Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished leader. We were calling for debate. We did not know you were going to bring out the leader. We want to hear what he has to say about this since the chairman of Committee on Ways and Means is confused.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A lot of strange things are happening on the Republican watch as the Committee on Ways and Means loses all of its jurisdiction. I was just about to blame the Republican leadership; and, lo and behold, it is the Senate that is responsible. Every time I get ready to be critical of the Republican leadership for bypassing the House rules, by creating rules to pass legislation, I hear my distinguished and talented and intellectual chairman say, ``This is not unprecedented. This is just the first time it is happening because what is unprecedented is what the other body is doing. Shame on the other body.'' Let me tell you this. We are the keepers of the tradition of the House, and these rules are being violated each and every day. Who would think at a time of war when our Nation is still in recession, where we are trying to bring our wounds together, where we recognize that, sure, we lost 5 or $6 trillion in the surplus, it was not the Republicans' fault, it was because the economy let us down. But now that we are asked to increase the debt ceiling, we are no longer Republicans and Democrats, we are Americans, and we are going to say, yes, let's do it. Why? Because Republicans are trustworthy? Of course we cannot say that. Because we come together when the full faith and credit of the United States is at stake. When that flag goes up, then we have no choice except to increase the debt ceiling. It is just the same as finding out at home that when you find out that your credit has run out, you can start pointing fingers, but if you need an extension or the mortgage is going to be foreclosed, then you have to get the extension. All we want to know is, what did you do with the money? How are you going to spend the additional money that you are going to borrow? And if the Senate is so irresponsible, why did the House not act sooner? Why did the Committee on Ways and Means not come together in a bipartisan way and bring something to the floor? Mr. Speaker, the Senate may have a lot of things that they are doing in an unprecedented way, and they should be subject perhaps to a lot of criticism. But the inadequacy of the House leadership and the fact that my historically prestigious committee is losing jurisdiction each and every day under Republican leadership, let us not blame that on the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was smiling, as the gentleman recorded, because I had not seen the chairman of the Committee on the Budget since we lost the $4 trillion. Welcome back. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act with John Dingell, the Dean of the House and Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Our Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Pete Stark, has had a leadership role in the development of this legislation, as have so many other health care leaders in our caucus. This legislation makes good on our promise to add affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage to Medicare. The Democratic bill will look, smell, taste, and feel like any other Medicare benefit, because it is a Medicare benefit. Beneficiaries will not have to deal with an HMO or other private insurer. Under this legislation, every beneficiary will be guaranteed a $25 monthly premium, $100 annual deductible, 20% co-insurance and $2000 out-of-pocket limit, no matter where they live. We provide additional assistance for low-income beneficiaries. Those with incomes up to 150% of the poverty level ($13,290 for one person) will pay nothing. Those with incomes between 150-175% ($13,290-$15,505 for a single person) of poverty will pay premiums on a sliding scale. The Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act would: Lower prescription drug costs for all Americans, regardless of whether they participate in our plan; give all Medicare beneficiaries the option of a reasonably-priced guaranteed prescription benefit under Medicare; and ensure that senior citizens and people with disabilities receive coverage for the drug their doctor prescribes and not some substitute that an insurance company deems ``equivalent.'' Unlike the competing Republican legislation, our plan would never force seniors into an HMO or similar private plan in order to get a prescription drug benefit. Republicans claim they are giving seniors a ``Medicare'' prescription drug benefit, but their legislation really provides subsidies to insurance plans and HMOs, not to beneficiaries. Republicans claim they are offering beneficiaries a certain level of coverage, but their legislation really leaves virtually all of the important decisions to the private insurance companies. Under the GOP plan, private insurers will decide which drugs are covered and which are not. If your drug is not on the list, too bad. Millions of seniors will not be able to afford their prescriptions under the GOP plan. Under the GOP plan, private insurers can pick and choose which pharmacies to include in their networks. If your neighborhood pharmacy is not on the preferred list, you are out of luck. The bottom line is that those who can buy insurance under the GOP plan may find their choice of pharmacies severely limited or that they cannot get coverage for the drugs