Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join my chairman in this bipartisan legislation to show support for our American soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and marines involved in this Allied Force operation in the Kosovo area with this much needed tax relief. This legislation would at least relieve the stress of complying with competing deadlines, and the consequences, of course, of noncompliance for our servicemen, women, and their families. We will continue to support their efforts wherever our Armed Forces people are, and as the chairman has pointed out, President Clinton on April 12 announced his intention to issue an executive order designating this entire combat area as a combat zone, and we both agree that is a first good step. The bill also will extend certain tax benefits to military personnel not directly engaged in combat but who otherwise engage in this operation. In addition, certain support personnel, such as staff of the Red Cross who support military personnel in the combat zone, would receive some tax benefits. These provisions acknowledge this effort requires the participation of all to make it successful. I am glad that we have come together on this, and I do hope that this will be the first of several pieces of legislation that the chairman and I will be bringing to the Floor in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is an example of the good we can accomplish when we come together in a bipartisan manner and work toward a common goal. I am especially pleased that the Members of the Committee on Ways and means came together in a very bipartisan manner to advance this legislation. I am confident we will repeat this bipartisan effort today. I am proud to be associated with this effort to provide American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines involved in Allied Force Operation in the Kosovo area with much needed tax relief. I stand here today as a former soldier who engaged in combat during the Korean war. Because of this experience, I can unequivocally state that deadlines for filing tax returns and paying any taxes due are the last thing on the minds of our service men and women engaged in this operation. This legislation would help eliminate stress of complying with the impending deadlines and the consequences of non-compliance not only for our service men and women but also for their families. Our service men and women continue to step up to the plate when duty demands it. They perform their duties with enormous skill and bravery. We can do likewise by expediting the passage of this bill and quickly delivering these benefits to our service men and women and their families. On Monday, April 12, 1999, President Clinton announced his intention to issue an Executive Order designating the Kosovo area of operations as a ``combat Zone''. That action is a good first step. I am pleased that the bill also would extend certain tax benefits to military personnel not directly engaged in combat, but who are otherwise engaged in this operation. In addition, certain support personnel such as staff of the Red Cross who support military personnel in the combat zone would receive some tax benefits. These provisions acknowledge that this effort requires the participation of all these individuals to make it a success. My personnel experience as a member of the armed forces and my desire to keep our military strong with the best America has to offer will make the passage of this legislation especially gratifying for me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, a great American once said that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and that moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Our budget chairman said something a little similar in saying that he was trying to ignore the inflammatory language of being irresponsible. He said that an irresponsible tax cut, there is no such thing as an irresponsible tax cut. I think that separates the parties, but I really think that we have enough differences in our approaches to legislation that should not allow older people and young people as well to believe that we are concerned more about tax cuts than we are about the security of the social security fund and the security of Medicare. I know there are some who believe that we as Democrats raise this thing every election year to frighten the older people, but would it not be great if we could avoid a train wreck by making certain that instead of talking about a lockbox that has a secret escape hatch, that we just commit ourselves that we are going to do the right thing by social security, do the right thing by Medicare, and not talk about locking a box, but talking about then doing the right thing by a tax cut? We have begged, we have asked, we want to work with the other side on the question of a tax bill. We have passed the resolution to say delay the tax bill and give us a chance to work in a bipartisan way to have a piece of legislation on social security and Medicare that we can go back home as Republicans, Democrats, and Members of Congress, and say we are proud of what we have done. Instead of that, they come right back and accelerate the date of the tax cut. They make that the priority, and then they say that we are trying to make it an issue. I think there is a difference between a tax cut and a lockbox with an escape hatch.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor really to thank the gentleman from Ohio. The closer we get to the presidential election, the more common sense really reaches this body.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it is one thing to say they are going to put it in the reserve and reduce the Federal debt, and that is good. But I think what we are trying to do here is to get some type of commitment in saying that if we can delay how we are going to handle taxes until after we come together on Social Security and Medicare, that we will be working more closely together. The gentleman may want 100 percent of it to go in investments, private investments, but at least come up with something that we can say that we tried to do Social Security, we tried to do Medicare, and I think that would be better than just saying that we are putting it in reserve.