Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 7006, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008, provide tax relief for victims of disasters. I, along with Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member James McCrery, have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill, JCX-73-08. The technical explanation expresses the committee understanding and the legislative intent behind this important piece of legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site www.jct.gov. Madam Speaker, the United States as a Nation has experienced a terrible number of natural disasters. We started early this year with tornadoes in Georgia and Tennessee. We saw wildfires consume parts of these great United States, millions of acres in California. We saw the mighty rivers of the Midwest overflow their banks and damage the homes and businesses of so many Americans. And most recently, we saw the tremendous power of hurricanes Ike and Gustav devastate parts of Texas and the gulf coast. I don't think anyone in this Chamber would disagree with me when I say unfortunately, we probably haven't seen the end of these horrible events this year. The hurricane season does not end until November 30. The individuals hit by these natural disasters all shared one thing in common: they are victims of Mother Nature's strength, and they are looking for assistance from their Federal Government. The bill before us today, H.R. 7006, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008, provides a framework for the Congress to be able to provide all Americans that they be able to count on us in the unfortunate event that they get hit by a natural disaster. The Congress for years has been forced to negotiate between individual Representatives and Senators to decide which victims deserve Federal relief and which ones do not. It is a process that not one single one of us enjoys being a part of. My bill today makes certain that every victim of a natural disaster gets the relief they need when they are trying to rebuild their homes and businesses, and trying to rebuild their lives. It does not pick winners and losers. It does not leave the recovery of these victims to a handful involved in political control. My bill offers a variety of relief to victims of natural disasters, and the bill would first waive the income limitations on personal loss deductions. It would allow businesses to write off certain qualified disaster cleanup expenses. It would permit a 5-year carryback for certain losses. It waives certain mortgage revenue bond requirements to allow bond proceeds to be used for this rebuilding. It provides for additional low-income housing tax credits for communities with housing losses to build $2 billion in affordable housing. It adds a new set of disaster private activity bonds for business reconstruction, and it waives certain limitations on charitable contributions for disaster relief. The bill would also increase the standard mileage rate for the charitable use of a vehicle whether they are involved in the disaster or not. And most importantly, the relief will be in place for disasters that may occur for years to come. The provisions are in place through 2011. That means that when hurricanes like Ike and Gustav come back next year, albeit with different names, the Federal Government will have relief in place for the victims of these terrible storms. I urge my colleagues to work to protect their constituents and hope and pray that they are never hit. But if they are suffering, that we will be able to swiftly pass this legislation so that we can provide some security for these victims. I hope that you will listen to two of my fellow Democrats, Representative Lampson and Representative Cazayoux, who know all too well the pain which these disasters have done to their constituents. And I hope you appreciate, those who have yet to be hit, that this Congress has provided the need and support for their constituents. At this time I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ron Kind, who has drafted the outlines of this not for his district, not for his region, but so that this great country of ours would have the type of relief that all of us wish we had done before, but we are now doing it today.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the illustrious congressional career of a friend--a fellow New Yorker, Democrat, and member of Ways and Means--Representative Michael McNulty, who for nearly 40 years has served his constituents in the Empire State superbly well. That four-decade-long resume boasts posts as mayor of Green Island, New York, as a State assemblyman, and since 1988, a widely respected and beloved U.S. Congressman. He leaves us at the end of this year the same as he was when he first entered these Halls-- unblemished in record and integrity, full of vigor and focus, impassioned about and preeminently concerned with the uplift of those he served. As chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, he maintained his unrelenting commitment to the program and the senior citizens whose livelihoods depend on it. Having worked with Mike closely on the committee, I can vouch for his incredible work ethic and delicate parsing of the issues. The vivacity he brought to the job interwoven with his serious, reflective intellect has served the committee well-- has served the country well. He is a fervent champion of working families, a man of impeccable credentials and record on those matters of import to the middle class. On this day, his birthday, it is with honor that I join the chorus of colleagues, friends, and family who today laud his very many accomplishments. It is with cheer and celebration in our hearts that we wish Mike well in retirement. His presence will still be felt in the next Congress: in the hearts of those he touched, on those issues he left an indelible mark, on the legacy he leaves behind for us all to emulate.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege under rule IX.

Mr. RANGEL. Not to worry, my friend and colleagues. I have no intentions of keeping you for 1 hour, especially at this time of the day. But a couple of weeks ago the leadership of the minority had asked that I be thrown out of the House and censured based on a newspaper story, and I just want to thank those people who were thoughtful enough to think that even Members of Congress at some times should not rely on newspaper stories, but rather the Ethics Committee, which is bipartisan. More recently, however, my dear friend John Boehner has asked the Speaker to ask me to step aside as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Now I say ``my dear friend John Boehner,'' not as this word is tossed around in the House and Senate casually. I say it because John Boehner has, for many, many years, been my friend. We have worked so closely together in bipartisan areas that just a couple of weeks ago he allowed me to strengthen my relationship with Jim McCrery on the Ways and Means Committee to get unemployment compensation passed, and lauded our efforts, as I lauded his. I look around and I see George Miller, who more than once said what a straight shooter he has been on Education. Steny Hoyer has reminded me that, you know, he may disagree with John Boehner, but one thing is clear, that when you speak to him, that he says what he means and he means what he says. Well, I don't really think he means that I am incompetent and should step down. I don't think he really means or thinks that the Speaker is going to remove me from the House of Representatives. I don't think that he thinks I am a threat to this honorable House, which I am so proud to be a Member of. And for those people who say hey, let the Ethics Committee make the decision, I thank you for myself, for my name, for my friends and for my supporters. But believe it or not, I want to do this for the House of Representatives. I don't want any Member, Republican or Democrat, that is less politically secure than me to go through what I have had to go through for the last several weeks, because for them they never could survive. They would lose the election. And it won't be of anything that the voters knew. It would be what this Congress has done to each other. You know, the Ways and Means Committee, we made a special effort to be civil, even when we disagreed. We are so proud, with the support of Speaker Pelosi, of Steny Hoyer, and, yes, John Boehner, working with us and trying to see what we can get done. At the end of this election, this Congress is going to have serious things to take care of. And we won't have Democratic solutions to taxes and health and Social Security and the variety of things with peace and war. We are going to have to resolve these issues as a United States Congress in a bipartisan way. There is not going to be any Democratic way to do it. And we are going to have to work together, not because we like each other, but we have a special responsibility to the people of the United States to make certain that our reputations may be low in terms of production, but if someone doesn't get health care, doesn't get that Social Security check, or for any reason finds himself without a house, they are not going to say the Democrats did it or the Republicans did it. They are going to say that this Congress let them down. It is going to be difficult, no matter who is the President or who is in the leadership. But it does not help to polarize this body and take wild shots at each other, whether they are chairmen or whether they are freshmen, knowing that at the end of the day you are not going to accomplish anything substantive, but you are going to make it more difficult for us to get a law. Do I say that John Boehner knows this? I tell you this: To show you the depth of my friendship, I am embarrassed that he feels he has to do this. There is no way in the world, based on his knowledge of my love for this House, that he would believe that I would do anything to dishonor it. And there is no question in my mind that at the end of the day, when the dust settles, that this issue is going to be moot. But I just don't know what the relationship between people is going to be. So I don't know the next move, but I would suggest that this is not the way to go. John Boehner, John Boehner, John Boehner. On the Tim Russert show, what they did to my friend there in saying that he was passing out illegal checks on the floor. A mistake? We all make