Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the authorizations for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) program expire today, June 30, 1999. Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the programs through fiscal year 2001. There should be no gap in the authorizations for these vitally important programs, which have long enjoyed bipartisan support. Efforts to increase the participation of the United States in global trade are essential to the continued growth of our economy. However, when increased trade is a cause of dislocation for some U.S. workers and firms, we must be prepared to respond. The TAA programs are the cornerstone of our longstanding efforts to cushion the impact of the blow for employees and businesses who have been harmed by imports. Most important, TAA provides retraining and technical assistance so these workers and firms can thrive in the new economy. A number of reforms in the TAA programs have been proposed recently. The legislation that I am introducing today is intended to continue these programs as their Congressional authorization is set to expire. However, the bill is not meant to preclude important discussions of broader, systemic changes.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for seeing a serious problem and working together in a bipartisan way to find a solution that Members on both sides of the aisle would be anxious and proud to support. Most all of us know as parents that a child becoming 18 does not necessarily mean that they are ready to assume the responsibility of adulthood. This is especially so for those children who find themselves in foster homes where most of the benefits would just be terminated because they are 18 but not out of foster homes. This legislation gives them a chance to get their lives together, allows the State to continue to give Medicaid support, and allows them also to give the type of assistance that is necessary so that they will be more able to adapt to negotiate adulthood, in seeking jobs and entering into society. This has been paid for by provisions to amend and improve the supplementary Social Security Income program. Most of these provisions that are paid for have been requested by the SSA, and also a provision on child support from President Clinton's budget. Nearly 20,000 children out of our foster care system are placed in high risk of homelessness and sometimes are the perpetrators as well as the victims of crime. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has pointed out, this legislation provides the tools of education, it provides the continued health coverage, it provides for the ability for them to find a place to live so that they can become productive and independent. I cannot thank the Members enough for their work, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). As the gentlewoman from Connecticut has pointed out, it has broad-based support: The Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, and of course, President Clinton. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to allocate the time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the accomplishments of Ms. Cecelia B. Henderson of The Links, Incorporated for her contributions to African Americans, especially the youth in eastern cities and communities, preparing them to meet the challenges in professions and fields where African Americans are few in number. The first Links club was founded in November 1946 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with only nine members. The purpose of the organization at its inception was to foster friendship and render service to needy African-American families. The membership has grown to more than 10,500 today, with 270 chapters located in forty (40) US cities, Nassau, Bahamas, and in Frankfurt, Germany. Today, The Links is a volunteer service organization of concerned, committed, and talented women who through service, linked in friendship, commits itself to enhancing the quality of life in the larger community. Because of the rich legacy of the organization, it has contributed over 15 million dollars to worthy causes through grants-in-aid, and through many effective initiatives within communities across the country. Through its participation in UNICEF, the organization is active abroad, in building elementary schools in South Africa, contributing to the construction of water wells elsewhere in Africa, and aiding the Caribbean Women's Health Association to improve the lives of Caribbean women and children. Ms. Henderson has served as the Eastern Area Director of The Links for the past four years. She became a member of the Buffalo, New York, Chapter in 1974, and has held numerous leadership positions in the local chapter, and at the National Level. In 1997, and again in 1999, under the leadership of Ms. Henderson, The Eastern Area Links presented a classroom-based educational program entitled, HeartPower to school districts in New York City and Philadelphia with a simple message, ``you too can have a healthy heart, it's as easy as 1-2-3''. This program fits with the overall theme which Ms. Henderson developed for the Eastern Area, ``Serve up Success: Build Linkages . . . Empower the Black Family.'' A retired educator with a long and commendable professional career in the Buffalo, New York, school system, Ms. Henderson has served the Links with her expertise in promoting health education. As the community celebrates her years of leadership and service at the thirty-fifth Eastern Area Conference, I offer our congratulations to her as she is recognized for the differences that her efforts have made in cultivating the talents, and developing the abilities of the youth of today, with the potential of becoming local, national and world leaders of the twenty-first century.