Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order today for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to H.R. 6867.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6867) to provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation, as amended.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this might be anti-climatic. The House, for weeks, and indeed days, in the past hours, have attempted to save the free world from a fiscal disaster. We have bailed out the banks and those who held mortgages. At the same time, we provided for energy extensions, we provided tax breaks for those people that tax provisions have expired. We provided for hurricane relief, for mental health. So over $1 trillion is out there for this House to ease the pain of millions of Americans. While we were dealing with these gigantic powers, we overlooked the fact that over the last 12 months the number of unemployed workers has jumped by over 2 million, leaving 10 million Americans struggling for work. These are not ordinary Americans. These are hardworking people that raise their family with some degree of dignity that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. So the falling sky as relates to the fiscal situation we find today, so many forget that these people do not have the resources to put food on the table; to pay their rent and mortgages; to keep their kids in school; to meet their medical expenses, or even to pay for the increased price of gasoline. One member of the committee and of this Congress, Dr. McDermott, has never let us forget, no matter how big the problem we are trying to do, in terms of looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, he has dedicated his life to make certain that these faceless people who have lost their jobs, that America and this Congress attempt to provide some compensation. We can't return their dignity. In many cases, we can't return their homes. But we can help. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the remainder of my time to Dr. Congressman McDermott to see fit how he yields the remainder of time assigned to us for this purpose.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the September 12, 2008 article, ``Outraged by AIDS Epidemic'' by Virginia Fields, president and CEO of the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS. In this article Ms. Fields rightly expresses her frustration over the increased number of HIV/AIDS infections in African-American communities. The infection rate for African-Americans is seven times higher than Whites and is disproportionately higher than any other racial or ethnic group in the U.S. With new information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that was released at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City, I ask my colleagues to stand with me to take a stronger stand against this epidemic in our own country. It is inexcusable that with the funding and resources that we have that the HIV/AIDS cases in the U.S. have risen over the past three decades. Through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, the U.S. has spent 19 billion dollars on the initiative to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. In addition to PEPFAR we need to establish a plan that would include adequate funding and resources to assist with prevention, education, and treatment to help combat this epidemic here at home. Madam Speaker, it is time for us to openly address this issue that is affecting so many individuals and their families across our great country. Outraged by AIDS Epidemic (By C. Virginia Fields) I was not shocked by facts I learned at the recent International AIDS Conference, but I was outraged--outraged that, three decades into this epidemic, we are still seeing the kind of numbers we're seeing in terms of AIDS' impact on the black community. At the Conference, which was held Aug. 3-8 in Mexico City, delegates learned that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now estimating the number of AIDS cases to be much higher than originally thought. Using more precise methodology, the agency now says there were 56,300 new HIV infections in the United States in 2006 rather than the 40,000 previously estimated. With many problems, the black community is hit harder than the population as a whole, and AIDS is no different--in fact, this trend is greatly accentuated with AIDS. The CDC found that the infection rate for African-Americans was seven times higher than whites. Almost 25,000 new cases of HIV were measured for blacks in the reporting period. The new numbers ``confirm that blacks are more heavily and disproportionately affected by HIV than any other racial/ethnic group in the U.S.,'' the CDC reported. AIDS is the leading cause of death for black women between the ages of 25 and 34. New York is a leader in the country in many areas and this is one of the unfortunate ones. The cumulative number of AIDS cases in this state was more than 177,000 through 2006, according to CDC statistics. That was more than 30,000 above California, which was in second place. Now one would think that, given these numbers, the federal government would be doing all that it possibly can to fight this disease, and to target the funds where they are most needed. I wish that were true. In fact, when it comes to dealing with AIDS, the government seems to think it's more of a crisis overseas than at home. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funnels resources to 15 countries with high rates of AIDS. While that is needed, what about our own citizens? There is no program to target resources with PEPFAR-like intensity at home. This is despite the fact that, according to a recent report by the Black AIDS Institute, black Americans, if they were a separate country, would have higher rates of HIV/AIDS than many of the third world countries the government targets for help. One of the priorities of the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS is bringing about a national AIDS strategy. This emerged from a conclave NBLCA facilitated last October that was co-chaired by Rev. Calvin Butts, pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York, and Bishop T.D. Jakes, pastor of the Potter's House in Dallas. The strategy would set goals and timetables and identify needed resources. It would make sure the 10 agencies that administer AIDS programs coordinate and communicate with one another. In short, it would be a road map about how we respond to the AIDS epidemic in the United States. The United States requires countries that receive help under PEPFAR to have such a strategy yet the United States itself does not have one. More than ironic, that's tragic. The impact AIDS is having on our citizens, especially those in the black community, is alarming--and it's getting worse. If we don't mobilize now and make sure that we're attacking this disease with as much energy, resources and intelligence as we can muster, we will someday wonder how we let such a disaster happen. Despite all the bad news, there can be hope. I came away from the International AIDS Conference encouraged that we are determined as never before to fight the disease. I came away from the conference--and I think many of my fellow delegates from all over the world did, too--much more committed to this cause.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, this is a serious issue for those of us in government. I don't know where the advocates of reduced government really are today. The marketplace should work as well, and now we're asking the government to come in with close to $1 trillion in order to bail out the private sector. The administration has come up with a proposal that, to me, reminds me of roulette, and they're challenging us to just take the bullets. As Chairman Frank has said so often, this is a no-win proposition because, in support of this--and I will be supporting it--no one is going to thank us for what they don't know and how serious it is, but I do know one thing, that those who have caused the problem somehow have managed to get away without any blame, without any penalty, and the crisis now falls on the American people. Well, for some people, it will be just an inconvenience. They'll sell a couple of houses; they'll get rid of some of their stocks, and they'll continue to game the system, but for the poor, they won't have these options since we live in a country and, indeed, in a world that is dependent on credit. So the poor will not be inconvenienced, but irreparable harm could be done to the dreams that it took so long for the middle income to achieve to be able to own a home, to be able to send their kids to college, to be able to put food on the table, to clothe them, and to have the respect that the middle class in America has stood for for so long. We have seen in recent months that this class of people has had their dreams dampened by the increase in gasoline prices, in health costs, in education to such an extent that the government just gave them a handout with $1,000 here and there to try to restore their dignity. Obviously, that didn't work. How is it that we couldn't find money to give them jobs? to create a fair and equitable tax system? to increase education? to increase health? to make certain that our infrastructure was conducive of America's being competitive? No, it costs too much money. Somehow, the conservatives in the other party can find an exposure to American taxpayers for close to $1 trillion, and not too long ago it was just another $300 billion. For war and for these types of things, we can always find the money, but to make certain that the underclass-- the poor folks--and the middle class are able to get an investment in America and into their lives so that they can become more prosperous and can enjoy the dreams of America, we can't seem to find it. So now we have the Secretary of the Treasury. We don't know where he goes after December, and we will forever have to staple him to whatever excuses we give for being frightened to death that he just might be right. It is wrong to do this to a country. It is wrong to do this to the Congress, but it just seems to me that I can't afford to take the risk. I support the work of Barney Frank and of all those who work diligently to try to make certain that we don't allow the sky to fall on American's middle class and poor folks.