them, and we all have to say we are sorry. But we all don't have to attack each other, because at the end of the day, that is all we may have to do to each other and get nothing done. I am suggesting to you this: Mistakes may have been made by me, and I briefly want to let you know the issues that are before the Ethics Committee as relates to three subjects. And I will be brief. Some 20 years ago, I was in the Dominican Republic. I got a call from a long and dear friend of mine to visit this place called Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, where he had some dream of making this a resort. I didn't want to go. My wife said friendship dictated it. I got there and he was telling me about the dream. And I was impressed with his dream, but I said, what the heck has that got to do with me? Well, he says, they want to start, they want to build some beach houses here, and there is the sand and there is the beach, and I think it's a good deal. I said, it may be a good deal for you, but I really don't need a beach house and I can't afford it. And, besides, there is no house here. He says, no, we haven't built them yet. So I said, look, Ted, I don't have the time. By the time they showed me the renderings, and they told me that it would cost $82,000, I said I wish I had the $82,000. Good-bye. He says, no, if you have got $28,000, then all they have to do is take the rentals from it and reduce the mortgages, and you can only use it for 9 months, but ultimately it would be yours. I said, we can talk. I refinanced my house. We had no savings, no nothing, and, quite frankly, I relied on the reputation, as I did then and will now, of a guy whose reputation is untouched. Gradually the mortgage was coming down. I had received no financial statement. I could not break the culture in terms of Dominican and Spanish. I received no money, no check. Never did. But let's face it, I should have known. And after this hit the fan, I had my lawyer to go. He broke the balance and found out the fact that they didn't give out statements. Some years there was no statement. There was a half a dozen statements that we have accumulated. And then we took the balance, added to the mortgage of about $50,000, another $20,000 for another room. All of the reports would indicate that Rangel had a cash cow. Rangel got some money. No. What happened was anybody who had a villa, whatever money they got, the hotel first would take their cut. Then they would take out taxes, they would take out renovations, they would take out hurricane expenses, they would take out interest, they would take out everything. At the end of the thing, whether your place was used or not used, they would equally distribute the money. Some years it was $5,000. Some years it was nothing. How many times did I use it in the nine weeks? I wish I had used it for nine weeks. I never spent nine days down there. I have never spent more than four days in any one year, and in several years I never was able to get there at all. What has this got to do with the charges and the allegations? The charges and the allegation is how did he get rid of the mortgage? And the mortgage is that if I had done what I was supposed to have done, I would have found some way to find our how the allocation was there. Because legally and theoretically, the reduction of the mortgage meant income was coming somewhere, even if I didn't receive it. And I should have found that out because, at the end of the day, my accountant tells me after 20 years of research there would be no tax liability because of the deduction of the foreign tax, which was higher, because I was an American and because of depreciation. They changed it and said that because I sold the house that I was raised in that it did not allow me to take full credit that I could have done for that year. It means, at the end of the day, my accountant believes that I would be liable for $5,000. Do I take that lightly? No. As a Member of Congress, as a public servant, I should have a higher standard than most people. Whether I owed $5,000 or $5 million, it was wrong, but it certainly doesn't mean that I should be kicked out of the House and say that I caused disservice to this august body. I just hope none of you have ever made mistakes on your income taxes, because what I have done is I've gone back 20 years and I've waived all statutes, and I'm prepared to pay whatever price there is, and I hope that at the end of the day that will take care of that. That's the roughest one. The second thing is that one would have you to believe that I received some type of a gift in housing, because the headline is that Rangel had four subsidized apartments in New York. The fact that there is no law in having four subsidized apartments in New York, of course, is no account to anybody. I don't have four apartments. Briefly, what happened is that, 20 years ago, the kids were grown. We got tired of paying the bills on our house and getting into oil and doing all those things. My wife said let's move to an apartment. I'd spent all of my life on 32nd Street and Lenox Avenue. She finds a place on 35th and Lenox Avenue. I refused to leave Harlem then as I do now, and there was a place called Lenox Terrace, where we now live, that had so many vacancies. At that time 20 years ago, there weren't a whole lot of people who could afford not to live in Harlem, who were rushing to get into Harlem. Crime was really high. There were a lot of vacancies there, but they did have a doorman, and I felt since I was away from home so much that it might provide some security to my wife. In that house, people knowing that Alma would want to leave, there was a popular reverend, a pastor, and he, too, was leaving Harlem and was leaving an apartment that he had. I did not know and did not care that the apartment that he managed to get for us actually had been two apartments. He had it as one apartment. I got a lease for one apartment. I paid rent for one apartment. There's no way in the world I can imagine what it looked like when it was two apartments, and I don't care what the architect says. Under the law, that is one apartment. Ten years after I was in the apartment, my wife was notified by the landlord--incidentally, he was the one who was supposed to give me the gift. I wouldn't know what he looks like. I've never met him in my life or his agent, but he was saying that there was a studio apartment next to mine, and did I have any interest in it. They were really pushing apartments then. My wife says she didn't see any need for it. I said, ``Well, let's talk about this, Alma. You don't want my political friends to come here and talk in the living room. You get so tired of me doing my work, you know, while you're doing something else. You don't want any smoke in here. I can't have a card game here. Let's take a look at this one room apartment.'' I took it, and I can tell you that it saved my marriage. There's not a day when I'm home that I don't spend some time just sitting there. Sometimes it's reading. Sometimes it's studying. Sometimes the gang comes. Sometimes we raise a lot of devil. I pay the maximum rent for what cannot be described physically as any more than two apartments, but we can get two--the so-called fourth and third apartments. It's hard for me to admit to those of you who have a lot of political problems that, for most all of my political life in Congress, I've never picked up the phone to ask anybody to give me any money because I'd never really had any problems. I did have a guy in Washington that would give a fund-raiser--one in Washington and one in New York--but it's kind of hard, when you're not challenged, to ask for money, but I guess it was my personality or my seniority on the Ways and Means Committee, one or the other. Somehow funds were coming in, so I hired somebody. We worked down at the political club. The money was coming in. He said he needed a little help. He thought that I should open up a headquarters. Well, I don't agree in spending a lot of money, but he said he'd heard that the Lenox Terrace, where I lived, had people living in apartments that were converted but that were not commercial for running McDonald's and other business. I said, ``Do what you want. We can afford to do it.'' They got this apartment. A staff of two became a staff of three, four and five, and I guess the Republican campaign committee can tell you how successful I've been. It reached the point where they said, ``Look, Congressman. We've got too many people. There's no air conditioning here. We need more space. Things are going well. You're sending out a lot of checks. We will not renew the lease.'' This is before what happened in the paper. I said, ``Do what you have to do.'' They spoke with the landlord and negotiated: an apartment with him for a larger staff, office accommodations in a place that was double the rent, much larger, right there in the Lenox Terrace, which means that everyone knew what they were doing and what other people were doing. We decided it would be best just to leave the Lenox Terrace in lieu of what happened because it was just too awkward. That ends, once and for all, the whole idea of a gift. I paid the maximum rent. If I'd decided that because I wanted to please somebody that I should look for a marketplace rent, I would not know where to go, but I sure am not going to give the landlord what I think is a higher rent because I want to please somebody as to what is market rent, but if I'd left the apartment because of some foolish, stupid reason, the landlord would've come in, slapped some paint on it and doubled the rent. So, therefore, it would not be of any assistance to somebody of a lesser income. Whatever doubts you may have, which I don't see how--I told somebody show me the gift, and I'll walk away. Leave it to the bipartisan Ethics Committee to decide. It's not only the right and fair thing do. It's the only thing to do. The last point gives me a little more difficulty. They are saying that I may have used my stationery to solicit funds for the City College of New York for an institution that the board of trustees has named the Charles Rangel Public School for Public Service. I have to let you know that, on November 30, 1950, I was shot and left for dead in Korea, and I came home in '52. I had more medals, more self-esteem than any guy 22 years old should have. The only time it was shattered is when I went for a job and found out that nobody wanted