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the contributions of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding under the leadership of Rabbi Marc Schneier. The Foundation has over the last ten years worked to highlight the need for strengthening relations between Blacks and Jews. In so doing the Foundation has reminded Americans of the pain endured by our nation during the Civil Rights Movement and the ultimate success of those efforts. Yesterday, members of Congress and leaders from both the African- American and Jewish-American communities gathered in the halls of Congress to commemorate the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Freedom Rides, during which groups of young people traveled throughout the South to challenge the harsh environment of the region at that time. Three such young people, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, tragically lost their lives in carrying out their selfless sacrifice. Even as we paid tribute to these late heroes of the movement, we joined the Foundation in honoring two members of Congress, my colleagues, Congressmen Bob Filner and John Lewis. Both of these men deserve our greatest admiration for their roles in the Freedom Rides and the civil rights movement. Since that time their commitment to insuring that justice and liberty prevail within our nation has not wavered. Earlier this week, this body bestowed its highest award upon Ms. Rosa Parks, for her role in igniting the Civil Rights Movement, by refusing to move to the back of the bus. Mr. Speaker, it is with this same spirit of justice that Rabbi Schneier, Congressman Filner and Lewis, and countless others, perhaps less dramatically, but with equal success, have challenged the system of segregation. That has now given way to a better America.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation to revitalize low-income communities throughout our Nation. The bill would provide grant funding for the communities recently designated as Round II Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities and Strategic Planning Communities. In combination with various tax incentives, this direct funding will help stimulate job growth and economic revitalization in inner-city, rural, and Native American communities that have yet to benefit from our Nation's growing economy. As the result of a bipartisan collaboration between myself and Jack Kemp in 1993, Congress created nine Empowerment Zones (6 urban/3 rural) and 94 Enterprise Communities (65 urban/29 rural), which provided several tax incentives for businesses to invest and locate in economically depressed inner-city and rural areas. OBRA 1993 also provided these same communities with approximately $1 billion in direct Social Services Block Grant funds, which are being used to address particular barriers to increased employment and economic development, such as shortages in job training, child care, housing, and transportation. By 1997, the Round I EZs and ECs used their grant funds and tax incentives to create nearly 20,000 new jobs for people who previously had little or no economic opportunity. A second round of 20 Empowerment Zones (EZs) was authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to build on the success of the original 9 EZs. However, unlike the original EZs, Round II Zones have not yet been provided with Social Services Block Grant funding. To provide Round II designations with the same advantages as the original EZs, the Empowerment Zone Enhancement Act would provide $97 million over 9 years for each urban Empowerment Zone, and $38 million over 9 years for each rural Empowerment Zone. In addition, the bill would provide one-time allocations for other needy rural and urban areas: $3 million in FY 2000 for each of the 20 new Rural Enterprise Communities and $3 million in FY 2000 for each of the 15 urban Strategic Planning Communities. Along with the tax incentives and bonding authority already approved by the last Congress, this new grant funding is expected to help create and retain about 90,000 new jobs and stimulate $20.3 billion in private and public investment over the next ten years. Mr. Speaker, the Empowerment Zone concept, which emphasizes business development and community renewal, is a clear success story. In my home town of Harlem, I have witnessed first hand the ability of Empowerment Zones to help renew investment and economic development. Other regions of the country are waiting for a similar economic revival. I therefore strongly urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to provide increased economic opportunity for more Americans.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to repeal the personal holding company tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. I am introducing this legislation because the circumstances that gave rise to the enactment of those provisions no longer exist. Some have referred to those provisions as ``a crusade without a cause.'' Now those provisions are largely a complex trap into which unwary corporations may fall. The personal holding company tax provisions were enacted in 1934 when the maximum individual income tax rate was substantially higher than the maximum corporate tax rate and when corporations could be liquidated on a tax-free basis. Those circumstances created a potential for abuse, and the personal holding company tax provisions were an appropriate response to that abuse. Neither of the circumstances that gave rise to the enactment of these provisions is true today. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will continue to have an income tax system in this country. The failure of the Republican controlled Congress to develop an alternative tax system proposal is ample evidence of the unrealistic nature of the Republican rhetoric on this issue. Therefore, we should attempt to improve and reduce the complexity of the income tax system whenever possible. I am very pleased that Reps. Coyne and Neal have introduced significant simplification proposals. The bill that I am introducing today is another in a series of tax simplification proposals introduced by the Democratic Members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I hope it and other simplification measures can be enacted quickly.