prescribed by their doctor. Many HMOs have unfairly limited health care in the past. That's what the Patients' Bill of Rights debate has been about. They've been unreliable partners in Medicare to date; just look at the problems in the Medicare+Choice program. And now the Republicans want to put them in charge of this medication benefit under their ``privatization'' model. Republican leaders have never liked Medicare. Former Speaker Gingrich once said Medicare would ``wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' In 1995, Dick Armey called Medicare: ``a program I would have no part of in a free world.'' Their legislation--the so-called Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act--lays the ground work for them to make good on their desire to do away with the program. The Republican prescription drug plan is the first step towards privatizing Medicare. It forces seniors to deal with private insurance companies instead of having the choice of getting prescriptions through Medicare. It includes a premium support demonstration program that could significantly raise the premiums of beneficiaries who wish to stay in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. And it creates a new agency to oversee the private plans that lacks authority to provide adequate oversight and disadvantages the agency currently responsible for administering Medicare. In contrast, we base our plan--not on a flawed privatization model-- but on the successful Medicare program. We offer a genuine Medicare plan, providing an affordable voluntary drug coverage to all American seniors through Medicare. Under this legislation, no senior will ever have to choose between putting food on the table or paying the rent and the drugs they need. This legislation also helps reduce the sky-rocketing costs that seniors and other beneficiaries currently pay for prescription drugs by utilizing the collective bargaining power of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries to guarantee lower drug prices. By closing some loopholes in current law that prevent or delay generic drugs from coming to market, this legislation also reduces drug prices for all Americans. While our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are engaged in a cynical political exercise designed to bring themselves political cover, ours is serious legislation. It would bring senior citizens Medicare prescription drug coverage. When President Harry Truman first proposed Medicare in his second term, a wide array of Republican forces were against him saying he could not do it. Truman said: ``We may not make it [now], but someday we will.'' Eventually, Truman and other Medicare advocates succeeded. Harry and Bess Truman became the first Medicare enrollees in 1965. The Republican leadership may prevent us from passing a true Medicare prescription drug benefit now, but they cannot stop us in the long run because that is what seniors and all Americans have said they really want. As Pete Stark points out, prescription drug coverage is as essential to seniors'good health in the 21st century as coverage of doctor visits and hospital stays was in the 20th century. We have also included in this bill provider payment reforms and increases that match or, in some important areas, exceed those in the Republican-crafted Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. If you want to see the real difference between Democrats and Republicans, look at prescription drug coverage. While Republicans protect the pharmaceutical industries' profits, the Democrats protect seniors from skyrocketing prescription drug costs. I urge my colleagues to look at the fine print, and to vote for this legislation when the opportunity arises.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there is a way to get out of this dilemma in an attempt to restore some degree of bipartisanship to a trade bill. This is what we enjoyed when we were dealing with the Caribbean Basin Initiative, with China, with the African Growth and Opportunity bill. We worked out our differences; and even though we disagreed, we were not disagreeable. The problem that we have here is not one of substance. We have one that the integrity of the House of Representatives is on, and I am saying that history will not treat us kindly if, for the first time in over 200 years of the House of Representatives, we attempt to take substantive legislation and have the Committee on Rules roll it up into a rule and to have us vote on it. True, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means will tell my colleagues that 80 percent of this has already been passed one way or the other by the House, but what about the 20 percent? When does the 20 percent become 30 percent or 40 percent? This did happen once before, and that is when the House was closed down. There was no way to communicate with the Senate, and we did use the Committee on Rules in order to legislate. But I ask my colleagues to vote down the rule. Let us do it the right way.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I made a parliamentary inquiry. Unless the gentleman is the Parliamentarian.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I make a parliamentary inquiry as to whether in the history of this august body has ever before a self-executing rule such as this in wrapping a 191-page bill ever been given to the Committee on Rules to be enacted into law with the exception of the time that the Republicans closed down the House of Representatives?