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1503, I call up the bill (H.R. 7060) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, before I get into the substance of this important legislation, let me make it abundantly clear that in my opinion, there is nobody in this House that is not concerned with the direction in which this country has gone in the past in relying on fossil fuels. In addition to that, we, all being patriots, do recognize that probably everyone in this Chamber agrees that many of the important tax provisions should not expire because business can lose confidence in the system and certainly in the Congress. People should be allowed to rely on what we say will be tax incentives, and probably most of us believe that these incentives should even be permanent, rather than 1 or 2 years, but at least they should not be allowed to expire. Unfortunately, there is a cloud of politics that remains over our shoulders and the other body. I just heard that the arrogance of the other body has said that notwithstanding what we do here today, that they would not even receive the legislation because they put a time on us. I don't care whether you are Republican or Democrat. It is shameful that the other House can hold us in such complete disregard that they can dictate what they are not going to look at. On the other side, instead of referring to them as the majority and minority, or Republicans and Democrats, I am inclined to believe that they are the gang of 60 that determine what the law is going to be, notwithstanding the intent of the House where the people are supposed to govern. I do hope that somewhere along the line, no matter what our major policy differences might be, that our leadership can get together to let the other body know that it is a two-body Congress, and that this eagle has to work with two wings instead of one. Another political issue is this: I was shocked and amazed yesterday that when the rule came up, most all of the debate from the minority was the protection and support of our rural schools. We should not have been arguing or debating each other, because education of our young people, whether they come from urban, inner cities or rural areas, is not just important to that community, but really is important to the United States of America, who must compete with the rest of the world. If we don't have the ability to give access to a decent education for our young people, no matter what great part of our country they come from, then we lose our competitive edge. None of our competitors care whether or not our workforce is black or white, Jew or gentile, rural or in the city. We have to come together as a Nation and recognize that our failure to produce educated people is not a local and State issue, but our support for it is to protect our national security. There is a way that we could do that and not have it divert attention from the important issues that are in this bill. Where is this rural support bill? Is it in our bill? Did we initiate it in the House? Has anyone in the minority ever asked that it be included in an energy bill or tax extension? No. Why? Because we've got rules over there. But they don't have rules on the other side, so they put it in the bill. I have told my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, I got their support, the Democratic Caucus, and even made an appeal yesterday. If you are really serious about it, we can't put it in our bill here today, but it's in their bill, and we are willing to accept it. What is it about accepting the rural area bill that you guys and gals don't understand? But how can we accept it? The only way we can is that if they take the Senate-passed bill and send it over here. So you can talk all you want about your dedication to education, albeit rural or urban. But if you really are sincere about it, the only vehicle that you have for it is to get that bill over here, and my leaders and my committee have given assurance, bring the bill over, and we will accept it. Why won't they send it over? Because of lack of respect of the House of Representatives. They are holding it at the desk thinking, in the middle of the night, when we have to go home, it's their way or the highway. I do hope we have some pride in our legislative initiatives that we find out our differences. But at the end of the day when the House speaks, they don't have to accept it, but they shouldn't have the arrogance of saying that they are not even going to look at it. Having said that, here we go again, with the whole Nation looking at us, wondering do we have any concern about the energy crisis that we find ourselves in. The gasoline price at the pump causes everyone to consider what is it going to be for rent, what is it going to be for mortgages, what is it going to be for food, what is it going to be to put clothes on the kids, because we find ourselves in this energy crunch, and God knows how long it's going to take. The only thing that we can do, as representatives of the American people, is to say how long, how long, and we're doing something about it. It even affects our national security to believe that we are so dependent on countries that we don't even believe in their form of government, but yet we send them money each and every day, each and every year, to consume the oil that they have. We have put together the bill that just makes a lot of common sense. No one has challenged our bill on the merits. Sure you can talk about drill, drill, drill. Do what you have to do politically. But let's get back to what we can do realistically. It may take some time. It's not going to bring changes tomorrow, but we will be able to tell our kids and our grandkids that we looked for alternatives, wind, solar, water, anything that's possible. We provide these incentives. We can create a whole new industry in search of some answers to the crisis. We are talking about creating jobs, creating ideas, creating thoughts. We can't do it as Democrats or Republicans. We have to do it as a Congress. They have accepted all of these things on the other side. We can get together and save the future of our country if we ever got together as one Congress instead of two bodies. We also have in our bill a commitment that we have made to provide incentives for research and development; for States that don't have income taxes, but we can have them to be able to deduct their local and State taxes for Federal tax purposes; for teachers who dedicate themselves each and every day to help the kids to give them a little help in doing it. The business sector, the social sector, are depending on us that when we have a law, that we just don't leave it saying it expired because we have differences of politics on the other side. We have done everything that we could to take anything controversial out of this bill, whether it's helping the people that have suffered as a result of a terrorist attack against New York, whether it's providing some protection for people that may work in energy to make certain that they get a decent wage, whether we give lawyers an opportunity to operate their accounting system the same way other professionals do. If it was controversial, we said, We'll drop it. Let's see how we can meet across the aisle. But if the whole debate is going to be about rural schools, we can take care of that in the Speaker's corridor and not waste the people's time in debate. If the whole thing is going to be whether or not we are going to be fiscally responsible and pay for 2 years of the extension of these things, we will let the people and the business people decide which side is right, whether we are going to increase the indebtedness to our children or grandchildren, or whether at a time when the Federal Government is asking us to provide $700 billion of tax exposure, can we say that where we could control, we did try to control. That's the major difference between the other side and us. Do we pay for 1 year of the extensions, or do we really just lock horns and not do anything? This is the option. This is the last time this year. I hope we can jump over the hurdles of politics and get something done. For more specifics to the bill, our distinguished chairman of the committee that has studied this, the one that has done the taxes, the one that has done the taxes for energy, is going to take over. But you know as well as I do, people on the committee and people not, that what we are saying and advocating makes sense. The only difference between passing a bill and getting the President to sign it is politics. I truly believe, or at least I want to believe, that we can get over that too. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Richard Neal, a distinguished Member from Massachusetts, an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, a great American and a great Member of Congress.