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is merely a parliamentary maneuver. It does not mean too much as it relates to whether or not this Congress or this House deals with Social Security. It takes the so-called Social Security surplus, puts it into a lockbox, and gives the key to that lockbox to the majority. I suppose that this is supposed to send a positive message to America that we do recognize the serious nature of the crisis that will face the next generation as they look forward to receiving the benefits that they rightly deserve. We on this side say that the President has tried to put pressure on the Congress by saying, let us do Social Security first. Let us do Medicare first. In order to put additional pressure on us, it is suggested, not only by the President, but by this stronger lockbox provision, which is identical to H.R. 1927 introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), that says why restrict ourselves just to the Social Security surplus? Why not take the on-budget surplus? Why not take the monies that we will have, and as some people say, while the sun is shining, that is the time to fix the roof? Why not say that we are going to attempt to work in a bipartisan way, not to see who can outscore each other on points? Because when this motion is analyzed by those who study the work of the Committee on Ways and Means, it is going to be clear to everybody that we have not locked anything in. As long as there is a majority in this House, that box can be unlocked. There is no lock on it. But if we did say that we were going to work together, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as committed Members of this House, it would seem to me that we would start now in trying to cooperate with each other and not bring motions out on the floor without having full debate in the Subcommittee on Social Security and the Committee on Ways and Means. No one has worked harder to achieve a bipartisan approach to this than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I think that our chairman and my President would like to be able to say that on their watch, they have been able to tackle this very serious problem. But this problem is not going to be resolved by Republicans, and it is not going to be resolved by Democrats. It is not going to be resolved by demagoguery. It is not going to be resolved by rhetorical motions and amendments. It can only be done when the leadership of this House decides that it is going to talk with the leadership on the other side, and they agree that we are going to work together, not to make points, but to make history. These things could have been discussed in the committee, but then again, if we do that, we have debate, and God knows we do not want any of that anymore. It seems to me that now is the time for the leadership to be a little more outspoken, not in terms of lockboxes, but in terms of leadership in saying that they have met, they have decided, and they have talked with the President, and they would like to resolve this problem. That way, we will not spend a lot of time pointing at each other for what we have not done, but we can spend more time taking care of the people's business. This motion to recommit, those who are voting for it are saying we make this a priority. If it is going to be a lockbox, let us lock up the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats and put them in a room and say they cannot get out of that room until they come up with a Social Security reform package. But my colleagues know and I know, if this is not done this year, it is not going to be done in this session. So we can bring out these amendments, we can talk about it, and we can move to recommit, but so far, we have no bill. I just want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for having the courage to put his name at least on the talking paper when his colleagues could not see fit to put their name on a bill.

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. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) explained this procedure, because I was a little baffled as to why this bill was so weak. But I understand it now. It is weak because the gentleman is concerned about my President and he is concerned about the people in the other body. That is a new way to legislate. So I guess it is what we call majority-plus-6, because, in the old days, when we were concerned about strengthening legislation, we took it to the committee. We have hearings. We have an opportunity for people to amend it. We have debate. We have discussion. But this new way that we have had the last half dozen years is, we bypass the committees, we bypass the Committee on Ways and Means, we bypass budget, we bypass the Committee on Rules, but we go on the other side and ask, will they toughen it. We did something like that yesterday. We wanted to, on the other side, reduce the wages of Customs. I would think that we would be able to debate that on the floor. No. My colleagues put that on the Suspension Calendar, and they followed it with antipornography legislation or antidrug trafficking legislation. I just do not think that they get it. In the House of Representatives, we legislate. We do not go over there and beg, hat in hand, with the other body for what they would like. Another thing we do is we give ourselves an opportunity to discuss these things in our committee. I am so proud and honored to be a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Our jurisdiction, we jealously guard it. But