Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. So when you are talking about the conference, that includes me?

Mr. RANGEL. Will the majority leader yield further?

Mr. RANGEL. When the majority leader refers to the conference, is he talking about the conference that the Speaker selected, you, me, and my chairman, to attend?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, let me thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for allowing me to enter into this debate, which of course they have had so much sensitivity, so much expertise, and have done so much work on. Madam Speaker, I value American citizenship so much that I would hate to see the day that we did not have rules that were strict or standards that were high, because I think that citizenship is such a precious thing that it should not be gained that easily. The thing that concerns me, however, is how so many people whose families were able to come to America under different standards, how sometimes when they get here, they so easily forget and find it not only comfortable to pull the ladder up behind them, but almost get emotional and angry in terms of other people just trying to live here and trying to become citizens. It is such a contagious disease that sometimes people who have yet to learn to master the English language are condemning those who would want to enter the United States. I want to commend those Members of Congress that have asked us to extend the time for good people to file. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has said, these are people who, by every standard, have done everything that they can. Some have families. Some have children that have been born and are already citizens of this great country. We cannot value being an American so much so we lose, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has said, the compassion of being American. That is a part of it. And I would think those of us who did not ask to come here or were brought from our country, torn away from the breasts sometimes of mothers as they came as chattel, as slaves, can almost visualize in our own congressional districts almost the same thing happening, as people who work every day, work on farms, work in diners, work in menial jobs, and then would have to believe that they are going to be deported or they would have to leave and leave their families. Now, the President has paused and asked the Congress to take a deep breath. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) has said 4 months, but of course we need to take a look at the technicalities and how high the bar is, we need to try to understand what has to be done. Come and visit my office and see the number of people that have no idea as to what I can help or what I cannot help them to do, but they actually come in and they come begging and they come crying, they come bringing their children with little American flags saying, ``Congressman, help me.'' Now, I know that this Congress is not going to say that we value that flag so much that it has to fly so high that so many hardworking people who love this country are not going to be given the opportunity to abide by our rules, to abide by our regulations, and to keep our standard and become Americans. And I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) knows this: They will become better Americans than those who were just born here and take it for granted. So let us not feel so proud when we are able to say we gave those people enough time. They should have known. They should have had lawyers. They should have understood. No, no, no. We are the ones that have to understand. We are the ones that God blessed. We are the ones that were born in this country. We are the ones that set the rules, and we are the ones that can open our doors and our hearts to allow them to become citizens.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reintroducing legislation today to improve the prevention, screening, and treatment of substance abuse for parents with children in the child welfare system. Regrettably, child welfare workers and judges are not always sufficiently trained in how to detect and cope with substance abuse problems. And of even greater concern, when accurate assessments are made, there is often a lack of available treatment. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services reports that 63 percent of all mothers with drug problems do not receive any substance abuse treatment within a year. To combat this threat to child safety and family stability, I am introducing the Child Protection/ Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act, which would provide $1.9 billion over the next five years to States that develop cooperative arrangements between their substance abuse and child abuse agencies to provide services to the parents of at-risk children. Bipartisan companion legislation has been introduced by Senators Snowe and Rockefeller. Under the bill, funding would be disbursed to States based on the number of children in the State. To receive their allotment under the program, States would be required to spend a match starting at 15 percent in 2002, rising to 25 percent in 2006. In addition, they would be required to provide a detailed analysis of their current efforts to address substance abuse issues for families in the child welfare system and specify the additional steps they intend to pursue with the new funding (supplanting of existing funds would be prohibited). Funding could be used for a variety of specific activities, including: providing preventive and early intervention services for children of parents with alcohol and drug problems; expanding the availability of substance abuse treatment, including residential treatment, for parents involved with the child welfare system; and improving the screening and assessment of substance abuse problems for families in the child welfare system. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this proposal, which is strongly supported by the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, and the American Public Human Services Association.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Washington asks if not now, when could we give a tax cut? I would respond to this rhetorical question, that if you are talking about repealing estate taxes, I would suggest the time would be 2011. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me if we gave $20 to the guy at the gas station and got $18 worth of gas, and we owed the owner $3.4 trillion in national debt, we would say put the $2 on our account; but that is a different way of doing business. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said the people should be thoroughly confused, and I guess he knows what he is talking about since it is his tax bill that is on the floor. And he talks about all of these tax bills that we passed. We better get back to how a law is made, because what we pass here, unless it gets over to the other body, it never gets to the President. So forget all of these things that we have passed here. We are not passing any tax law here. We have given up our authority to pass a tax law here. What we pass here are vehicles so the other body will then send to us a tax bill. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman, when we take over the House and I become chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am anguished to find that we may not have authority to do anything other than ask the other body, what would you like us to send over so we can go into conference? What does the gentleman mean by ``we''? It is the other body's bill. The gentleman could have taken the estate tax and sent it over there, the child credit and sent it over there, the marriage penalty and sent it over there; but, no, the gentleman says that we are going to send this over there, and is so proud of it. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman is proud of what they send back over here, because most of us will not be involved in that decision. So if there is confusion, I agree. But my colleagues should understand why. And that is, we are confused because we do not know what the other body is going to send to us as our bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a distinguished Member of this House that does not ask to speak unless he really believes that it is important to the national security of our great Republic. It is a great and distinct honor for me to yield the remainder of my time to him.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman, be careful what word he uses, because he has got the Speaker here. Do not talk about the other body now, but go ahead. Be careful.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) to answer a couple of questions if he has the time, because he talked about helping small businesses. He talked about marriage penalty. I assume he wants estate tax relief. Where are all these things in this bill that we are talking about today? Where are these things? I am missing it. Where is it?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), my distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, would ridicule the 1 gallon container that was held by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my friend. As a former college professor, he should know that 1 gallon filled three times equals 3 gallons. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am certain that those 1 percent of the billionaires cannot wait to get half of this tax cut so they can spur the economy. But that explanation is just as interesting as this procedure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is not a procedural vote, this is a substantive vote. The gentleman has just said that he has dumped the marriage penalty provision, the estate tax provision, the Portman-Cardin provision, the child credit provision. He dumped all of that, and he is asking us just to support this tax cut that is geared to the top 1 percent of the highest-income people here, so this is not procedure, this is substantive. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, 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.)