heroes, that nobody wanted infantry men and that nobody wanted the expertise that I enjoyed in directing fire on the enemy to 18 155- millimeter Howitzers at 75 shell bombs on the enemy. So, it was clear that I not only was unemployed but that I was unemployable. It was clear in one day when I had my truck full of stuff on the street in the Garment Center that I joined the Army to avoid. The rain came; the boxes were scattered all over, and the policeman was cursing me out for blocking traffic. Sergeant Rangel was being cursed out on a public street. I dropped everything. I went to the VA, and I said, ``I need some help.'' They told me that because I had to go back to high school that I couldn't go to college. I raised so much hell. Finally, because of the GI Bill--I was a high school dropout--I got the training to become a Member of Congress, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and become its chairman. Am I overzealous about education? You bet your life. Do I go everywhere and tell businesspeople that you owe it to this country to assist us in making certain that Americans can produce, that we shouldn't be embarrassed of having to import people here who have knowledge in science and all of that? I want America to be as strong as it can be, and I'm going to do everything legally, morally and ethically possible to make certain that we support our young people and expose them to education. This CCNY, this City College of New York, has excelled. Colin Powell and so many people had dreams and have succeeded. All I was saying is that we have thousands of Barack Obamas in the Black community. We have so few who are willing to get involved in public service. They go to Wall Street. They make their money and they're bright. What I want to do is to encourage minorities and be able to say, ``Hey, you don't have to run for public office, but please understand the importance of public service.'' They said, ``There should be a school for you to do that.'' I said, ``Well, let's get a school. Let's do it.'' They said, ``Let's do it.'' Two, three days ago, I heard Secretary Rice talking to some group, and she was saying that she goes to so many countries and that she doesn't see people in the Foreign Service who look like her. Those who look like the gorgeous mosaic of America is not abroad. But she said, ``Thanks to Congressman Rangel, we have worked out a program where we go to the historically Black colleges where we train these people there. When they graduate, they not only have degrees, but they are members of the Foreign Service, and they learn to understand the great contribution they can make to this country.'' That was what I wanted to do. I made certain that, in this letter, I did not ask for any public funds or for any kind of funds at all, but they said, because they knew that the reason I wanted these not-for-profit people, these private people, to take a look and see whether they could support this not-for-profit public college, there may have been some stretch in the line because it was on stationery. Had I not had the seal that had the Capitol, it would have been all right. I'm glad this happened because I'm going to find some way to do what I do, and I'm going to do it the way the Ethics Committee says to do it, but I hope I can get some of you to encourage the private sector to do what our government is not doing. Education is too important to leave to the local and State schools. Corporations have an obligations to help us to educate our people. Condoleezza Rice said it, and I truly know that you believe a failure to educate our young people is a threat to our national security. If for whatever reason the Federal Government is not doing it, everyone ought to do their bit. So, whatever the Ethics Committee says to do, we have to do. Finally, I've changed my mind in bringing to your attention how they beat up on Mr. Boehner on the Tim Russert show: where he's been, how he got there and what he violated. At the end of the day, I think I'm trying to make certain that my presentation ends up on as positive a note as I can because of my longtime respect for my friend. Mr. Boehner said it was a big mistake and I regret it. I shouldn't have done it. It was an old practice in the House that had gone on for a long time. Well, I think he knows what I'm talking about. If you made a mistake, I may have made a mistake. I'll tell you one thing. The judgment of our mistakes should not be to attack each other. It should not be to defame us in front of our family and friends. Whatever difference that we had with each other, that's why we have the Ethics Committee. So, at the end of the day, that's how it's going to be resolved. We don't have that many issues that we've got to work with, perhaps, in a bipartisan way. Whatever we have to do because of the election we have to do, and I don't expect this short talk is going to change anything, but I do hope there is one thing that we keep in mind: that for those of us who are going to be here next year with a new administration, the last thing we have to do is to threaten each other politically and destroy the friendships and the camaraderie that we have worked so hard to try to restore. I conclude by letting you know that some of you old-timers may know a guy named Guy Vander Jagt. Guy Vander Jagt was chairperson of the Republican Campaign Committee. Could he speak? Could he raise money? Was he partisan? Guy Vander Jagt was my friend. Guy Vander Jagt would come to my fund-raisers. I would stop over to his. His wife and my wife are the best of friends. Even though Guy Vander Jagt is gone, they asked me to speak in the Congress to say how he was loved by both sides. Was he a good Republican? Was he fierce? Was he eloquent? Was he liked? Yes. I don't think I'll live long enough to see the days when we'll have that type of relationship. The little we do have let's not destroy. We have a big responsibility to our Nation and to this Congress. I know in my heart that my friend John Boehner does not mean truly what he has said, and whoever has put him in the position where he felt that he had to say it, hey, it's campaign time. I understand it. It has to stop somewhere before we leave here. I hope it can stop now. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Will you yield just on that one point?

Mr. RANGEL. Rent-subsidized. If you lived a million years you could not tell where one subsidy came from. Stabilization and subsidies are entirely two different things. There is no subsidy involved. It's a cap.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of our own; my friend and colleague, the Honorable Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones who represented the 11th congressional district of Ohio for five terms. Sadly she passed away at the young age of 59 on August 20, 2008 from an aneurysm in her brain. She is survived by her son, Mervyn L. Jones II, and her sister Barbara Walker. Congresswoman Tubbs Jones truly was a pioneer. She became the first African-American woman to chair the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 110th Congress and the first African-American woman to serve on the Committee on Ways and Means in the 108th Congress where she played an important role on the health subcommittee. She fought tirelessly for wealth building and economic development, access and delivery of health care, and quality education for all. The Congresswoman had the ability to remain grounded and always continued to work and include the interests of her constituents when dealing with issues. It was an honor and a privilege to have worked directly with her on the Committee on Ways and Means. On the Health Subcommittee she focused on End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), disparities and she played an important role in the SCHIP debate. She was a strong supporter of tax provisions designed to encourage the rehabilitation of historic, and other real property, and to encourage community development. Despite her constituency that is mainly unionized, she supported the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and other free-trade agreements as long as they met the International Labor Organizations Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Right to Work. She will be missed by members on both sides of the aisle and by staff on the hill who admired and enjoyed working with her as well. We who knew and worked with her will surely be among many who will miss her smile, her tenacity, and her infectious love of life. She leaves us an inspirational legacy, a memorable record of public service and a charge to keep fighting for what is right and just. She will forever be in our hearts.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Kaptur, for giving me this courtesy and this opportunity. I was a very long and dear friend of Louis Stokes. I loved him, I worked with him, and when he decided that he was going to retire, I did everything that I could to share with him how much he would be missed by his country and by this Congress. But when he had me to meet in Cleveland with Stephanie, I was convinced that--some of you may have met people that you know that it really wouldn't make any difference what they decided to do. Their intellect, their drive, their personality would make them successful, and especially for a woman and an African American woman in Ohio or any other part of the United States, to be a prosecutor, to be a judge and then to come to the Congress, it had to be extraordinary, the same way Harriet Beecher Stowe, Fannie Lou Hamer, people of extreme resilience. And so from then, she said that she wanted to get on the Ways and Means Committee, and boy, the Ways and Means Committee has never been the same since she's joined with us. She would come to the meeting where we would be fighting and arguing and, with a smile, light it up. But that didn't prevent her from getting involved in the argument and many times on a different side of the Chair. But at the end of the day, I knew that once she was convinced that was the way the committee was going, you couldn't stop Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I say in conclusion, one of the reasons that so many of you must like her, love her is because I don't remember that many complaints that she had about the Chair not responding to the needs of her constituents, especially when the housing market fell in Cleveland. But so many of you that she brought to the chairman of this committee, that was not on the committee, because you had convinced her that it was important to your community, and she, as a person on that committee, thought we should look into it, and there was never but never a frivolous request. Every time she came she had done so much homework that I just know that the gap that she leaves in my heart and our committee will never be filled by anyone else. I thank you for this opportunity of sharing.