what good is all of it if we go straight to the Committee on Rules when anything concerns Social Security? We all know that this so-called lockbox, that every Member of this House has a key to unlock it. We all know when my colleagues are saying that they are going to put the Social Security surplus in there, they are doing what Democrats and Republicans should have been doing years ago, and that is putting the current payroll tax in the box. But my colleagues cannot talk out of both sides of their mouths. My colleagues cannot give a big tax decrease, which I cannot wait for it to come out of my committee, unless they are taking that to the Committee on Rules, too. But I understand that my colleagues are working on $300 billion, $800 billion in 10 years. How my colleagues are going to do that and put Social Security surplus in the lockbox, I do not know. But then again, we may never find out. We may find it on the Suspension Calendar, or it may just come out in the rule. Mr. Speaker, I am just hoping that someone who understands what happened in the back room will come forward to the mike and explain how much of the Social Security surplus goes into this so-called box. It is my understanding it is only the current payroll tax, and the rest of the surplus we can use for whatever purpose that we would want without violating the spirit and the wording of this law.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While the distinguished subcommittee chairman is looking into the controversy of Jingle Bells and Silent Night, I hope he might take some time to read the letter from the Commissioner of Customs, Raymond Kelly, who indicated on May 25 that he is opposed to this subtitle C, sections 122, 123 and 124 of the bill that is before us today, and a bill that apparently we are unable to do anything about. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the subcommittee chairman and ask him whether or not he would consider reconsidering this provision since it is a good bill and a lot of people worked hard on this bill. It helps prevent drugs, it helps prevent the spread of child pornography, it supports the administration for things that they have been waiting for, and we want to be able to go over to the Senate and say it is a good bill and that this provision should be reconsidered. I hope the majority might consider excluding this provision or reconsidering this provision in conference, because it is a good piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult it is for the majority to rule with just six votes in the majority, but I think that is the reason why now more than ever we should try to work together on those things that we agree on, because that is what the American people want. They do not want to see us coming down here each and every day fighting each other over things that deal with procedure while they are working for substantive issues to be passed. There is no need for us to have had to discuss this provision today, Mr. Speaker, because it had no place in this bill. If certain Republicans wanted it that badly, they should have brought it to the floor and had debate on it. It is just wrong to fold this into the suspension calendar, which says that it is not a controversial position. We can hear what we want from the other side, we can examine the Record, but no one challenges that the employees did not want this, the union did not want this, the Commissioner of Customs did not want this, the President of the United States and his administration did not want this. There is not one scintilla of evidence that substantiates the need for changing this except somebody on the other side of the aisle, somebody whose name is not in the record, wanted this change, and waited until the middle of the night on the suspension calendar to fold it into basically a good bill. It is wrong to do this, and I hope it does not happen again.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not think there is any controversy about the facts between the majority and the minority. It was opposed last year by the Democrats; it was opposed by the Commission of Customs, it was opposed by the union, it was opposed by the employees, and it is still being opposed, and it has no place in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this suspension procedure that we use in the House is supposed to be reserved for bills that are not controversial. Where there is controversy in the committee or subcommittee, members of the minority and the majority should have an opportunity to at least discuss those issues and vote on those issues. Today we see a violation, a real violation, of that principle, because here we find a good bill, a bill there that is supposed to support the United States Trade Represenative's Office, the International Trade Commission, a bill that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) worked so hard on to prevent child pornography, which all of us find repugnant to everything that we believe in as Americans, as human beings, and we find a real attack against drug trafficking by providing sophisticated equipment for those men and women who have dedicated themselves to protect our borders against these drugs coming into the United States. Why in God's name then, Mr. Speaker, do we find on the suspension calendar, incorporated in this bill, that which prevents us from debating, prevents us from voting for it, a provision that nobody wants except one or two people in the majority on the committee? Where did it come from? Where did it start? Where were the hearings? Where was the reports? Where is the evidence that indicated that Customs inspectors were overpaid? It certainly did not come from hearings which we had on this issue before we voted on this, and even when we were marking up the bill, the only evidence we had was a staff member from the majority giving us