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wish the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) would share with me those 191 pages, because the gentleman's admission on this floor means that they are prepared to just tear up the House rules. Just saying that 20 percent of it has not been passed by the House is like saying someone is half pregnant. Mr. Speaker, what gives the gentleman of the Committee on Ways and Means the right to decide what is going to go to conference with the so-called other body? Whatever happened to House conferees going into conference with the other body and saying we will not tolerate the other body taking over our jurisdiction? Do we have to make up legislation and say, hey, act like this has passed because when we meet with the other body, or the Senate, as the gentleman calls them, we get weak-kneed. If we do not have any legislation passed, we make it up as we go along. Sure, 80 percent of the 191 pages are cats and dogs that we passed at one time or the other. So that should give us a little more weight in terms of the paper, if not the intellect, that we take to the conference. But the other part, why did not the distinguished chairman from California share with us what he made up? He certainly did not make it up in the committee. He did not make it up on the House floor. Even Republicans do not know what is in it, but we should really count on the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to go in conference with, what, 20 percent of paper that he brings to the Committee on Rules to legislate. What does it mean? That we do not need any more committees? We do not need subcommittees? We do not need legislation on the floor, just hope and pray Members can get on the Committee on Rules and be on the majority because they will be able to not only legislate but dictate what goes into conference. Mr. Speaker, I submit this is not just an insult to the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, this is not just an insult to the House rules and traditions, it is an insult to the American people.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is referring to the other body. That is a violation of the House rules.

Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman is violating the House rules by referring to the other body. I ask to be recognized by the Chair. Regular order. Parliamentary inquiry. Point of order.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is violating the House rules by referring to the other body, and ask for a ruling.

Mr. RANGEL. If the Speaker would yield just for a moment, I have checked with the Parliamentarian to ask what the history was, and I would like it reaffirmed by the Speaker that this has never been done before.

Mr. RANGEL. Could I get an answer from the Parliamentarian?

Mr. RANGEL. Could I get a parliamentary answer to my question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the historic significance of June 19th, known as Juneteenth, a day which marks the end of slavery across America and the independence of African Americans. Juneteenth began in the great State of Texas when Major General Gordon Granger of the Union Army led his troops into the city of Galveston. There, on June 19, 1865, he officially proclaimed freedom for slaves in that State. Note that this was two and a half years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which had become official January 1, 1863. Thus it was on Juneteenth that the African American slaves of Texas and other parts of the South celebrated the final execution of the Emancipation Proclamation, giving them their freedom forever. The celebration of Juneteenth which has not until recently received its rightful day of national appreciation is not only a showcase of the African American community's positive contributions to the American way of life, but it also makes a statement for all Americans that the United States is truly the ``Land of the Free.'' Juneteenth is an expression and extension of American freedom and, like the Fourth of July, a time for all Americans to celebrate our independence, human rights, civil rights and freedom.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend, Ambassador Maxwell M. Rabb, who died in New York, on Sunday, June 2, at the age of 91. Ambassador Rabb was a distinguished lawyer, secretary to the cabinet in the Eisenhower Administration, ambassador to Italy in the Reagan Administration and held a variety of positions in government and in service to civil society. On Wednesday, June 12, he will be funeralized at the Congregation Emanu-el in New York, where he served as president from 1973 to 1981. Born in Boston, where he was educated at Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Ambassador Rabb was a most uncommon man in talents and accomplishments. In service to his country, he demonstrated an extraordinary ability to overcome differences between nations, religions, and the races. Exhibiting qualities instilled from childhood, he had a unique empathy, an ability to feel as others felt, and thus engender trust. Such was the case in his dealings with my predecessor, Congressman Adam Clayton Powell who, as the political leader of the civil rights movement in the 1950's, had ongoing dealings with Rabb. It seemed impossible that a first generation Jewish American with roots in the old country in Europe and an elitist Boston education could succeed at his assignment as the Eisenhower administration's point man on civil rights. How could this modest unassuming man relate to the provocative, flamboyant and street-smart Congressman-preacher from Harlem? Somehow, Maxwell Rabb did