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Committee, CPSC, Reform Act, introduced by Representative Bobby L. Rush on November 1, 2007. The passage and enactment of the CPSC Reform Act is necessary to ensure our children's safety from unsafe products that threaten their health and well-being. Unfortunately, the year of 2007 is known as a Year of Recall, with one million toys recalled from the American market. The danger that these recalled toys posed to our children is frightening. Children suffered the threat of unnecessary deaths and injuries from contact with contaminated and poisoned toys and products. Lead, phthalate and other dangerous chemicals are widely used in products, creating a health threat for our young children and their parents. This threat can be and must be prevented. By demanding that toy manufacturers stop using deadly chemicals and ensuring safety with legislative and governmental assistance, we can save our kids. The American government has the ability to protect our children and prevent future tragedies. The CPSC Reform Act proposes a strengthening of the authority of the Government to act to ensure safety of American citizens. I strongly support the Reform Act. The enactment of this important bill shall not be delayed. With the holiday season coming soon, a new flow of toys and products will arrive and we need to have greater assurance of their safety. The legislation can prevent the risk, protecting our vulnerable children. We must act now, refusing any hazardous chemicals in products of our children. Summary as of March 6, 2008--Passed Senate Amended CPSC Reform Act--(Sec. 3) Amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to authorize appropriations: (1) to carry out the Act and any other provision of law the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is authorized or directed to carry out; (2) for the office of Inspector General; (3) to make capital improvements to the research, development, and testing facility of the CPSC; and (4) for research into safety issues related to the use of nanotechnology in consumer products. (Sec. 4) Requires the CPSC, subject to the availability of appropriations, to increase by at least 500 the number of its full-time employees and by at least 50 the number of its port-of-entry and overseas production facility inspectors. Requires the CPSC to develop and implement a professional career development program. Requires the CPSC to develop standards for training product safety inspectors and technical staff employed by the CPSC. (Sec. 5) Urges the President to nominate members to fill any vacancy in CPSC membership as expeditiously as practicable. Removes a provision limiting the funding for the number of CPSC Commissioners to no more than three. (Sec. 6) Adds CPSC annual, semiannual, and other regular periodic reports to the list of reports required to be submitted indefinitely under the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995. (Sec. 7) Modifies provisions concerning the public disclosure of information regarding a consumer product where disclosure will permit the public to ascertain readily the identity of the manufacturer or private labeler, including decreasing some waiting periods before the CPSC may disclose information and providing for expedited court actions. Requires the CPSC to maintain on its website a publicly available, searchable database that includes any reports received by the CPSC of injuries, illness, death, or risk of such injury, illness, or death related to the use of consumer products received by the CPSC from consumers, government agencies, and nongovernmental sources other than information provided to the CPSC by manufacturers, private labelers, or retailers. Allows inclusion in the database of comments by manufacturers, labelers, or retailers. (Sec. 8) Modifies procedures for promulgating consumer product safety rules under the Consumer Product Safety Act or the Flammable Fabrics Act or regulations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Allows, under the Consumer Product Safety Act, submission of an existing standard or portion of a standard as a proposed consumer product safety standard. Removes provisions providing that an action for judicial review of a flammability standard or regulation survives any change in the persons occupying the office of CPSC commissioner or any vacancy in such office. (Sec. 9) Expands the authority of the CPSC to prohibit the stockpiling of a product (for the purpose of circumventing a consumer product safety rule) to which a consumer product safety rule applies. (Sec. 10) Requires third party laboratory testing (and related certification) of certain products for use by, or care of, a child seven or younger that are subject to a consumer product safety standard or a rule. Requires, if an advertisement, label, or package contains a reference to a consumer product safety standard, that there be a statement regarding whether the product meets all requirements of that standard. Requires the CPSC, with regard to consumer products in general and children's products in particular, to: (1) establish protocols and standards regarding certification or continuing guarantees of compliance; and (2) provide for accreditation of the third party laboratories. Prohibits importation of children's products lacking certification. Authorizes the CPSC, by rule, to extend to other consumer products (or to classes or categories of consumer products) a requirement that a product's manufacturer subject to a consumer product safety standard certify that the product conforms to the standard or is not a banned hazardous product. Allows the CPSC, in establishing standards for such third party laboratories, to consider standards and protocols by independent standard-setting organizations. Requires that the final standard for certification incorporate the most current scientific and technological standards and techniques. (Sec. 11) Amends the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to require, when a product's packaging or retail display must include a choking warning (as with balloons, small balls, or marbles), that associated advertising that provides a direct means of purchase (including on Internet sites or in catalogs or other distributed materials) also bear the warning. Treats that requirement as a consumer product safety standard. Requires the manufacturer of a children's product or other consumer product to place distinguishing marks on the product or its packaging that will enable the ultimate purchaser to ascertain the manufacturer, production time period, and cohort of production. (Sec. 12) Requires each manufacturer of a consumer product or other product or substance over which the CPSC has jurisdiction under any Act (except for motor vehicle equipment) to notify the CPSC of certain substantial product hazards. (Current law requires such notification only regarding a consumer product, but makes no reference to other products or substances over which the CPSC has jurisdiction.) (Sec. 13) Modifies requirements regarding action plans of manufacturers, distributors, or retailers to deal with products that present a substantial hazard. (Sec. 14) Requires manufacturers and their subcontractors, importers, retailers, or distributors of a product or substance to identify each other upon CPSC request. (Sec. 15) Makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, manufacture, distribute, or import any product or substance regulated under any Act enforced by the CPSC that is not in conformity with an applicable consumer product safety standard, is subject to voluntary corrective action, is subject to an order issued under provisions relating to imminent hazards or substantial product standards, or has been designated a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Authorizes the CPSC, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to prohibit the export of a product or substance that is: (1) not in conformity with applicable CPSC requirements and does not violate applicable safety standards established by the importing country; (2) subject to an order issued under provisions relating to imminent hazards or substantial product standards, or has been designated a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act; or (3) subject to voluntary corrective action taken by the manufacturer, subject to exception. Prohibits selling, offering for sale, distributing, or importing any consumer product bearing a registered safety certification mark owned by an accredited conformity assessment body if use of the mark is (or should have been) known to be unauthorized. Prohibits exercising or attempting to exercise undue influence on a third party laboratory. (Sec. 16) Increases the maximum civil penalties under the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and the Flammable Fabrics Act. Requires a finding of aggravated circumstances in order to impose a civil penalty over $10 million. Modifies criminal penalties under those Acts. Adds mitigation of undue adverse economic impacts on small businesses to the factors to be considered in determining the amount of civil penalties. (Sec. 17) Prohibits changing, by rule or regulation (or by reference in any preamble, statement of policy, executive branch statements, or other matter associated with the publication of any such rule or regulation), provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Flammable Fabrics Act, and the Poison Packaging Prevention Act of 1970 that establish the extent to which those Acts preempt or otherwise affect any other federal, state, or local law, any rule or regulation, or any state cause of action. (Sec. 18) Authorizes the CPSC to make certain information obtained by the CPSC available to any federal, state, local, or foreign government agency, provided there is an agreement that the information will be maintained in confidence and used only for law enforcement or consumer protection. (Sec. 19) Authorizes the CPSC, by rule, to