information that was not available through any official report. Here we have Customs officials that put their lives on the line each and every day protecting our borders; three were killed in the line of duty. They fight every day, they struggle every day, and the commissioner and the unions were never discussed on this issue, but somebody knew better than them on the committee and revised it because they did not like the wording of it in the regulation. It is not fair, Mr. Speaker, and it comes almost close to being illegal, to fold something like that, a controversial subject like that, into a bill that no one politically is prepared to vote against on the suspension calendar for fear that we would be supporting child pornography, that we would be supporting drug trafficking, that we would not support the USTR and the ITC. There is no excuse for this being included in this bill. It divided our committee, it divides our subcommittee, and it is things like this that cause divisions in the House of Representatives. We knew why these people were paid overtime pay, we know the reasons they were done, and it is because, unlike other federal law enforcement officers, the Customs do not give and we did not provide the same type of benefits that law enforcement officials get. They do not get the 20- year pension retirement, they do not get a whole lot of perks that law enforcement officials get, and this was folded into their pay in order to compensate for the fact that some do law enforcement work and they do not get paid law enforcement salaries. Was it controversial? Ask anybody on the majority whether it was controversial. So, why should it be included in this suspension calendar in a bill that certainly is without controversy? I suspect it is because they once again want to deny us the opportunity to reconsider the amendment that was offered in committee and deny us the opportunity to be able to vote on this issue singularly, like it should be. I know that the Committee on Ways and Means has traditionally enjoyed closed rules when it comes to the House, but this is not a tax issue, and this is not an issue that is coming to the House in regular form. It comes to us as a suspension bill, and I am really disappointed that my committee would see fit to fold a controversial subject into a suspension bill and deny us the opportunity once again to debate it. I would just like to say Ray Kelly is the Commissioner of Customs; he opposes it. The union opposes it, the Secretary of Treasury opposes it, the administration opposed it, and almost half of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means opposed it, but we will not get an opportunity to vote on that issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to stop the cuts in Medicare's indirect medical education (IME) program. Identical legislation is being introduced in the Senate today by Senator Moynihan of the Senate Finance Committee. IME payments are extra payments made to teaching hospitals for the fact that they are training the next generation of doctors, and that the cost of training a young doctor--like any apprenticeship or new person on the job--is more expensive than just dealing with experienced, older workers. The young person requires mentoring, orders more tests, and makes mistakes unless closely supervised. It is natural that a group of young residents in a hospital will reduce a hospital's efficiency and increase its costs. Medicare should help pay for these extra ``indirect'' costs, if we want--as we surely do--future generations of competent, highly skilled doctors. The Balanced Budget Act took the position that the extra adjustment we pay a hospital per resident should be reduced from 7.7 percent in FY 1997 to 5.5 percent in FY 2001. This provision was estimated to save about $6 billion over 5 years and $16 billion over ten--in addition to about another $50 billion in hospital cuts in other portions of the BBA. Mr. Speaker, these cuts are too much. The nation's teaching hospitals, which do so much to serve the uninsured and poor, and which are the cradle of new clinical research and technical innovation, are hemorrhaging red ink. Our bill stops further scheduled cuts in the IME, freezing the adjustment factor at 6.5 percent rather then letting it fall to 5.5 percent, and saving teaching hospitals about $8 billion over ten years that would otherwise be taken from them. I hope this legislation will receive early consideration. The situation is, as a hospital ER would say, STAT. Mr. Speaker, I would also note that we should pass other legislation to help our Nation's hospitals: HR 1103 is a bill I introduced to `carve out' disproportionate share hospital payments from the amount we pay HMOs and give that money directly to the DSH hospitals when an HMO uses those hospitals. Today, Medicare HMOs are paid as if they use DSH hospitals, but they frequently avoid the hospitals that serve the uninsured because they are more expensive hospitals--thus pocketing the DSH payment and leaving the DSH hospital with empty beds. We must also correct a technical error in the BBA which capped the amount we pay psychiatric and rehabilitation hospitals (so-called TEFRA hospitals) but failed to adjust the cap for higher wage costs in urban areas. The result is severe hardship for such hospitals in urban areas. At the first opportunity, I will try to amend the BBA to correct this drafting error.