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think there will be more political opportunities for me in the House, but having said that, the gentleman from Ohio did not say that he was just going to reserve the money for Social Security and Medicare. He said that he was going to fix these programs, and then we get on working together for a tax cut. I thought I heard the gentleman correctly when I came over here.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when people used to run around asking for $800 billion tax cuts, and some got closer to a trillion, there was whispering of people meeting in the middle of the night in Michigan asking for 10 percent across the board, and knowing the gentleman from Ohio and his concern about the common folk, and those that drive those milk trucks, and those that are Post Office employees, and just those that make our country so great, I know that when he does come up with a tax cut, and America sure deserves one, that it is going to be equitable, it is going to be fair. I, of course, have to work more closely with the chairman of my committee, and we may not be able to participate with these formula cuts because we have dedicated ourselves to pull the coat up by the roots, and of course that is a little more complex than just setting aside a trillion dollars. But as we decide how we are going to do it with the gentleman's help, I hope that I heard him say that before we go to the American people to thank them for their productivity, to thank them for the excesses they have had to pay in taxes, especially the payroll tax, that we, as Democrats and Republicans and the House and the Senate, will present to them a secure Social Security system for their children and for their children's children. And even though I know that in the past Medicare has not been a word that the other side likes to talk about much, I am assuming that the same deep-seeded commitment that we have to meet our obligations in the future for Social Security benefits will also repair the Medicare system so that that system will be there too. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is going to happen in our various conventions, but I know one thing. If I do not hear my side talking as straight talk as the gentleman from Ohio is, if I do not hear that commitment from my side, that we are going to fix the Social Security system for the American people, we are going to fix the Medicare system, and then we are coming back with fair and equitable reduction in people's taxes; that is not a Republican talking, that is a good American.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 130, a bipartisan bill which would ``designate the United States Courthouse located at 40 Centre Street in New York, New York as the `Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.' '' It is most fitting to honor this great American with this distinction as he was not only the first African American Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, but was also one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in this nation. It was through his knowledge, advocacy, and devotion to the cause of civil rights, that propelled Thurgood Marshall into leading the charge for equality for African Americans. Born in Baltimore, Maryland on July 2, 1908, Thurgood Marshall graduated cum laude from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania and went on to receive his law degree from Howard University here in Washington, DC where he graduated first in his class. In 1936, Thurgood Marshall was appointed as Special Counsel to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). A short time later, he founded the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. While at the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall was successful in winning 29 of 32 cases he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the victory for which he will best be remembered, was Brown vs. The Board of Education, in which Marshall convinced the Supreme Court to declare segregation in public schools unconstitutional. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed Marshall to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After only four years of receiving this appointment, President Lyndon B. Johnson chose Justice Marshall to be the nation's first black Solicitor General. Just 2 years later on June 13, 1967, President Johnson nominated Marshall to become the first black justice of the Supreme Court where he would serve until his retirement in 1991. As my colleagues may remember, the bill passed the House last year, but did not come to the floor of the Senate before the session ended. As Dean of the New York State delegation, it is my hope that my colleagues here in the House on both sides of the aisle, will support H.R. 130 for I can think of no greater tribute to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, a man who stood for integrity, justice, and equality for all.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 975. I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) that there are problems with this bill. The administration has pointed that out. I myself would prefer that we be considering legislation today that is consistent with our international trade agreements and that would have more of a chance of being enacted into law. This is especially so if we expect other nations to live up to our obligations. However, it is abundantly clear that our steelworkers and companies have suffered immense harm, including as many as 10,000 jobs lost, severe production cutbacks, and several companies have gone into bankruptcy as a result of the import surge over the last year. We as a country should have responded more quickly and more effectively. The administration's response over the last few months has been commendable, applying our trade laws aggressively and effectively within the bounds of the international trade rules. But that response is really too late in coming, and so we have the enormous concern and the frustration that led to the introduction of this legislation that we are considering here today. We need to find a solution to the steel problem, and I hope we all agree on at least that much. However we vote on this bill today, let us try to work together in the coming weeks also to address in a systematic, sustainable fashion the underlying problems our steel firms and workers and other industries face. Where our trade provisions like section 201 need to be strengthened and fine-tuned so that we can respond more effectively going forward in this problem and the next time around, let us fix them quickly. Where our ability to protect and predict this kind of import surge can be improved, we should do that, too. In short, we should look beyond the vote today to a long-term sustainable effective solution. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the chairman; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for moving so swiftly in bringing this bipartisan measure to the floor. And as one who chairs our great New York delegation, which is probably the most bipartisan delegation we have in this House, let me thank my long and dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for assisting in bringing our members together to pay tribute to a hero that far too often we thought just belonged to us. Joe DiMaggio and the New York Yankees are like treasures that you take for granted. And when word came of his ill health, there was no member of the delegation or hardly anybody that was known from New York that did not receive sympathy cards and get well cards as though we just lived around the corner from Joe. As many times as I have had the pleasure of going to Yankee Stadium and hearing the roar of the crowd both for an active playing Joe DiMaggio or for retired gentleman hero Joe DiMaggio, the class that he brought not just to the Yankees, not just to New York, but to America is something that we have to see and we have to feel. I was so amazed and indeed surprised to hear from so many Italian Americans to talk about what Joe meant to them. And it was so pleasant to see that, with all of the discrimination and anti-Italian feelings that we have had in this country in the years gone by, that Italian Americans felt that Joe just shattered the image of the Mafia, shattered the image of how Italians were portrayed in our motion pictures and television. And I said, my God, don't you understand, Frank Guarini, who is a former member of Congress and who heads up the National Italian American Foundation, that you may think of Joe as just being a famous and an outstanding Italian American but the people in Harlem and in Bed-Stuy and in the South Bronx were all weeping when we lost Joe DiMaggio. Sure, he was a classic example of how anybody, no matter what their background, could achieve the high levels of respect and admiration and love. But he also was one that transcended being an Italian American or Jewish American or black American because he played the game and allowed everyone to believe that if they played it fairly and carried themselves in a decent way that this country would respect them. Let us, I say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), say to Joe that he fought for all of us, not Italian Americans. Let us say, the best way to pay tribute to Joe is to try to live our lives the way he lived his. Let us look at all Americans as though, no matter where they came from, give them an opportunity to achieve and they, like our great Joe DiMaggio, can excel. I believe that one thing that stands out in the greatness of this man is that he never took failure as being an option for him. He starred and yet he acted as though he was just a bat boy when we were in his presence. Few Americans, few people can carry the heavy toll of being so well-known. He did it. He did it well. He sets an example for America and indeed an example for this Congress. Let me thank all of my colleagues that made it possible for us to bring this to the floor. We brought it to the floor thinking we were honoring a fellow New Yorker and New York Yankee. We know better. We are honoring a great American and a great member of this great world that we live in.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to give equitable treatment to the Nation's safety-net hospitals, the hospitals which serve a disproportionate share of the Nation's uninsured and low- income. I am pleased to be joined by Representatives Stark, Quinn, Walsh, and 26 other Members. Our bill ``carves out'' Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments from the amount we give HMOs and pays those DSH funds directly to DSH hospitals when managed care company patients use a DSH hospital. This legislation completes a process well-started in the Balanced Budget Act. In the just-enacted Balanced Budget Act, we ``carved out'' from what we pay HMOs the amount attributable to the cost of Graduate Medical Education (GME) and provided that, when an HMO's patient actually uses a GME Hospital, that hospital will be directly reimbursed by Medicare for its extra GME expenses. This provision corrects a serious problem facing our Nation's teaching and research hospitals: HMOs get paid as if they use these hospitals, but in many (but not all) cases, HMOs avoid these more expensive hospitals. The ``carve out'' will prevent windfalls to HMOs and permit the GME hospitals to compete fairly for HMO patients. The same logic that supported the GME carve-out supports the DSH carve-out. Though the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees' bills provided for both a DSH carve-out and a GME carve-out, the DSH carve- out was dropped from the final BBA. There is no logic to not applying the same principle to DSH payments. Our Nation's safety-net hospitals desperately need these extra payments--and HMOs which do not use DSH hospitals do not deserve the extra amount. As data from 1995 show, the Nation's public hospitals in over 100 of America's largest metropolitan areas are the key safety-net hospitals. These hospitals make up only about 2 percent of all the Nation's hospitals, yet they provide more than 20 percent of all uncompensated care and they rely on Medicare and Medicaid to fund more than half of that uncompensated care. In 1995, 67 of these safety-net hospitals reported incurring $5.8 billion in uncompensated care costs (defined as bad debt and charity care)--an average of over $86 million per hospital. For these institutions, bad debt and charity care represented 25 percent of their total gross charges. And this disparity is only getting worse. Private and for-profit hospitals are increasingly competing for Medicaid patients (who at least bring with them some government reimbursement) and leaving the totally uninsured to these disproportionate share safety-net hospitals. These safety-net hospitals