succeed, winning Powell's trust and admiration along the way. Indeed, Rabb enhanced a long list of credits by quietly writing himself into the annals of the great movement for civil rights. More than an intermediary for the Eisenhower administration, Rabb was an honest broker and deal-maker with Powell in the Congressman's successful struggle to desegregate U.S. military facilities. In a sense, Rabb--by tempering the Congressman's brickbats--guided the battering ram which brought down a dehumanizing racist practice. The two had met on Capitol Hill, when Rabb, as a young lawyer, worked as an aide to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. After service in the Navy during WWII, he joined the Eisenhower Administration where he served in various posts, including secretary to the cabinet and liaison to Jewish groups, labor and civil rights. In the 1960's, he was president of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and was active in securing the release of Americans in detention in communist East Germany. In the 1980's he served with great distinction as ambassador to Italy in the Reagan Administration, repairing damaged relations with one of our most important allies following the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. In his lifetime, the Ambassador applied his considerable talents to difficult and sensitive situations around the world--never forgetting the lot of the less fortunate, whether in South Asia, Israel, Eastern Europe or the United States. Ambassador Maxwell Rabb, a man without borders, had a heart big enough to reach out to people whom he resembled, in color and background, not in the least--with respect, compassion and love. I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife Ruth, and his children, Bruce, Sheila Weidenfeld, Emily Livingston and Priscilla Ayres, and I call on my colleagues to join me in tribute.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to prevent tax avoidance through the device of renouncing one's allegiance to this country. Citizenship in this country confers extraordinary benefits. Our citizens are able to enjoy the full range of political and economic freedoms that our government ensures. With the benefits of citizenship comes the responsibility to contribute to the common good. Avoiding that responsibility through renouncing citizenship should not be tolerated. This country is fortunate in that it can depend on the voluntary compliance of its citizens to collect its taxes. In that respect, we are unique in the world. The willingness of our citizens to continue voluntarily to comply with our tax laws is threatened when very wealthy individuals can avoid their responsibility as citizens by turning their backs on this country and walking away with enormous wealth. I reject any suggestion that my bill is a form of class warfare or motivated by class envy. It is true that my bill will affect only very wealthy individuals. Only very wealthy individuals have the resources necessary to live securely outside the borders of this country as expatriates. Closing a loophole that only the extraordinarily wealthy can utilize is not class warfare. It is a matter of fundamental fairness to the rest of our citizens. Opponents of effective reform in this area have gone so far as to suggest that those reforms would be inconsistent with our Nation's historic commitment to human rights. I strongly disagree. The individuals affected by the bill are not renouncing their American citizenship because of any fundamental disagreement with our political or economic system. These individuals simply refuse to contribute to the common good in a country where the political and economic system has benefitted them enormously. Some opponents have gone so far as to compare the plight of these wealthy expatriates to the plight of the persecuted Jews attempting to flee Russia. That argument is worthy of contempt. Our bill imposes no barrier to departure. Indeed, most expatriates have physically departed from this country before they renounce their citizenship. For reasons that continue to puzzle me, there was a bitter partisan dispute in 1995 over this issue. The partisan nature of that debate obscured the fact that there was a genuine bipartisan consensus that tax avoidance by renouncing one's American citizenship should not be tolerated. The dispute during 1995 involved an argument over the appropriate mechanism to be used to address tax-motivated expatriation. The Clinton Administration, the Senate on a bipartisan basis, and the House Democrats all supported legislation that would have imposed an immediate tax on the unrealized appreciation in the value of the expatriate's assets. The House Republicans supported a provision that imposed a tax on the U.S. source income of the expatriate for the 10- year period following expatriation. Armed with revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation that showed their version as raising more money, the House Republicans prevailed and, in 1996, enacted their version of the expatriation legislation. There was an article in Forbes Magazine several years ago that summarized the effect of the 1996 legislation as follows: ``It ain't workin.'' Although the law appears to be draconian on its fact, there are plenty of loopholes. In the first quarter of 1999 alone, a grandson of J. Paul Getty; a son of the shipping magnate Jacob Stoll-Nielsen; and Joseph J. Bogdanovich, the son of the Star-Kist mogul, took advantage of those loopholes. The article suggests that many other expatriates deliberately have lost citizenship without formally renouncing it, believing that was a simple way to avoid the 1996 Act. The 1996 legislation made several modifications to ineffective prior law expatriation provisions. It eliminated the requirement to show a tax-avoidance motive in most cases and eliminated one simple method of avoiding the rules, involving transfers of U.S. assets to foreign corporations. There were many other ways of avoiding those rules such as delaying gains, monetizing assets without recognition of gains, and investing indirectly through derivatives. Those techniques were left untouched. The 1996 legislation made no serious attempt to prevent the avoidance of the estate and gift taxes, even though expatriation has been described as the ultimate technique in avoiding estate and gift taxes. Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, has approximately $90 billion in assets. If he were to die or transfer those assets to his children by gift, the potential liability would be substantial. If Bill Gates were to expatriate, he could immediately make unlimited gifts in cash to his children without any gift tax liability. If he expatriated ten years before he died, his entire $90 billion stake in Microsoft could be transferred to his heirs with no income tax or estate tax ever being imposed on that accumulation of wealth. Following is a brief summary of my bill. Summary of Bill The bill would impose a tax on the unrealized appreciation in the value of an expatriate's assets. The amount of that tax would be determined as if the expatriate has sold his assets for their fair market value on the date that he expatriates. To the extent that those assets are capital assets, the preferential capital gains tax rate would apply. The bill exempts the first $600,000 ($1.2 million for a married couple) of appreciation from the tax. It also exempts U.S. real property interests and interests in retirement plans. The expatriate would be provided an election to defer the tax with interest until the property is sold. The bill would eliminate the ability to avoid estate and gift taxes through expatriation by imposing a tax on the receipt by U.S. citizens of gifts or bequests from expatriates. The new tax would not apply in circumstances where the gift or bequest was otherwise subject to U.S. estate or gift taxes. In addition, the new tax would be reduced by any foreign estate or gift tax paid on the gift or bequest. The bill would eliminate the ability to expatriate on an informal basis. It would require a formal renunciation of citizenship before an individual could avoid tax as a U.S. citizen. Generally, the bill would apply to individuals formally renouncing their citizenship after the date of action by the Committee on Ways and Means. The provisions designed to prevent avoidance of estate and gift taxes would apply to gifts and bequests received after such date.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the chairman of the committee for allowing us to adjourn the full committee hearing that really dealt with runaway corporations trying to avoid their legal tax liability and going to foreign countries. The chairman agreed that our full committee should be here on the floor to deal with this important piece of legislation, rather than have our full committee over there in a hearing room listening to testimony when we did not intend to legislate. It was not his fault that we had a conflict of a major bill in the committee and a major bill on the floor. So his acceptance of the motion to adjourn means a great deal to us on the Committee on Ways and Means, and I would like to thank him for it. As he said, yes, death and taxes are with us; but he omitted saying, but so was politics, because the only reason that this bill is on the floor is not just because this is an election year, but because we are nearing the election and who are the ones that make the campaign contributions? It is not those people who are the low-income people. It is not our old folks that are looking for prescription drugs, and it certainly is not our kids who are looking for a decent education. I would say that if anyone looked and found out who the beneficiaries would be, it would be less than 1 percent of the taxpayers of the United States of America, those who are blessed not only with high income and great estates, but those who are blessed with a whole lot of great Republican friends that would like to have them even extend benefits. Some of the Members of the House who have thought to do this at a time of war, to take a bill that is going to cost over the next 10 years, including the debt service, close to $1 trillion, to do this without making permanent the 10 percent tax cut or the child credit, to do this when we do not even have a decent prescription drug bill is just immoral, indecent and obscene; but it is an election year. We should have expected that this would happen, and so we accept what the Republican leadership would want to do, and that is, to bring this to the floor at a time when our Nation is at war and certainly not demanding this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), chairman-to-be, one of the outstanding members of the House. He is not on the Committee on Ways and Means, but I assure my colleagues that what he has to say should be of great benefit, not only to this august body, but to the people of the United States of America who are dedicated to winning this war against terrorism, but not at the expense of our commitment to the people of the United States.