Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this august body with great pride for over 3 decades. I have seen some pretty political things happen on this floor on both sides of the aisle, but this has to be one of the most mean things that I have seen since I have been here. The reason for that is that we are holding hostage millions of Americans that we promised early on that we were going to help. How many of my colleagues remember when we voted to give $15 billion to bail out the airline industry? How dramatically the minority leader and the Speaker got on the floor and promised that we would provide health benefits and unemployment compensation to those people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs and lost their health benefits. All of a sudden, this was folded into a stimulus package. We did not say that we had to pass obscene tax cuts to help these people. We said that standing alone, these were hard-working Americans that deserved help from their country during time of war and time of recession. So each time we address this question, we have to find out how many billions of dollars of tax cuts we are prepared to absorb. What are we willing to do in order to bring these people along? The chairman of the committee says he is going to keep doing it this way until they finally get it. Well, what is it that the other body has to get? Whether they are right, whether they are wrong, whether they are incompetent, the fact is, they have said that they have thrown up their hands in complete surrender as it relates to a stimulus package and sent over here with a unanimous vote the mere benefit of extending unemployment compensation for 13 weeks. Should they be proud of that? I think not. Should we be proud to accept that? I think not. But worse than just going home and saying, that is all we could do is extend this, there are two things that are worse than that. One would be to do nothing. To say, because it was not enough, we in the Congress felt that we should do nothing. Because we did not provide for health benefits, we should do nothing. That would be worse. But the second worse thing, the second painful thing is to be hypocritical enough to allow these wretched souls to believe that we are doing something to help them, knowing that this bill has been stacked to leave the House to face defeat because the Senate cannot and will not even take it up. Who knows this? Mr. Speaker, 435 Members of this House of Representatives know today that the Senate will not, and they would claim politically and parliamentarily, cannot take it up. To give false hopes to these people is one of the meanest things that I have ever seen happen. And who are these people? Are they illegal aliens? Are they people who are not citizens? Are they threats to our national security? Are they terrorists? Are they people that get our vital patriotic juices up so that we are against them? Oh, no. These are people that work every day, that have families, rent to pay, electricity to pay, mortgage payments, tuition. These are families that are breaking up all over America because of the burden of not being able to have the dignity of having a job. Are we doing enough for them to give them unemployment benefits? Of course not. These people do not want handouts. They want a hand up. They want a job. But just because genius minds on the Republican side decide that the best way to give them a job is to give them refunds of tax benefits that they have paid; the best way to give them jobs is to make permanent the tax system sometime in 2011; the best way to give them jobs is to come up with a new health delivery system that destroys the employer-employee relationship. Wonderful ideas, but what about the guy and the lady that has a family, that has lost their home, that has lost their hope, that has lost their reason for being and they are waiting for us just to help out a little bit. Are we going to give them sophisticated and complex reasons why we cannot help? What a rough day to be a Member of this House.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Should parliamentary inquires be used by the majority to make political statements rather than to actually make an inquiry?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, taken in its best possible light, I agree with the Chair.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to shed light once again on a vicious scourge that has gripped the African-American community for years and continues to strangle the life of a great number of our people. Today, the CDC estimates that 284,000 of the 740,000 individuals infected with HIV are African-Americans. In other words, African-Americans make up almost 38 percent of all AIDS cases reported in this country. Men, women and children are being infected at staggering rates. For example, nearly 47 percent of the 46,400 AIDS cases reported in 1999 (21,900 cases) were reported among African-Americans. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of all women reported with AIDS were African-American and African-American children represent almost two-thirds (65 percent) of all reported pediatric AIDS cases. We have all heard the numbers and we all know they are astounding. More disheartening is that despite the advances in medical therapy, many African-American patients continue to reject physician recommendations for therapy. Many patients rely totally upon nutritional programs, herbal formulas, and other empirical modalities of unproved efficacy. Research has shed some light on the possible reasons for the lack of program participation by African-Americans infected with HIV. Results from surveys indicate that African-Americans with AIDS may believe that combination drug therapy is to costly to afford. It is true that these therapy treatments may exceed $7,000 a year but they are effective. In addition, most commercial insurance plans like Medicare and Medicaid will cover these costs. Many States included my home State of New York have programs which will provide supplemental payments for AIDS treatment (Aids Drug Assistance Program ADAP). Also, most of the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS related illness have compassionate use programs for patients without insurance and who do not qualify for Medicaid. Patients usually can get assistance from physicians in enrolling for these programs and social service workers in public clinics and hospitals also will provide information and assistance for patients in need. Given all these advances in drug treatment protocols and supportive strategies among front-line care workers, there is still a high number of African-Americans dying from the virus. Moreover, the number of individuals dying from the virus is often overshadowed by the daunting numbers that are getting infected with the virus everyday. This suggests that we as Americans must do more to curb the increase of HIV/AIDS particularly in the African-American community. We must use a more comprehensive approach in addressing the issue. We all know the statistics, the question is what do we do about it. I believe that a comprehensive approach to addressing the problem, which includes strategies developed with the assistance of community stakeholders, should be adopted. The following plans should be included in this comprehensive program to fight the HIV/AIDS in the African-American community. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and state health agencies must work with African-American grassroots organizations, Black churches, penal institutions, schools, clinics, hospitals, the media, and community and civic groups to ensure that the development of the planning process includes the voices all the stakeholders in the community. Efforts should be directed to communities at greatest risk. Plans should include access to voluntary HIV counseling, testing, and confidential notification of potentially exposed partners with voluntary counseling. Plans should reach HIV-infected individuals and link them with care and treatment services. Plans should incorporate comprehensive efforts that reduce sexual risk behavior. Programs that strongly emphasize abstinence, monogamy, or consistent and correct use of latex condoms among those who are sexually active should be considered. Most important, stakeholders should examine what elements in the comprehensive approach is likely to be effective in their communities. Plans should include comprehensive efforts that reduce drug-related behavior. Plans should use comprehensive school based programs and programs for out-of-school youth to provide HIV/AIDS prevention and intervention. Plans should include efforts to improve prevention programs in correctional facilities. I believe that these plans, if used as part of a comprehensive program with the assistance of community stakeholders, will make a difference in decreasing the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the African- American community. In sum, education, testing, treatment, and counseling are keys to an HIV/AIDS free society.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Well, it is too late now. My colleague sure had his chance, and he will get another chance to answer. Mr. Speaker, the remaining time that I have I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have been waiting for an answer from the other side as to how this tax policy provision could come out without ever coming before the Committee on Ways and Means. They refuse to answer. It did not come out of the Committee on the Budget. They refused to answer. It must have come out of the Republican campaign to reelect the Congress because it is a political issue and should not be on this floor.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), in whose district the Twin Towers once stood and was the target of this vicious attack against the United States of America.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, is it our understanding that the majority intend to reserve the balance of their time to close?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a veteran legislator. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a distinguished member of the Committee of Ways and Means. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. I see. Does the gentleman have the date on that?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, does it say where that information came from?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the gentleman has charts to pass out, because while those charts are good for television, we cannot read them.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the Speaker. I apologize.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, do I have to get permission from the gentleman in the well to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Speaker, of the Chair?

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I cannot read the chart that is there.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.