Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our distinguished minority whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are about to embark on the closing of this session and the question is whether we can get something done in a bipartisan way or whether or not we are going to move forward and have tax policy by looking for vetoes and by press conferences. Clearly, everybody knows if my colleagues had any concern at all about small businesses and farmers being protected by estate taxes, then my colleagues would have joined with Democrats and petitioned the President to sign a bill so that we can give them instant relief, I mean relief now, not like this 10-year plan that my colleagues have that is going to bust the bank. There is still time for us to work together on this and other matters. If, on the other hand, Republicans would rather have sound bites rather than sound tax policy and attempts to just make it an issue that the President has vetoed this, then we will not have an opportunity to come together and agree on a compromise so that we can both go home and tell the small business people and the farmers that we have protected them against inheritance tax. So what I am suggesting to my colleagues, we can have our differences, but let us try to set a tone this evening that as we conclude this session that we will be in a better position to compromise and to get something signed into law. It is ridiculous to assume that every time we have an agreement that we are going to kick it up a notch and take away from the surpluses such an extent that we cannot give targeted tax cuts, that we cannot give prescription drug benefits to our aging, that we cannot give some assistance to our working families. Mr. Speaker, this is the first volume to see how we are going to carry ourselves as we conclude this session, and I do hope that, even though we may disagree, that we do not have to be disagreeable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who certainly has a reputation of being a friend of the farmer and small business. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have another parliamentary inquiry. If the motion to table prevails, does it not mean that the other body has violated the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if indeed the motion to table prevails, would it not, from a historic sense, be the first time, based on parliamentary decisions, it would be the first time that a tax revenue issue would be raised by the other body, and then come over here and this body be disregarded? That is the parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, does this motion to table set aside the constitutional protection that all revenue matters should be coming initially and originate from the House of Representatives?