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Dr. Antonia Pantoja, who died in New York on May 24th. As a central figure of the Puerto Rican Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Pantoja's kind heart and brilliant leadership will always be remembered. Dr. Pantoja was born in 1922 to an impoverished Puerto Rican family. Though she spent much of her childhood hungry and diseased, Dr. Pantoja invested all her efforts in education and politics. She fought for a decent education and, in 1940, was accepted to the University of Puerto Rico. Two years later she received a degree in education and became a schoolteacher. After teaching for a few years in Puerto Rico, Dr. Pantoja moved to New York City. Working as a welder in a lamp factory, Dr. Pantoja suffered racism against Puerto Ricans at its worst. To fight back, she spread information on civil rights and how to organize a union. From that point on she dedicated her life to empowering the Puerto Rican community through organization, leadership, and, above all, education. Dr. Pantoja really did do what she set out to do. She completed a Bachelor's Degree of the Arts at Hunter College of New York, received a Masters of Social Work from Columbia, and was awarded Ph.D from the Union of Experimental Colleges and Universities in Yellow Springs, Ohio. Meanwhile, she founded a number of Puerto Rican-American organizations including ASPIRA, PRACA, and the National Puerto Rican Forum. She was responsible for the creation of the bilingual college, Universidad Boricua, and the Puerto Rican Research Center, each promoting youth education. In Puerto Rico, Dr. Pantoja set up PRODUCIR to help the rural community build up its economy. In recognition of her outstanding contributions to Puerto Ricans, Dr. Pantoja received numerous awards. In addition to the Hispanic Heritage Award, the Julia de Burgos Award and the National Mujer Award, Dr. Pantoja received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor bestowed by the United States of America. Dr. Antonia Pantoja truly was the highest example for the Puerto Rican community. As a model leader, she valued education, civil rights, and equality of opportunity. Her memory will live forever in respect and dignity.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit gives us the final opportunity to bring some thread of responsibility to what we are doing this evening, and that is to make certain that we do not jeopardize Social Security; that we do not really make the people pay for the tax cut by taking it out of the Social Security trust fund. They have hidden in this bill the ability to borrow an additional $750 billion, and shame on them for doing it in the middle of the night. We could have felt so proud, our colleagues could have made us proud. On this Memorial Day they could have made us feel like we were somebody; that we were in the House of Representatives, not Republicans and Democrats, but those who wanted to support our troops overseas, those who wanted to support the President, those who wanted to fight against terrorism. That flag would have flown in every parade in every county, in every city for all of us as Members of the House of Representatives. Instead of that, our colleagues wanted to save a couple of Republican seats. They determined that there were people more sick in a Republican district than in a Democratic district. They determined they had to pay off for votes that they picked to unravel international trade agreements. They missed one heck of an opportunity to make us all feel proud on this Memorial Day. The motion to recommit merely says we want fiscal integrity to go with our responsibility in being patriots. And patriots are the people who do not run away from their responsibility. If we yield to this, we yield to the terrorists. So our colleagues had a chance for bipartisanship. We had that, and we gave it to the President after 9-11. But in the middle of the night my colleagues had to find some way to get some political advantages. Well, my colleagues, we are mad as hell and we are not taking it any more. The American people demand more of us than that. And no matter where my colleagues go, whatever they have got to do, we are going to protect that Social Security System. When the flag is up, we are going to salute it; but we are going to take care of the people.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Dr. George Rupp, who is retiring on May 31 after 9 years of service as the 18th president of Columbia University. Under Dr. Rupp's leadership, Columbia's long history as one of the nation's leading institutions of higher learning has been successfully extended into the 21st century. Columbia has thrived over the past decade. The accomplishments of its scholars and researchers have soared, as has its endowment. So, too, have the numbers of applicants to its college and many graduate and professional programs. The Columbia community is one of the greatest concentrations of talent and energy in the country, and helps keep New York at the center of the world's intellectual life. Dr. Rupp's legacy will be measured, above all, by the University's significant and lasting impact on the community around it. Not once has he thought that his responsibilities stopped at the gates to campus. During Dr. Rupp's leadership, Columbia's remarkable pool of talent and energy has been increasingly directed to the duties of good citizenship. Dr. Rupp has been a particularly forceful and innovative supporter of the University's efforts to address the disparities in opportunity afflicting the areas around it. The University has actively worked to foster economic growth in its neighborhood and has leveraged millions of dollars for community services. It has proven to be an engine of high-tech growth and innovation, translating the scientific advances of its researchers into