Mr. RANGEL. We don't have a lot of speakers. That's why I asked the gentleman to yield. Madam Speaker, assuming that the majority was persuaded by the eloquence of the gentleman from Michigan and we wanted to embrace the bill that 60 Members in the other House had, and assuming further that we wanted to help the rural schools which is in that bill, the gentleman knows that we can't react on bills that they have passed over there until they send it over here. So we shouldn't allow the other House to interfere with the process that we have. We don't need a whole lot of harmony. We have different constituents and different policies. It is okay to say their way or the highway, and the minority may say that is the way they want to go. But even if we yield to that, if we said that 60 votes over there are far more important than 435 votes over here, how could we possibly do anything until they send it over here?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. I don't think there is anything that you have said in support of rural schools that I do not believe in and that I am not willing to support. I just want to make it abundantly clear that the issue that has caused this logjam with the Senate has nothing to do with the causes that you advocate and I support. There is only one issue that has not brought us here, and that is the issue of whether or not we pay for the extenders or don't pay for the extenders. It seems like an issue, when we are asked to come up with $700 billion, that should not really concern us that much. But the truth of the matter is, they have sent the bill over here.

Mr. RANGEL. The only real big issue is that they have sent over a 2- year extension, but it's paid for only 1 year. The position that has been taken by the majority in the House is that instead of 2 years, we are prepared to accept the extender package, as is, except that we will reduce it to 1 year so there would be no years unpaid for, or, in the alternative, and I spoke just yesterday with Senator Grassley, we are prepared to pay for the 2 years. There is a difference, they claim over there, and I have no reason to disagree with them, that if we do anything on the House side, exercise any prerogative in the payment of this, they cannot hold on to their 60 votes. I want the gentleman to know that I only wish that rural schools would be the only issue, because it could be resolved. It is not the issue. It is only the issue that I stated with you, and I have shared this with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and have shared it with our Speaker. That is the issue that is holding up the passage. So we will send another bill back over there.