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

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there is some talk on the other side that there will be no financial impact on the Medicare trust fund. And this would be so if they could be trusted to put the money back in. The question has to be, did they take out the money in the first place? I do not think in their closing statement that anyone on that side of the aisle can deny that if we remove the tax that the Medicare trust fund will be short $10 billion a year. But they say not to worry; trust us. Have they not played three-card Molly? Do they not know that once we show them what is under the shell, if it is not there, we will go to the general revenues and put it back? And that is what makes it having no financial impact. I would ask the question, what happens if the Congress decides that it has a priority? Maybe we want to take care of prescription drugs. Maybe we want to take care of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Maybe we want to protect the small businessperson or the farmer. Suppose the speculated surplus does not show up. One thing we know that my colleagues cannot deny is that there is an irreplaceable source and stream of income coming into the Medicare trust fund now. What they are saying is, let me just take it out and give relief to one-fifth of them at the expense of the other things we may want to do.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my Republican friends because they never seem to run out of creative ideas in how to hoodwink the American people. When they had the last tax bill, and it was $792 billion, oh what a big mistake. But then they learned fast. They did not go to the Committee on Ways and Means and try to work out something in a bipartisan way. They went to someone that could probably send out a message how to pass a bill that never will become law, make certain that the President is going to veto it before you do it. So knowing how sensitive senior citizens are to anything that would adversely affect their income, I was excited when the Republicans came up with the idea that they were going to reduce the taxes on some people in Social Security. Whether they were wealthy or not, as a Social Security beneficiary, they wanted to get some type of relief. But I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), where does the money come from? If one asks any Social Security beneficiary do they want relief, the answer has to be, yes, and I want it fast. But if one asks them, do you want it fast enough to come out of the Medicare trust fund, then they would say let us take another look. Now, I know that my colleagues have some way to say that the money in the trust fund is the same as general revenues, but no one believes that. No one believes that the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund should be treated the same way one would general revenues. If my colleagues wanted to give them a tax break, why did they not go directly into the general revenues and give them a tax break? The reason they did it is because they want to break the whole idea of entitlement. Once they get entitlements out of the way, then they would know that this precious trust fund that they are turning slowly on the tree, maybe, one day would disappear. Well, it is not going to work with the seniors, and it is not going to work here in this House of Representatives.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University released a report last year which found that alcohol and drug abuse cause or exacerbate 7 out of every 10 cases of child abuse or neglect. 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 improve the prevention, screening, and treatment of substance abuse for parents with children in the child welfare system. The bill 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, Rockefeller, DeWine, and Dodd. Under the bill, the 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% in 2001, rising to 25% in 2005. 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 am sorry to say that one very important American community will receive little or no help from this legislation; the American citizens of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico cannot benefit from this legislation because of its unique tax relationship with the mainland. Along with Mr. Crane, I am a sponsor of H.R. 2138 to extend job creation incentives for new activities in Puerto Rico. Despite significant efforts at the local level, unemployment in Puerto Rico remains stubbornly high and incomes are not catching up. H.R. 2138 would encourage U.S. companies to preserve or expand current operations in Puerto Rico, rather than taking these U.S. jobs to foreign countries with much lower wage bases and no U.S. labor and environmental protections. We owe our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico some continuing help toward economic growth and opportunity. I hope we can work together this year to ensure that these opportunities are inclusive, not exclusive, by considering section 30A incentives for the U.S. companies operating in Puerto Rico. We should not leave these 4 million Americans behind.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I just want to support this legislation. It is the National Eat Dinner with your Children Day, June 19. It was requested by former Secretary of HEW Joe Califano, who now works with the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University where extensive research is proven that families that eat with their children, the children are less likely to engage in illegal activities, illegal drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of legislation. It might be the most historic bipartisan piece of legislation that we have been able to agree on passed and signed into law in this session. It is very unusual when the President of the United States can get together with the Speaker and say that something has to be done when we find this country enjoying such a robust economy and yet, know, that in many of the rural and inner-city areas, they have not the slightest idea as to what Chairman Greenspan is talking about and to see how the Speaker was able to work with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and to see what we have that has worked with empowerment zones; what we can do to improve upon these things and to see what concepts really worked in order to get access to capital, which is so necessary if we are going to talk about economic growth. The jobs from our communities, most of the jobs in the United States, they do not come from the big firms. They come from small business people that hire people from the community. And it is these people that cannot get people to really invest so that they can expand and really hire more people from the community. But we have all types of programs to encourage investment overseas. We have the Overseas Protection Insurance Corporation that allows for people to feel more secure. And so, what we have done is to snatch some of those included in the bill and let people be able to feel just as secure as investing in their own community as they would overseas. We hear a lot of talk when trade bills come to the House floor about how important it is going to be for us to expand our markets, how important exports are going to be, how important it is to get people to increase demand. Well, if it can work for overseas markets, why can it not work for Americans? We have got 2 million people locked up in jail in these United States, more than all of the people in China, higher per capita than any nation in the world. And we know that, with the proper education and economic opportunity, it did not have to be this way. We spend billions of dollars just keeping them in jail; where that, if we could create an education and economic growth situation where they know that they would be a part of it, they would opt not for jail but opt to be a part of the prosperity that we are enjoying. So if we are concerned about creating markets, why can we not go to the poorer communities that we have to start talking about the same full employment that we have on the national average to make certain that every block, every road, every village, every community knows what the concept of full employment can be. And when people have money that, after they pay their expenses for shelter and food and education and health care and start saving, it means that there is more money available for more people to be able to expand their businesses. But the most important thing is that they will have what? Disposable income, so that they would again get more bang for the buck, as we find that people that now have such limited incomes will have more incomes to buy the things so America can continue manufacturing. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) raises some legitimate constitutional questions, and these things have to be studied. But also we know when we are talking about treating people in drugs that we know that there are institutions that spiritually do better than other people that have been trained but still do not have the people that have the type of faith which is necessary in order to do it. When we start walking down this road, we take some gambles because Minister Farakan has been very, very good in making certain that people who are drug addicts, people who violate the law, people who go back to jail time and time again that he has been able to cause these people to join the Muslim religion, not drink alcohol, not be promiscuous, and not to do drugs. And so when you are saying that you want it for one faith-based organization, you open the door for others. I hope these type of things can be corrected. But I want to commend the members of the committees for working together in a bipartisan way and giving us a chance to vote for something.

Mr. RANGEL. No, I have no objection.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the bill and, under the rules of the House, the time that is allocated to me should more properly be allocated to someone that is in opposition to the bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is in opposition, and so I ask that the 20 minutes allotted to me be yielded to him.