scores of valuable technologies and a number of start-up firms within New York. Importantly, it has opened the first biomedical research and development park in New York City, a facility which is a keystone to the future of the biomedical enterprise in the region. Columbia's impact on the economic life of the City extends far beyond high technology. The third largest employer in the City, Columbia became the first non-profit in New York to institutionalize hiring goals on its major construction projects for minorities, women and local residents of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, UMEZ. Under Dr. Rupp, Columbia actively encouraged the purchase of goods and services from local vendors by the University, its faculty and staff. The University also created a program to offer ``forgivable'' loans to employees as incentives for home-buying within the Empowerment Zone. Under Dr. Rupp's leadership, Columbia's relationship with the Empowerment Zone epitomized the University's partnership with the Upper Manhattan community. Empowerment Zone residents are assisted in obtaining jobs at the University through the Morningside Heights Area Alliance's Job Connections program. Dr. Rupp has encouraged all of the University's divisions and departments to provide technological support for local projects and oversaw the establishment of the Urban Technical Assistance Program to provide urban planning assistance to community groups in northern Manhattan. Columbia policy experts played a leading role in the UMEZ's initial proposal and later development, and have continued to provide ongoing technical support to what has emerged as a powerful example of the success of public-private partnerships. Dr. Rupp has worked tirelessly to make Columbia a good neighbor, involving the community in University decisions that impact them, and encouraging consultation with the community on the design of new University construction projects, on and off campus. In recent years, the University has enhanced its support of the community in other ways, increasing its sponsorship of neighborhood sports teams, and making available space in university facilities for use by community groups and elected officials. The University has strengthened its links to public schools in the area through a number of initiatives, including faculty development and training programs to prepare teachers for certification examinations. The number of the University's neighbors that have been helped through its service programs has also greatly increased under Dr. Rupp, who has directed the creation of a wide array of initiatives to benefit Morningside Heights, Harlem and Washington Heights. Columbia now administers academic, professional and service programs that assist thousands of Upper Manhattan residents, school children and businesses. Hundreds of adults have had their skills and employment potential enhanced through a range of educational programs, including computer training, and GED and ESL classes. Thousands of needy individuals and families have been provided with hot meals. And, under the ``Power Lunch'' program, neighborhood elementary school students are paired with Columbia students for mentoring and reading. Dr. Rupp's tenure at Columbia was characterized by its sensitivity, spirit of cooperation and commitment to the growth and well-being of the Upper Manhattan community. An ordained Presbyterian minister and a religious scholar, Dr. Rupp has helped create a climate of service, on and off campus, for its students, faculty and staff that was recognized and appreciated by the community. His tenure will serve as a model for the future. He will be deeply missed, and I wish him all the best.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rev. Dr. M. Moran Weston who passed away on May 18, 2002. Hardly a month went by when I did not hear his soothing baritone voice on the phone, teaching, encouraging, inspiring with his love and concern for our young people, for the elderly, for the poor and forgotten. I will miss him. The glowing notices in the press will only add to the historical record of the great rector of St. Philips. His name is already enshrined at St. Augustine's College and Columbia University. But those of us who knew him, who live in the neighborhoods he enriched, will forever be reminded of his contributions by just walking the streets of Harlem and Morningside Heights. He protested injustice, picketed and cajoled. But more than anything, he searched for solutions and achieved results. When the downtown banks refused our people credit, he founded and built Carver Federal Savings into a billion dollar banking institution. So no one would be left homeless, he built housing for seniors, for the mentally ill, and day care facilities for children. He lobbied Congress to make decent, affordable housing a right under the Constitution of the United States. A true man of God, the only credit he would humbly accept was having been blessed with a gift for encouraging others to action. But we know better, and we are indebted to Moran for his ideas, for his hard work and for his faith that with God nothing is impossible. With his beloved wife Miriam, and children Gregory and Katherine, and his family I share the pain of loss. But I am deeply grateful that God saw fit to place Moran with us for his long and bountiful life. His memory will be with us always.