require the posting of an escrow, proof of insurance, or security by manufacturers, distributors, or persons who have committed multiple significant violations of any CPSC-enforced Act in an amount sufficient to cover recall or holding and destruction costs. (Sec. 20) Allows states to bring actions to enforce any Act enforced by the CPSC, except during the pendency of an action brought by the CPSC. Regulates the use of information by private counsel retained to assist a state. (Sec. 21) Creates protections for public and private sector whistle-blowers. Allows a court to grant all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including injunctive relief, compensatory damages, reinstatement, back pay (with interest), compensation for any special damages, litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees. (Sec. 22) Treats any children's product designed or intended for use by, or care of, a child seven or younger that contains lead over a specified level as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Excludes components that are not accessible to a child and will not become physically exposed through normal and reasonably foreseeable product use and abuse. Prohibits considering paint, coatings, or electroplating to be a barrier that would render lead in the substrate inaccessible to a child. Allows the CPSC to exclude lead crystal. Requires the CPSC, if it determines it is not feasible for electronic devices, including batteries, to comply with that requirement, to issue standards and establish a schedule for full compliance. Allows the CPSC to establish more stringent levels than those specified in this Act. Lowers the lead threshold at which paint becomes a banned hazardous product. (Sec. 23) Requires the CPSC to study the feasibility of establishing a measurement standard based on a units-of-mass- per-area standard that is statistically comparable to the parts-per-million measurement standard now used in laboratory analysis. (Sec. 24) Requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study disparities in the risks and incidence of preventable injuries and deaths among minority children related to products intended for use by children. Requires a report to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 25) Amends the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 to prohibit construing provisions relating to household substance special packaging to protect children to require a cost-benefit analysis in connection with the establishment of a standard. (Sec. 26) Requires the CPSC's Inspector General to conduct reviews and audits of implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Act by the CPSC and report annually to the CPSC, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Requires the Inspector General to review CPSC employee complaints about failures of other employees to properly enforce rules or regulations of any Act enforced by the CPSC and the process by which corrective action plans are negotiated with such employees and report to the CPSC and such committees. Requires the Inspector General to review whether, and to what extent, there have been unauthorized and unlawful disclosures of information by CPSC Members, officers, or employees to CPSC-regulated persons that are not authorized to receive such information and report to the CPSC and such committees. (Sec. 27) Requires the CPSC to establish and maintain: (1) on its home page a direct link to the CPSC's Office of Inspector General; and (2) on the home page of its Inspector General website a mechanism by which individuals may anonymously report cases of waste, fraud, or abuse regarding the CPSC. (Sec. 28) Establishes, as a consumer product safety rule, a requirement that each portable gasoline container conform to the child-resistance requirements in a specified standard issued by ASTM International. (Sec. 29) Considers a specified ASTM-International standard on toy safety to be a consumer product safety rule. (Sec. 30) Requires the CPSC, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to establish as a mandatory consumer product safety standard a specified American National Standard for four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles developed by the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America. Makes it unlawful for any manufacturer or distributor to import or distribute any new all-terrain vehicle unless: (1) the vehicle complies with the standard, is subject to an all-terrain vehicle action plan, and bears a label certifying such compliance and certain other information; and (2) the manufacturer or distributor is in compliance with the action plan. Prohibits the importation of new three-wheeled all-terrain vehicles until a mandatory consumer product safety rule applicable to three-wheeled all-terrain vehicles is in effect. Requires the Comptroller General to study the utility, recreational, and other benefits of certain all-terrain vehicles and the costs associated with accidents and injuries involving all-terrain vehicles. (Sec. 31) Requires, notwithstanding specified provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 or any amendment by the American National Standards Institute and Underwriters Laboratories of specified standards, that all automatic residential garage door operators that directly drive the door in the closing direction include an external secondary entrapment protection device that does not require contact with a person or object for the garage door to reverse. Provides for an exception, requires the CPSC to review and if necessary revise its standard, and eliminates the exception if the revised standard adopts the requirement of the first sentence of this paragraph. (Sec. 32) Sets a deadline for the CPSC to issue a final rule in a specified proceeding relating to portable generators. Requires the CPSC to report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding charcoal briquettes. (Sec. 33) Sets a deadline for the CPSC to issue a final rule mandating general safety standards for cigarette lighters in specified proceedings. (Sec. 34) Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act--Requires the CPSC to assess the effectiveness of any voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable products for children under five years of age and promulgate consumer product safety rules that are the same or more stringent than the voluntary standards. Makes it unlawful for any commercial user (including, but not limited to hotels, motels, or similar transient lodging facilities and day care centers) to manufacture, sell, lease, or otherwise place in the stream of commerce any new or used crib, including a portable crib and a crib-pen, that is not in compliance with the mandatory rule. Requires the CPSC to promulgate final consumer product safety rules that require manufacturers of durable products for children under five years to: (1) provide consumers with postage-paid consumer registration forms with each such product and maintain the submitted information in order to improve recall effectiveness; and (2) permanently label the product with information about the manufacturer and product. Requires the CPSC to study, and report to Congress on, the effectiveness of such rules in facilitating product recalls. Allows a manufacturer of such durable products to use a recall notification technology in lieu of such registration forms if the CPSC finds that the technology is at least as effective as the forms. Requires the CPSC to review recall notification technology and report to Congress. (Sec. 35) Repeals provisions allowing the CPSC to regulate a product under the Consumer Product Safety Act (if the product has a risk of injury which could be reduced to a sufficient extent by action under the under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, or the Flammable Fabrics Act) only if the CPSC by rule finds that it is in the public interest to do so. (Sec. 36) Requires the CPSC to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Homeland Security for the assignment by the Commission of at least one full-time equivalent personnel to work at the National Targeting Center of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to identify products intended for importation that pose a high risk to consumer safety. Allows the CPSC to waive that requirement if it determines that the assignment would not improve effectiveness in identifying such products before importation. (Sec. 37) Requires the CPSC to develop a risk assessment methodology for identification of shipments of consumer products that are intended for import and would be refused admission under specified provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act, including, as far as practicable, using the International Trade Data System (ITDS) to evaluate and assess information before shipments enter U.S. customs territory. Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 38) Requires the CPSC to publish a list of product defects that constitute a substantial product hazard. Replaces provisions requiring the exportation (or, on application, destruction) of imports refused admission with provisions requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to destroy any product refused admission unless the product is exported within a specified period after refusal. Requires (currently, allows) the CPSC, by rule, to condition importation of a consumer product on the manufacturer's compliance with certain inspection and record keeping requirements. Requires (currently, allows) the CPSC to provide information to other federal agencies with which it is cooperating under an existing permanent surveillance program to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products. Prohibits construing this section to prevent the Secretary of Homeland Security from prohibiting entry or directing the destruction or export of a consumer product under any other provision of law. Replaces all references to the Secretary of the Treasury in provisions relating to imported products with references to the Secretary of Homeland Security. (Sec. 39) Requires the CPSC to: (1) establish and maintain a database with information about violations of consumer product safety rules, including related statements by manufacturers or suppliers; and (2) make the database available on a real-time basis to the Commissioner responsible for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security to be used to determine whether a container being imported contains consumer products that are in violation of a consumer product safety standard and whether action should be taken under imported products provisions. Prohibits other disclosure of the information, except for law enforcement or national security. Prohibits the CPSC and the Commissioner responsible for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security from imposing a civil or criminal penalty solely on the basis of information from the database. Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 40) Treats any children's toy or child care article that contains any combination of specified phthalates as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Prohibits certain alternatives to those phthalates. Allows certain related state or local laws. (Sec. 41) Requires the CPSC to establish a standard for equestrian helmets. (Sec. 42) Authorizes the CPSC, if it finds that a product presents a substantial hazard, and that certain actions under existing provisions are in the public interest, to order a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer to distribute notice of the actions to the public. Specifies the required contents of the notice. Allows the CPSC to require that a notice be distributed in a language other than English if the CPSC determines that doing so is necessary to adequately protect the public. Requires the CPSC to make certain information available to the public as the information becomes available to the CPSC, including progress reports and incident updates, statistics regarding injuries and deaths, and certain communications from consumers to the CPSC. (Sec. 43) Requires the Comptroller General to: (1) assess the effectiveness of the authorities and provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act in preventing unsafe consumer products from entering U.S. customs territory; (2) develop a plan to improve effectiveness; and (3) report to Congress regarding inspection of foreign manufacturing plants by the CPSC and requiring foreign manufacturers to consent to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts regarding CPSC enforcement actions. (Sec. 44) Bans importation of toys manufactured by companies that have shown a persistent pattern substantial product hazards or that present a risk of injury to the public of such a magnitude that the CPSC has determined that a permanent ban on all toys manufactured by such company is equitably justified. Requires a related annual report to Congress. (Sec. 45) Requires the CPSC to conduct a study on the use of formaldehyde in the manufacture of textile and apparel articles, or in any component of such articles, to identify any risks to consumers.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today because every so often, an everyday person of not-so-everyday valor risks personal injury and livelihood--to little fanfare--for the good of humanity. Today, we provide that deserved fanfare to one of those unsung heroes, Irena Sendler, a woman of such rock-steady courage that she fearlessly saved lives in the face of Nazi opposition. The protection of even one life is immeasurably valuable, but Ms. Sendler rescued over 2,500 of them, mostly Jewish children languishing in Poland's Warsaw ghetto during the Holocaust. Ms. Sendler died this past May at 98, but that giving spirit remains a shining exemplar of what humanity can accomplish, of what we all aspire to emulate. Such selflessness is not easy. She was arrested, tortured, and sentenced to death by the Gestapo for her heroic acts, ferrying children from run-down ghettos that had left them vulnerable to disease, execution, and deportation to concentration camps. She escaped from prison and continued to do her good--and remarkably dangerous-- works. These are the glowing stories that, buried in the overwhelmingly horrific and dark period in history that was the Holocaust, remind us that although there can be unspeakable evil, we are always capable of combating it with good. Her death is a loss of a compassionate and awe-inspiring human being for this world, but her story is immortal. May it continue to warm our hearts and edify our lives.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a point of personal privilege.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I promise you, this will not take anywhere near 1 hour. I was advised last night and assured this morning that the minority intended to bring up a resolution recommending that I be censured or that my conduct as reported in The New York Times would be declared that I was a discredit to this House. There is no one in this House that is more thick-skinned than I am in terms of playing politics, but playing with someone's reputation, especially someone that has felt so honored to serve in this House, I really think goes a step beyond that. In reading the allegations as to where my campaign headquarters was located or what the rent should have been, I have never felt more secure that I violated no law and no spirit of the law. But in order to make certain, to make certain that there is no cloud over my conduct in New York, I asked the Ethics Committee to look into it, to investigate, to do whatever is necessary to bring this to the House and to bring it to my family and friends. In addition to that, the same newspaper reported that I was overly aggressive in trying to raise funds in order to encourage moneys to go to a local college that encouraged minorities and others to get involved in public service. And even though there was no request for money, the mere fact that there was a cloud involved in the accusation by the newspapers, even though there have been more newspaper articles correcting it than anything else, I referred that to the Ethics Committee. Showing that I do want this to be sincerely investigated, I am asking the minority to allow me to join in with them in this resolution to say this matter should be cleared up. But there is no need, even for mean- spirited people in the minority, to say that I am a discredit to the United States Congress, based on a newspaper story, and, worse than that, there is no reason why Republicans or Democrats should do this to each other based on any newspaper story. So, I don't know the parliamentary inquiry, and, as most of you suspected, most of my friends say, Rangel, the less you say the better, get out of the headlines, and do all of these things. And this is normally what I recommend to newer Members: just leave it alone, it will go away. But my reputation won't, and I could not really appreciate if this body was to resolve that I bring dishonor to this wonderful House and this wonderful country, or that I be censured. So I make an appeal to the minority; let me join in with you with the request. Let me say if there is any doubt about anything, I would feel better if it went to the Ethics Committee. I have requested that it go to the Ethics Committee. Let us join in. But with not one scintilla of any evidence, other than a newspaper story, I think fairness would say, for God's sake, don't make politics out of a person's reputation. Strike out ``discredit,'' strike out ``censure,'' and put in there whatever the heck the Ethics Committee recommends. I join with them. I ask you to consider that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record a July 15, 2008 New York Carib News Op-Ed entitled: ``CARICOM Summit on Economic Integration.'' One issue that was made very clear as a result of the CARICOM Conference in New York is that there is a call for economic and political unity among the CARICOM states. With dozens of small economies that are similar in makeup and have many of the same goals, it is clear that the need for the Caribbean to form a Single Market Economy would eliminate many barriers to growth in the region. The Op-Ed speaks to the benefits that this Single Market Economy would have for the growth of the Caribbean and that ``the sooner the roadblocks are removed the better it would be for the region as a whole.'' The Caribbean can possibly experience the growth that Europe continues to experience since their unification. But unity will not be easy as we are dealing with issues of sovereignty and especially fear of an influx of unemployed migrants and the free movement of criminal networks. CARICOM Summit on Economic Integration When Caribbean leaders met recently in New York and Antigua, the effects which democracy and the free and fair expression of the will of the electorate in various Caricom countries in recent months were quite evident. Several new faces were around the tables since the advent of the year 2007, with new leaders making their presence felt in one way or another in the council of the Caribbean Community. St. Lucia, the Bahamas, Jamaica and Belize have all changed governments while Trinidad and Tobago and its ruling People's National Movement bucked what appeared to be a trend in the wind of change that swept out governments, some with good records in office. That change was bound to affect the pace of movement towards the establishment of the Single Economy, a vital step in the process towards regional economic integration. After all, new leaders could be expected to get up to speed on such a vital step. By any measure, the road to the Caribbean Single Market and Economy is being traveled with less enthusiasm and fanfare than two to three years ago. Part of that hard and regrettable fact of life can be attributed to the departure of two enthusiastic advocates of regional togetherness, P.J. Patterson of Jamaica and Owen Seymour Arthur of Barbados. They served the region well but couldn't be expected to continue forever. That situation may explain the recent criticism level by Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent & the Grenadines who complained that the implementation of the CSME was taking a back seat to other things. So that's why it made sense for the leaders at their meeting in Antigua last week to decide to meet before the end of the year to take stock of the CSME. ``The meeting will review the status of the preparation for the Strategic Plan for Regional Development, Member-States' readiness for the implementation of the Single Economy, as well as the role of stakeholders in the implementation of various elements of the CSME,'' was the way the leaders put it in their joint communique issue after the summit. Although lacking in specifics, that statement spoke