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I will.

Mr. RANGEL. I am telling you that the issues that we have and concerns with the credibility of funding tax decreases is one that exists, but probably between our parties, and we have division in the House. But we would like to believe that in the House of Representatives that we initiate taxes and just sometimes, just sometimes the other body has to yield to our requests. Four times we sent it over, four times we tried to negotiate. Even yesterday I was talking and trying to see whether we could work out something. There are times when the integrity of the House is important in order to recognize that we have to get things done, but we have to also maintain some principles. We are at that point now. I don't know how long it's going to take, but I just came to the floor, when I heard your eloquent argument, which hardly anyone can dispute, to make it clear that if you are a Republican or a Democrat, and you want to help, if you are in business, and you are concerned about the extension of benefits that workers and companies need, if you are concerned about the energy crisis, and you want to do something, that we are going to keep sending packages. If we had someone as eloquent as you on the other side saying let's get something done this year, we wouldn't have this problem. So when it gets down to it, who is going to yield? Well, we have, again and again and again and again. As proud as I am of being a Member of Congress and chairman of this committee, it has to stop somewhere where the other body knows that they are just one body of the Congress. They just can't say that they can't get anything done. But once they do come together, then it means that we don't have anything to say about anything as to what gets in their package.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield.

Mr. RANGEL. I appreciate the time that you have given me.

Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Let me try to clear up some things. It's insulting to believe that because I come from the City of New York that I don't understand the problems of education in rural areas. In this great country it's so important that all of our kids have----

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much, a distinguished member of our committee, and I've heard your eloquent plea on behalf of education for our rural children. And whether they're in inner cities or rural areas, in order for this country to be productive, in order for this country to make certain that we can compete, we've got to improve the quality of education. Now, people are talking about the other body's bill as though we have it. They're holding up that bill at the desk. They won't bring that bill over here. All we're trying to do is to say, don't hold back the incentives that we have for businesses to continue what they're doing in order to get energy. Now, I can give some assurances too. We have to think, not as Democrats and Republicans, but we have to think about having the House of Representatives respected, and to believe that in the House of Representatives, the people govern. And I can assure you, if we can break down that gridlock as relates to who's going to be responsible and pay for these incentives, I have no problems, even though that bill does not have jurisdiction in my committee, as the chairman in accepting that, because I know how important it is. But if you weaken us, they come over here, and you believe that they're right because they have 90 votes? Well, God knows that we can work out something with Republicans and have our way on everything as long as we say you're going to get what you want. That's not the way we think that we should legislate. You have a good issue. We accept the issue. We can work with the issue. And we can do it in the other body's bill. That other body's bill has not been sent over here, for political purposes, in order to believe that at the last minute there's going to be a cave-in.

Mr. RANGEL. We can do it in this bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. I want to give you as much assurance as to what can be done and what can't be done. It may sound good to say that you can add it to the bill. Just because it has no germaneness in the Senate does not prevent me, in conference, from accepting it. But I can't help to make your amendment germane on a bill that has nothing to do with rural education, no matter how deep the commitment. All I can promise you, if we showed the solidarity in sending our bill over there as they clearly have in sending their bill over here, I can assure you in conference, if it's in their bill I will be able to support it. But the question of having an amendment when it's not germane is something that we can't win on.

Mr. RANGEL. We have never, never, never, been able to go into conference. We've ended conferences with the other body. They make up their mind what they want to do and they come and tell me, and then around the edges we get some agreement.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7006) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide disaster assistance relief.