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we really are that far apart. As the dean of the New York delegation, I cannot thank this House enough for responding to the strike that the terrorists made against our great city and, therefore, our great country. And God knows I do not run from any defense of this great Republic that has meant so much to so many, not only here but the dependency that we have in the free world. We stand united in telling the President of the United States that now, especially during Memorial Day, please depend on the support of the American people as expressed by their representatives in the House of Representatives. So let that flag fly high today, and let all of us salute it by saying, make no mistake about it. The work of the Committee on Appropriations, the bringing together of the diversity, but coming out ahead is one of the most magnificent feelings of bipartisanship and certainly support of the President of the United States in our collective war against terrorism. What we are talking about today is why would we jeopardize the fine work of this committee by including provisions that have nothing to do with our patriotism, nothing to do with the war, and nothing to do with our support of the President that has guided us this far. Are we prepared to say that in this bill that is filled with doing the right thing that we can determine which hospitals and which Republican districts should get help? Is a child that is sick in one area more important than another child because of the political persuasion of their Representative? Should we really be dealing in international treaties? Should we really be saying that we are going to provide for increasing the ability of the country to borrow money in this bill? What we are saying is, and what we are leading with, do not take this as a threat, we are asking you to please consider giving us an opportunity, not just to go home, to go home united with a message saying that we support the President and let terrorists know that we are not Republicans and Democrats in this House. We are Americans and we stand together. And we want that message to go out. So we are not here to decide treaties. We are not here to decide budgets. We are not here to decide which hospitals we are going to support. We are here as Americans who support this war effort. We are here to support the work that has been done by the Committee on Appropriations, and we just do not think other issues should cloud it. So we are going to talk today not about anything else except our agreement. And for those people who want to talk about taking this bill and distorting the direction which it should go, let them come to the floor and tell us why their hospitals are more important than this war effort. Let them come to the floor and say why we should not have hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means on the debt ceiling. Let them come to the floor and determine why we have to pay off a Member for a vote on a bill because he has an interest in a trade bill. Let them come to the floor because they are the ones that are stopping us from supporting the President of the United States now. So when you say ``as long as it takes,'' at the end of the day we are going to end up together because we are patriots together. And nobody that debates the process should be charged with being less American than anyone else on this floor. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of this committee. It has not been just this bill, it has been most bills that he has tried to do the right thing by the Members of the House of Representatives and tried to do the right thing by Americans. But it is the Committee on Rules, long after we are gone that would be the only committee we need in this House, if the leadership can just, whether it is Republican or Democrat, just go to the Committee on Rules and start to legislate. That is a bad road for us to travel, especially at a time when we are at war.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said is that we are at war and the Committee on Rules has now usurped all the responsibilities of the standing committee. It really makes no difference what the Committee on Appropriations wants to do, what the Committee on International Relations wants to do, the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Ways and Means. The President of the United States and the chairman of the Committee on Rules, they will decide what is the best for this great country and for the Congress. Imagine that in this appropriation we have issues that we hold sacred in the Committee on Ways and Means. That is the budget ceiling where we debate among each other as to what it is going to be. But instead of just coming out and saying that the Committee on Rules has decided that we have got to raise the debt ceiling, instead of doing that, what do you put in here? Again, you wave the flag and say that the Committee on Rules has dictated that the Government of the United States will take all steps necessary to guarantee the full faith and credit of the government. Is this gobbledygook? Is this patriotism or is this stealing the jurisdiction of another committee? What you mean to say is we will find some sneaky way to get the debt ceiling increase by passing a nothing rule over here and allowing the Senate to take our jurisdiction and to bring it back, wrap it up in the flag and dare someone during wartime to vote against it. What is the next thing he is going to do? Oh, the Committee on Rules now knows how to handle Medicare. Not the Committee on Energy and Commerce, not the Committee on Ways and Means, not the House. What you have decided is there are certain hospitals in Republican districts that are in trouble, and you are going to give them assistance at the expense of other hospitals. Is it in here? Yes. Lastly, you are going to violate trade agreements in the rule. Shame on you.