volumes about where the region stands when it comes to the CSME. It tells us that quite a lot of unfinished business remains to be resolved and it suggests that some countries may be stalling on going forward with the Single Economy. But the sooner the roadblocks are removed the better it would be for the region as a whole. One thing is clear: Caricom has fostered a sense of togetherness within the region. But the countries must be prepared to give up some of the things they hold dear for the good of the region. One of them is sovereignty. That's how Europe has achieved such progress. The problem is that far too many leaders and countries want to have their cake and eat it too. Without compromises and concessions we aren't going to move forward. Perhaps, the members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States should examine their own attitude to the CSME. Nevertheless, there were some crucial decisions made at the Antigua summit. One of them was the crucial support given to the creation of the Caribbean Public Health Agency that would help bring the various regional health institutions under a single set of operating procedures. It would boost oversight of the management of regional health programs. Another was the word on the Caricom passport and the movement of people throughout the region. Both Jamaica and Belize have now decided to begin issuing the Caricom passport by the end of the year. That step should reduce many of the hassles people encounter in moving from one territory to another and that's why it is vital for the member-states to put the machinery in place to ensure that the system is well- oiled so that ease of travel would become a reality and not the exception. A disappointing note was struck however when Caricom devoted only two lines to the question of the free movement of people within the community. The leaders sidestepped the question when they decided to ``review the implementation of the free movement of Caricom skilled nationals with a view to determining its ratification or mediation.'' That's a sure indication of further delay. There is an understandable level of apprehension about the impact of free movement on individual economies at a time of worries about the global economic picture, the food crisis, skyrocketing oil prices. There is also major worry about the increasing high level of crime. With the economies of the United States and Britain slowing down and the negative impact that it could have on the vital tourism industry in the Caribbean, countries fear they would be hurt by a declining tourism industry and a steady influx of job seekers from their neighbors. They are also deeply worried about the machinations of regional criminal networks that are far more sophisticated than the police and other security forces.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of one of my district's most important leaders, Dr. Barbara Ann Teer, who left this world on July 21, 2008. Dr. Teer was born on June 18, 1937 in East St. Louis, Illinois to a family of teachers and leaders dedicated to community development. After graduating from the University of Illinois with a degree in dance, she moved to New York City to pursue a career as a dancer, actress, and director. As a performer in New York City, she found work in such shows as 1961's Where's Daddy? and 1966's Kwamina. Dissatisfied with the options available to her as a black performer in a predominately hegemonic artistic field, she founded the National Black Theatre, NBT, so that African Americans could meet, share and discuss their creative ideas. She immersed herself in what became a forty year venture that would change the cultural landscape of the performing arts world. As a cultural visionary she believed in the fundamentals of self- love and spirituality. In 1983, her commitment to and vision of free expression led her to expand the NBT and to purchase a 64,000 square foot building on 125th Street and Fifth Avenue. The new building not only allowed her to house one of the largest New Sacred Yoruba Arts Collection in the Western Hemisphere, but through the artwork she was able to continue the objective of the NBT to provide a place of inspiration and self-expression through spirituality. With the National Black Theatre, Dr. Teer created an exceptional institution that to this day continues to inspire cultural appreciation and transformation, social change, freedom of expression, historic relevance, self-empowerment, and futuristic innovation. Dr. Teer dedicated her life to creating a platform that would allow people to experiment through trial and error so that they could achieve a spiritual aura that would allow them to fully express themselves through the performing arts. Through all her tremendous efforts and achievements, Dr. Teer has been duly honored, receiving countless awards and numerous Honorary Doctorate Degrees. Although Dr. Barabara Ann Teer has passed, her life's work will continue to affect those who are searching for a way to break free from a world that sometimes limits their ability to express their minds and souls. Dr. Barabara Ann Teer was a visionary, a cultural icon. She will be greatly missed, but not forgotten.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 5501) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes. I would first like to thank Honorable Howard L. Berman for introducing this important legislation. The devastation of the HIV/AIDS disease does not discriminate, and impacts the lives of us all. Recent reports from the United Nations state that more than thirty-three million people globally have been infected with HIV/AIDS. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to combating global infectious diseases, specifically HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis by providing funding for the prevention, education, testing, and treatment. I support and applaud the substantial funding that H.R. 5501 provides to fight infectious diseases around the world. I am happy to see that this bill authorizes $48 billion in spending over five years for AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The bill would also authorize operational research and health workforce strengthening initiatives, and would eliminate the ban on HIV positive visitors and otherwise qualified immigrants from entering the United States. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has erased decades of progress in improving the lives of families in the developing world and has claimed over 20 million lives since its inception. By supporting H.R. 5501, the U.S. government has taken another major step in keeping its commitment to the global AIDS response.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate Caribbean-American Heritage Month and the wonderful implications it has for how far this country has come. To have a month in which we solely celebrate the contributions of those who have been oppressed and were deemed unequal by the very country they helped to build is recognition by the Congress of the United States that this great country is better and brighter because of their presence. Caribbean-American Heritage Month has given us the opportunity as a nation to recognize the everyday heroes in the Caribbean community that bring their hope, joy, and immeasurable talents to America. When celebrating Caribbean-American Heritage Month in June we have the opportunity to more clearly illuminate the great economic disparities that are a reality in the Caribbean. The inception of this special month-long celebration has created an exclusive platform to zero in on Caribbean-specific issues like economic development, health, and education. Caribbean-American Heritage Month recognizes and celebrates the many wonderful people of Caribbean heritage who have gone unrecognized for their immense contributions to this wonderful country. For that, I salute Caribbean-American Heritage Month.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record a July 15, 2008 New York Carib News article entitled: `` CARICOM Heads Tourism Talk.'' The article speaks of the challenges that the tourism-based Caribbean economy is facing due to high oil prices and a ``17 percent cutback on airline services from the United States.'' Caribbean officials are meeting the challenge of protecting their most profitable industry by gearing up to market the Caribbean as a brand by ``looking at the Caribbean as a single space.'' There have also been talks of combining the regional civil aviation authorities. Increasingly, Caribbean officials are recognizing the need to unite some of their services in order to increase the viability of their tourism industry in the midst of rising oil prices. One of the discussions and outcomes of the successful New York CARICOM Conference was the possibility of Jet Blue, the popular discount airline, providing service to the Caribbean. With Jet Blue, the Caribbean can regain the much needed air service that is being lost due to high oil prices. CARICOM Heads Tourism Talk St John's, Antigua, CMC--Caribbean Community (CARICOM) leaders began deliberations focusing on the tourism sector that has been a key contributor to their countries' economies. There are concerns that recent global developments, such as the rising cost of fuel and changes in flight schedules by US-based airlines, could undermine the viability of an industry that provides thousands of jobs for Caribbean nationals. The leaders will hear special presentations by St. Lucia's Tourism Minister and Chairman of the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) Allan Chastenet and his Antigua and Barbuda counterpart, Harold Lovell, on efforts to make the sector more competitive in light of the new threats, including a 17 percent cutback in airline services from the United States, the region's main tourism market. Chastenet told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) that oil prices were expected to reach an estimated US$170 a barrel and that this could also be accompanied by a 20 per cent cut in capacity by the US airlines industry. ``Clearly, as the price of oil continues to increase, that may get more serious,'' he said. The CTO Chairman said that the presentation would again emphasize the need for branding the Caribbean, adding a ``brand is just not marketing, it is a promise''. ``Unfortunately we have not done that,'' he said, adding that the introduction of the satellite accounting system to measure the economic importance of the tourism industry to Caribbean countries was vital. ``Tourism is never reflected in national accounts and if something is not measurable you can't improve upon it,'' he said. ``We are going to do a presentation because we have now found funding to help the governments implement satellite accounting systems in each country.'' The leaders will also discuss the air transportation sector, with Chastenet indicating that the issue of establishing hubs to service the region would be on the agenda. ``Also, we would be looking at the Caribbean as a single space,'' he said, also noting that there is need to combine the various civil aviation authorities in the region. ``One has to consider whether we can achieve more by having one civil aviation authority that would be more cost effective and more prolific in what they are trying to achieve.'' Chastenet said the crisis now confronting the tourism industry has also shown that the operations of the regional airlines are not viable.