Ambition With 12 terms in the House under his belt and a decent record of achievement, the 60-year-old Matsui could look to expand his horizons. But, having been in the minority now for eight years, Matsui doesn't aspire to elected leadership and says his biggest goal is simply to become chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security. Matsui is loyal to Rangel and won't even entertain a question about whether he would like to become Ways and Means' leading Democrat if the New Yorker leaves the House before he does (and there's no indication that Rangel is going anywhere in the near future). Yet it's hard to imagine that Matsui wouldn't want the job given his love for the committee's work. And with Stark's well-documented history of outlandish remarks and unpredictable behavior, it appears unlikely that Democrats would ever hand him the top job on a major committee. ``I don't think there's any question that if Rangel leaves Matsui is the natural next candidate'' to run Ways and Means, said a senior Democratic leadership aide. On the political front, Matsui has toyed with running for governor or the Senate in the past, but he points out now that the best way to run statewide in California is to shoot first for a position such as lieutenant governor, a job that he sees as far less attractive than his current post in the House. Matsui also did stints as treasurer and deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the '90s, and his wife, Doris, worked in the Clinton White House. But he'd still rather focus on substance. ``I enjoy the mechanics. When we had the trade issues and I was whipping it on behalf of the Clinton administration, I enjoyed that,'' he recalled. ``On the other hand, I really enjoy policy. It is my strength.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. My colleagues, when the terrorists struck New York City, many of us recognized that the problems that we had as Republicans and Democrats, as blacks and whites, as Jew and gentile, was not nearly as important as working together as a city in order to show our defense against the people who struck against us. And so it was no surprise when we came to Congress to see that our President had thought that that would be the best thing for our Nation to do. So we joined hands with Afghanistan and Pakistan and many other countries that we had serious differences with, but, at the same time, when they declared that they were going to be our partners in the war against terrorism, we took their hands and we thought it would be better to fight the big war than to highlight our differences. How in God's name, at a time like this, can we really say that Castro and the Cubans, 90 miles from our shore, represent a threat to our national security when we know that they, too, have joined in this great war against terrorism? And how could it possibly be that we are prepared to say that they have different kinds of Communists in Cuba than the Communists that they have in North Korea or the Communists that they have in North Vietnam or the Communists that they have in Communist China? My colleagues, this has nothing to do with trade policy. It has nothing to do with foreign policy. There is no former high ranking State Department official that will tell us that this embargo is against everything that our great country believes in. So what is it about? It is about the State of Florida. It is about the sovereign State of Florida. It is about the politics of Florida. The President understands that. The Governor of Florida understands that. And I do not have a problem with anyone that comes from the State of Florida. They do what they have to do. But do not do it to my country. Do not allow local politics to influence what is in our national interests. If trade is good enough to break the barriers between people who do not understand the value of capitalism, if trade is what we want for people to be able to buy our wares and that we can buy theirs, if it is good enough for China, for the former Soviet Union, for communism around the world, tell me why not share it with the people of Cuba? If my colleagues want to bring down the Castro regime, let the people in Cuba smell democracy. Let us go there and speak to the people in Cuba. Let any American that wants to travel in Cuba be able to travel without any fear.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.