have the worst total margins (i.e., ``profits'') in the hospital industry. Overall, hospital margins from Medicare payments are at record highs and this fact justified the Medicare payment update freeze and reductions which were included in the Balanced Budget Act. But the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission estimates that in 1997 the Nation's major teaching hospitals (who also tend to be DSH hospitals) will have the lowest total margins of any hospital category: 3.9 percent--a thin and shrinking margin that will surely turn negative in the next economic downturn. The enactment of this legislation could help improve these margins and preserve these hospitals. Providing a DSH carve-out will also help these hospitals compete equally for managed care patients. Failing to provide a carve-out serves as an incentive to managed care plans not to use these more expensive hospitals. A recent White Paper from the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems entitled ``Preserving America's Safety Net Hospitals'' explains why the DSH carve-out should be legislated: The current methodology for distributing Direct Graduate Medical Education, Indirect Medical Education, and DSH payments is seriously flawed in the Medicare managed care context. For Medicare patients enrolled in managed care, these supplemental payments are incorporated into the average adjusted per capita cost (AAPCC) which is the capitation payment made to managed care plans. The plans do not necessarily pass these payments along to the hospitals which incur the costs that justify the payments. In fact, some plans receive the payments and do not even contract with such hospitals. As Medicare increases the use of capitated risk contracting, the amount of DGME, IME, and DSH funds that go to teaching hospitals will diminish considerably unless this payment policy is changed. In essence, payments intended to support the costs of teaching or low income care are being diverted from the hospitals that provide the care to managed care plans that are not fulfilling this mission. For this reason, the GME and DSH payments must be carved out of the AAPCC rate and made directly to the hospitals that incur those costs. The carve-out for graduate medical education was wisely included in the Balanced Budget Act. It is logical, appropriate, and important that we complete the work and carve out the DSH payments. I want to thank the Greater New York Hospital Association, the American Hospital Association, and the Healthcare Association of New York State (HANYS) for their support of the bill in the 105th Congress (H.R. 2701), and we look forward to working with them on the issue in the 106th Congress.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the old partisan days, I would say this resolution is good because Santa Clause is coming through. But recognize that we have not had too many legislative accomplishments. Being very anxious to display some degree of bipartisanship, let me congratulate the majority for this resolution for whatever it means. In the olden days, when people saw a problem, they started legislating. But if this is a new thing, where you send a message that I recognize the problem and I do intend to legislate, well, who can be against that? So let me join with my Republican colleagues and say we have a very, very serious problem with Social Security in its present form. The majority party is acknowledging that it is going to do something about it. They have met the President halfway in terms of identifying the set-aside of the 62 percent. But they have a great deal of difficulty in stating that they will not entertain a tax cut from using the surplus until such time as we take care of the Social Security system and the Medicare trust system as we know it. Now, I do not know why these things are omitted. I have no idea as to why they are difficult to talk about. But let me join with my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and say that half a loaf is better than nothing. I sincerely hope that we get beyond these resolutions and see what we can do in a bipartisan way to find a solution to this serious problem. The reason I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I know that this problem does not lend itself to a Republican answer or to a Democratic answer. If it is going to be done, and we both hope that it will be done, it has to be done in a bipartisan way. What has been done to move us closer to a bipartisan effort besides this resolution, I do not know. But if, with a great deal of imagination, I can say that let this be that one first step toward a journey which has to be concluded this year if we are going to do anything at all, then I want to be on the floor to join with the gentleman from Florida in this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate African American History Month, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a particular tribute to two great African American World War I Veterans, who are residents of Harlem. Both served on active duty in France. Although 80 years later, Mr. Herbert W. Young, now 112 years old, and Mr. Robert Thomas, now 103 years old, will receive the French Legion of Honor Medal on February 22, 1999, during a special ceremony in their honor. The ceremony will be held at the French Consulate in New York. Both men plan to attend. Mr. Young is recognized as the oldest living veteran. Mr. Young served in the United States Army, Company E, 807th Pioneer Infantry from August 1, 1918 through July 11, 1919, and attained the rank of Corporal. Mr. Thomas served in the United States Army, Company A, 815th Pioneer Infantry from July 11, 1917, through August 7, 1919, and attained the rank of Private. The French government will mark the upcoming 80th anniversary of the Armistice of World War 1 by conferring the Legion of Honor on Americans, in particular, and other allied veterans of the Great War. The Legion of Honor is France's highest decoration, and is being awarded to veterans who took part in the 1914-1918 war on French soil. The United States entered World War 1 ``to make the world safe for democracy.'' Although African Americans were denied democratic rights in the United States, they supported the war effort in surprising numbers. W.E.B. Du Bois, editor of The Crisis, called on African Americans to ``close ranks'' despite