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, along with many of my colleagues, I am introducing legislation, entitled the Public School Modernization Act of 1999, which consists of two education tax incentives that are contained in the President's budget recommendations for fiscal year 2000. I am very pleased that 88 Members have joined me as cosponsors of this needed legislation. I cannot imagine a better way to honor our teachers on ``Teacher Appreciation Day'' than to work toward modernized schools, smaller classes, and other educational improvements in our public schools. I will continue to work with the Administration to introduce the President's domestic initiatives that are within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. I also will continue to urge consideration by the Congress of these important proposals. The most important challenge facing this country today is the need to improve our educational system. Expanding educational opportunities is crucial to our country's social and economic well being. I have a personal interest in improving the quality of education for all students. Through the GI bill, this country made an investment in my education that provided me with a needed second chance after the Korean War. I believe that we must give all public school children a second chance so that they can make a positive contribution to society by making the most of their abilities through educational opportunities. I am very excited that the President emphasize education in his State of the Union address and that his budget recommendations contain a comprehensive program to improve our public school system. The bill that we are introducing today contains two important tax provisions that will help modernize our public schools, reduce class sizes, and expand education-based training opportunities for students most in need. I recognize that these tax provisions alone are not the total answer to our country's need to improve our educational system. Therefore, I also am a strong supporter of the other education improvements included in the President's budget. Many children today are attending school in trailers or in dilapidated school buildings. We cannot expect learning to occur in those environments. Other students are forced into huge classes, making it difficult for students to learn and difficult for teachers to help students on an individual basis. Using tax credits, this bill would provide approximately $24 billion in interest-free funds for school modernization projects. This bill is a meaningful first step in addressing the problem of crowded and dilapidated school facilities. Recent events have underscored the need for increased school safety measures in many public schools. While these are by no means the only answers, reducing class size and providing safe and modern schools will help children get off to the right start and will help teachers more easily recognize and serve those students who may need special attention. In order for our children to learn, they must not be afraid to attend school. Safe schools are a necessity--and a priority. In addition to smaller classes, this legislation will provide the means for school districts to modernize other safety and educational features in the public schools. We must also do more to provide education and training opportunities for students who do not go on to college. We have existing programs, like the empowerment zone legislation, that provide targeted incentives to encourage economic development in depressed urban and rural areas. While these incentives are important, employers in the targeted areas assert that they are unable to hire qualified individuals to work in the jobs created by the investment programs. The bill speaks to this problem by extending and enhancing the education zone proposal that was enacted on a limited basis in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. This program is designed to create working partnerships between public and private entities to improve education and training opportunities for students in high poverty rural and urban areas. Some have argued that the Federal government should have no role in assisting the public school system at the K through 12 level. I disagree strongly. The federal government historically has provided financial resources to the public school system. It has done so in part by providing tax-exempt bond financing that enables State and local governments to fund capital needs through low-interest loans. The bill that we are introducing today, in many respects, is very similar to tax-exempt bond financing. This bill does not require any additional layers of bureaucracy at the Federal or State level. It provides special tax benefits to holders of certain State and and local education bonds. The procedures used to determine whether bonds are eligible for those special benefits are substantially the same as the procedures applicable currently in determining whether a State or local bond is eligible for tax-exempt bond financing. I also want to be very clear that this bill supports our public school system. I believe that improving our public school system should be our highest priority. Approximately 90 percent of the students attending kindergarten through grade 12 attend public schools. If we can find the resources to provide additional tax incentives, those incentives should be focused on improving the public school system that serves such a large segment of our student population. I have and will continue to oppose legislation, such as the so-called ``Coverdell'' legislation, that diverts scarce resources away from our public school system. The Republicans are promoting a change in the tax-exempt bond arbitrage rules which they say is a meaningful response to the problem of dilapidated and crowded school buildings. Under current law, a school district issuing construction bonds can invest the bond proceeds temporarily in higher-yielding investments and retain the arbitrage profits if the bond proceeds are used for school construction within two years. The Republican arbitrage proposal would extend the period during which those arbitrage profits could be earned from two to four years. The Republican proposal does not benefit those districts with immediate needs to renovate and construct schools. It benefits only districts that can delay completion of school construction for more than 2 years. It is inadequate at best. At worst, it may increase costs for those districts most in need because more bonds could be issued earlier. Today's bill includes a provision that would extend the Davis-Bacon requirements to construction funded under the new program. This provision is consistent with the policy that Federally-subsidized construction projects should pay prevailing wage rates. The bill also includes provisions designed to ensure that local workers and contractors are able to participate in the construction projects. Amazingly, while the concept of investing in human capital goes unchallenged in debate, elected leaders are still spending more of our nation's limited budget resources on back-end, punitive programs like law enforcement and prisons, rather than front-end investments like education and training that can really pay off in increased workforce productivity. Unfortunately, these skewed priorities are present at the local level, too. New York City spends $84,000 per year to keep a young man in Riker's Island Prison, yet only $7,000 each year to educate a child in Harlem. In addition, improving opportunities in education is a vital link in broader U.S. economic policy, including U.S. trade policy. Ensuring that our education system is strong, and that our children's education prepares them to take advantage of the economic opportunities our society has to offer, is essential to ensuring that the benefits of trade and trade agreements extend more deeply and fully throughout our society. We must change our priorities. Let's invest in the future of this country through our children. Let's bring the same zeal to encouraging and educating our children that we now apply to punishment and incarceration. The following is a brief description of the provisions contained in our bill. They would cost approximately $3.3 billion over the first 5 years. Education Zone Provisions A. Qualified Zone Academy Bonds Section 226 of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act provides a source of capital at no or nominal interest for costs incurred by certain public schools in connection with the establishment of special academic programs from kindergarten through secondary schools. To be eligible to participate in the program, the public school must be located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community or at least 35 percent of the students at the school must be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches under the Federal school lunch program. In addition the school must enter into a partnership with one or more nongovernmental entities. The provision provides the interest-free capital by permitting the schools to issue special bonds called ``Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.'' Interest on those bonds will in effect be paid by the Federal government through a tax credit to the holder. The bill would increase the caps on the amount of bonds that can be issued under the program as shown in the following table. The bill would also permit the bonds to be used for new construction. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Year Current law Additions under bill Total issuance cap ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1998................................ $400 million........... ..................... $400 million 1999................................ $400 million........... ..................... $400 million 2000................................ ..................... $1 billion............. $1.0 billion 2001................................ ..................... $1.4 billion........... $1.4 billion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bill would make several technical modifications to the 1997 legislation. It would repeal the provision that restricts ownership of qualified zone academy bonds to financial institutions, it would change the formula used in determining the credit rate, it would provide for quarterly allowances of the credit to coincide with estimated tax payment dates and permit credit stripping in order to improve the marketability of the bonds, it would require a maximum maturity of 15 years, rather than a maximum maturity determined under a formula, it would change the formula for allocating the national limit to make it consistent with the formula used in allocating the limit on qualified school construction bonds, and it would provide an indefinite carryover of any unused credit. B. Specialized Training Centers The bill also includes a provision designed to encourage corporate contributions to specialized training centers located in empowerment zones or enterprise communities. A specialized training center is a public school (or special program within a public school) with an academic program designed in partnership with the corporation making the contribution. There is a limit of $8 million per empowerment zone and $2 million per enterprise community on the amount of contributions eligible for the new credit. The limit would be allocated among contributors by the local official responsible for the economic development program in the zone or community. Qualified School Construction Bonds The bill would also permit State and local governments to issue qualified school construction bonds to fund the construction or rehabilitation of public schools. Interest on qualified school construction bonds would in effect be paid by the Federal government through an annual tax credit. The credit would be provided in the same manner as the credit for qualified zone academy bonds. Under the bill, a total of $11 billion of qualified school construction bonds could be issued in 2000 and in 2001. Half of the annual cap would be allocated among the States on the basis of their population of low-income children, weighted