segregation, hoping that military participation would earn African American civil rights after the war. Upon demobilization, African Americans returned to their homes to face continued segregation, discrimination and racial violence. All Americans owe a special debt of gratitude to these two men. Despite segregation, discrimination, and bitter disappointment, they defended American's freedom and democracy with their very lives. We salute them, we honor them, we thank them for the unselfish and extraordinary sacrifices, and contributions they made to the country and the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order that has been made by the gentleman from New York and in support of the motion to recommit so that this body could have before it the question as to whether or not we can vote for censure. As you look over the rules and precedents of this House, you will have the broad discretion to include in your ruling the question of fairness and the question of equity. Mr. Speaker, the whole world is watching.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am asking as many that can to reject the idea of voting for articles of impeachment, because 25 years ago I had the opportunity to serve in this body when the question of impeachment was seriously taken up, in 1974, and I can tell you that we may use the type of language that sounds as though we are working within the Constitution, but this procedure is not on the level. You cannot have a political procedure where Republicans line up on one side, like they are shooting fish in a barrel, and Democrats line up on the other side. We should not be talking about a Democratic President that for six years people have been trying to hound out of office. Even before this deal goes down, where you already have the votes, there are people asking the President to resign from office. What has this President done to cause so much hatred, so much animosity? And for those of you that say this is not about sex, I agree with you: This is about getting rid of the President of the United States. Whether it is the FBI files, whether it is Whitewater, whether it is discussing something that Hillary has done, or whether it is Lewinsky, the whole idea is a lynch mob mentality that says this man has to go. You say, well, we have to vote our conscience here. Who determines the conscience? What arrogance can the Republicans have in this body to determine what the punishment should be for the President of the United States? Who has found the language in our Constitution to dictate that you can take this wonderful instrument that allowed this republic to survive for so long, and twist it and bend it and say that we cannot have censure as an option to what you are trying to do to the President, to this Congress, and to the country? And what do you leave for the future, for the next Congress? What do you leave in terms of Social Security, reforming the tax system, trying to make Medicare better, trying to get campaign finance reform? These are things that we refer to as bipartisan, working together, cooperation. You brought hatred to this floor. You can see it in the eyes, you can see it in the language, and people will walk lockstep and vote as Republicans and not as Members of the United States Congress. Do you not think that as you keep talking about ``no man is above the law,'' do you not understand that no Member here is above the will of the people of the United States of America? Do you not know they respect the fact when they go vote, whether they vote for Republican or vote for a Democrat, they vote for a President of the United States? You have no right to get rid of him by saying ``the rule of law,'' and then abuse the very rule of that law.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Sammy Sosa, the baseball player who--but for Mark McGwire--in any other year would have replaced the legendary Roger Maris as the single-season home run hitting champion. Sosa trailed McGwire in this year's dramatic and unprecedented home run derby. But in Washington Heights, Sosa is bigger than baseball and in the hearts of the people, he is number one. The Dominican-born Sosa is the toast of Washington Heights, a vibrant, colorful neighborhood on the west side of my Congressional District, dominated by immigrants from the Dominican Republic. Dominicans are proud of their country and their community, and take special pride in those heroes who remember their roots. Sosa has done just that in his generosity toward the poor in his homeland--before and since Hurricane Georges--and in his expressed desire to participate in a neighborhood parade through the streets of Washington Heights. Sosa grew up in poverty with his widowed mother and six siblings in a seaside town in the Dominican Republic. Today, at 29, after nine years in the big leagues, he is being paid $42.5 million under a four-year contract. But throughout, he has maintained his humility, his exuberance for life, and his concern for his people. When Hurricane Georges devastated his country, taking as many as 200 lives, Sosa's foundation cranked up its operation to ship down desperately needed relief supplies. In his hometown, San Pedro de Macoris, Sosa's generosity had already earned him the title, Sammy Claus. His countrymen in Washington Heights will join with all New Yorkers this weekend to let Sosa know just how much they appreciate him, on and off the field. He will be honored by John Cardinal O'Connor, head of the Catholic Archdiocese of New York; and there will be a parade, if not in Washington Heights, then Broadway will do.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order tonight.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), our honoree and our friend, who is not leaving New York but leaving the Congress.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Towns), who knows how important it is to have a friend as county leader.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Bronx, New York (Mr. Serrano), home of the New York Yankees.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York City (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Westchester County, New York (Mrs. Lowey), and Queens and the Bronx.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Albany, New York (Mr. McNulty).

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Bronx County, New York (Mr. Engel).