the State's expenditures per pupil for education (the Title I basic grant formula). The other half of the annual cap would be allocated among the hundred school districts with the highest number of low-income children and that allocation would be based on each district's Title I share. Before making the allocations described above, $200 million in 2000 and 2001 would be reserved for allocation by the Secretary of the Interior for schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The following chart shows the aggregate amount of qualified school construction bonds and qualified zone academy bonds that could be issued in each State under the bill. The total includes amounts allocated to large school districts in the State. An additional $750 million is reserved for allocations to other school districts not in the largest 100 districts. [In thousands of dollars] State Estimate Allocation Alabama $373,179 Alaska 45,552 Arizona 321,189 Arkansas 191,361 California 3,029,203 Colorado 203,299 Connecticut 195,615 Delaware 46,746 District of Columbia 113,625 Florida 1,337,671 Georgia 606,081 Hawaii 49,685 Idaho 55,825 Illinois 1,125,357 Indiana 326,773 Iowa 135,205 Kansas 154,208 Kentucky 344,582 Louisiana 596,956 Maine 76,808 Maryland 351,517 Massachusetts 402,027 Michigan 1,001,250 Minnesota 266,123 Mississippi 327,445 Missouri 386,832 Montana 62,924 Nebraska 82,857 Nevada 90,274 New Hampshire 44,910 New Jersey 526,789 New Mexico 185,062 New York 2,750,541 North Carolina 390,043 North Dakota 46,746 Ohio 948,239 Oklahoma 270,223 Oregon 191,113 Pennsylvania 1,007,919 Puerto Rico 636,673 Rhode Island 81,320 South Carolina 261,777 South Dakota 47,922 Tennessee 396,843 Texas 2,149,680 Utah 84,796 Vermont 43,847 Virginia 317,458 Washington 285,098 West Virginia 177,753 Wisconsin 418,781 Wyoming 43,236 Davis-Bacon Requirements The bill includes a provision that would extend the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to construction funded under the new program. In order to ensure the marketability of the tax-subsidized financing, the Davis-Bacon requirements would be enforced by the Department of Labor and not through disallowance of tax benefits. The bill also requires governments participating in the new program to give priority in awarding contracts to contractors with local workforces and to require a priority for local workers for new hires. The bill contains modifications to the Workforce Investment Act to ensure the availability of skilled local workers for the construction.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 81, to provide for a national medal for public safety officers who act with extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 82, congratulating the State of Qatar and its citizens for their commitment to democratic ideals and women's suffrage, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. There is no question about that, and the chairman has shared that view.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I would like indicate how honored I am to be on the floor with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary that has taken our country through a great struggle with our Constitution. It allows us to believe that we can survive another 200 years if we just do not tinker with it. Now comes the time, whereas the late President Kennedy once said that sometimes our party asks too much of us; sometimes our party asks too much of us. A man that loves his country, and his Constitution even better, is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), a man that is so proud to be there when his country needs him to direct this great committee, not for the next election but for the history that lies ahead of us. Now this committee is being asked by its, for lack of a better word, leadership, to let us do something for April 15. Let us give a present to the taxpayers on April 15. Let us take this great document and tinker with it for April 15. Let us not have hearings. Let us not have discussions, because we know we are not serious. It is only a gimmick, after all. It is good for the party. It might be good for the next election. We might hold on to the majority. Sometimes my party asks too much of me, and fortunately we do not have to make these decisions being in the minority, but I do hope that this great Constitution will not be attacked every time a party thinks that it has a political problem at the polls. They should be able to understand that if they want to change the law, they do not have to have a two-thirds majority. That is the way it works in this country. If we really do not like the tax system, we do not have to run to try to change the Constitution. One has the guts to say, I have a proposal and I am prepared to present it to the American people and ask them to vote for it. It is true that realistically we have to work with the other party if we are going to do it. It is true that no great reform comes without a bipartisan effort. But that is not on the agenda, is it, because we are looking for the next election. So whether we are talking about tax reform, whether we are talking about campaign finance reform, whether we are talking about Medicare, whether we are talking about Social Security, if we want to do something about it, the only way to do it is in a bipartisan way. They cannot go in the back room and come up with a Republican solution no more than we can with a Democratic solution, and they cannot do it with a make-believe April 15, and it should be April 1, and attempt to change the Constitution. Sometimes I try to find ways to rationalize why we are in the minority, but if we were in the majority and I was the chairman of a committee and had the responsibility to protect our Constitution and they asked me to do this gimmick, I hope I would have enough courage to say that sometimes my party asks too much of me.