``One of the things that all of our airlines are proving in this region is that they are not economically viable, so we know that the model we have been using doesn't work and I am really hoping that we really have functional cooperation. There should be at least a meeting a year in which the regional carriers are sitting down and trying to make sure that their schedules are coincided,'' he said. ``Why should a person have to leave the Bahamas and have to go the (United) States in order to come to the other parts of the Caribbean? ``Why can't that take place through Jamaica and then down into the Eastern Caribbean. It is ridiculous that Caribbean Airlines and LIAT don't even interlock. So those are the things that we will be bringing to the Heads' attention and basically saying this is now having a negative impact on our tourism arrivals. Host Prime Minister and CARICOM Chairman Baldwin Spencer said that increases in airfares and new airline charges were also contributing to the ``bleak perspectives for the region's tourism-driven economies''. He said that while he was encouraged by the efforts of the regional airline LIAT to fill the void created by the reduction in airlift by US air carriers, it was not, however, a viable proposition. ``International airlift is a present and critical problem. So, too, regional sea and air transportation for tourism and trade and personal and business travel,'' Spencer said.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an article from the New York Times published on July 8, 2008 titled ``After the Battle, Fighting the Bottle at Home.'' Alcohol abuse is rising among Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, many of them trying to deaden the repercussions of war and disorientation of home. The problem is particularly prevalent among those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Increasingly, these veterans are spilling into the criminal justice system. Their stories are similar: coming back from war with lost jobs, crushing debt and ruptured families. In May, House and Senate passed bills that would require the veteran's agency to expand substance-abuse screening and treatment for all veterans. However, this legislation does not provide immediate relief to veterans. For active duty service members, the military faces a shortage of substance-abuse providers on bases across the country, while the insurance plan, Tricare, makes it difficult for many reservists and their families to get treatment. Finding treatment programs that accept Tricare often ends in frustration and few residential rehabilitation programs have the accreditation required by the plan. An advocacy group, Veterans for America, found the demand for psychological help was so great, and the system so burdened, that soldiers often waited a month to be seen. The Pentagon's most recent survey of health-related behavior found that for the first time in more than 20 years, a quarter of the soldiers surveyed considered themselves heavy drinkers, defined as having 5 or more drinks at least once a week. Consequently, suicides have also reached a high in the Army last year in which alcohol or drugs were cited in 30 percent of the 115 cases, the Pentagon reported. Last January, a city court judge in Buffalo, Robert T. Russell, noticed a surge of recent veterans with substance-abuse and mental- health problems in the city's courtrooms. He created the Nation's first Veterans Court, where, instead of jail, veterans arrested for low-level crimes, mostly tied to alcohol or drugs, are enrolled in treatment. [From the New York Times, July 8, 2008] After the Battle, Fighting the Bottle at Home (By Lizette Alvarez) Most nights when Anthony Klecker, a former marine, finally slept, he found himself back on the battlefields of Iraq. He would awake in a panic, and struggle futilely to return to sleep. Days were scarcely better. Car alarms shattered his nerves. Flashbacks came unexpectedly, at the whiff of certain cleaning chemicals. Bar fights seemed unavoidable; he nearly attacked a man for not washing his hands in the bathroom. Desperate for sleep and relief, Mr. Klecker, 30, drank heavily. One morning, his parents found him in the driveway slumped over the wheel of his car, the door wide open, wipers scraping back and forth. Another time, they found him curled in a fetal position in his closet. Yet only after his drunken driving caused the death of a 16-year-old cheerleader did Mr. Klecker acknowledge the depth of his problem: His eight months at war had profoundly damaged his psyche. ``I was trying to be the tough marine I was trained to be-- not to talk about problems, not to cry,'' said Mr. Klecker, who has since been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder. ``I imprisoned myself in my own mind.'' Mr. Klecker's case is part of a growing body of evidence that alcohol abuse is rising among veterans of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of them trying to deaden the repercussions of war and disorientation of home. While the numbers remain relatively small, experts say and studies indicate that the problem is particularly prevalent among those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, as it was after Vietnam. Studies indicate that illegal drug use, much less common than heavy drinking in the military, is up slightly, too. Increasingly, these troubled veterans are spilling into the criminal justice system. A small fraction wind up in prison for homicides or other major crimes. Far more, though, are involved in drunken bar fights, reckless driving and alcohol- fueled domestic violence. Whatever the particulars, their stories often spool out in unwitting victims, ruptured families, lost jobs and crushing debt. With the rising awareness of the problem has come mounting concern about the access to treatment and whether enough combat veterans are receiving the help that is available to them. Having cut way back in the 1990s as the population of veterans declined, the Veterans Health Administration says it is expanding its alcohol- and drug-abuse services. But advocacy groups and independent experts--including members of a Pentagon mental-health task force that issued its report last year--are concerned that much more needs to be done. In May, the House and Senate passed bills that would require the veterans agency to expand substance-abuse screening and treatment for all veterans. ``The war is now and the problems are now,'' said Richard A. McCormick, a senior scholar for public health at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who served on the Pentagon task force. ``Every day there is a cohort of men and women being discharged who need services not one or two or five years from now. They need them now.'' For active-duty service members, the military faces a shortage of substance-abuse providers on bases across the country, while its health insurance plan, Tricare, makes it difficult for many reservists and their families to get treatment. In the breach, a few states, including California, Connecticut and Minnesota, have passed laws or begun programs to encourage alternative sentences, often including treatment, for veterans with substance-abuse and mental- health problems. In recent years, the military has worked to transform a culture that once indulged heavy drinking as part of its warrior ethos into one that discourages it and encourages service members to seek help. ``The Army takes alcohol and drug abuse very seriously and has tried for decades to deglamorize its use,'' said Lt. Col. George Wright, an Army spokesman. ``With the urgency of this war, we continue to tackle the problem with education, prevention and treatment.'' That is a tricky mission in time of war. ``The problem in today's military is soldiers have to be warriors, killers, do war, but we don't allow them any releases like we used to,'' said Bryan Lane, a former special forces sergeant who sustained a traumatic brain injury in Iraq and has post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. ``You can't go out and drink, you can't get into a fight. It's completely unrealistic.'' The military, he said, is trying to create a contradiction: ``a perfect warrior, and then a perfect gentleman.'' Warning Signs Grow Fort Drum, in the North Country of New York just outside Watertown, is home to the Army's most-deployed brigade--the Second Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division. Late last year, several thousand soldiers returned after 15 months in Iraq. Some had served three, even four, tours, and they quickly overwhelmed the base's mental health system. A study by an advocacy group, Veterans for America, found the demand for psychological help was so great, and the system so overburdened, that soldiers often waited a month to be seen. Many also did what generations of homecoming soldiers have done: they salved their wounds in local bars. With drinking off-limits in Iraq, at least openly, they were that much more likely to binge, that much less able to tolerate it. The base's commander, Maj. Gen. Michael L. Oates, says that since his arrival in early 2007, misconduct related to substance abuse has reached ``unacceptable'' levels, despite a toughened regimen of education, designated-driver programs and penalties. ``The rate of illegal drug use is slightly up; the rate of alcohol is more than slightly up,'' General Oates said. ``I'm not a teetotaler. I'm not against people drinking. I'm against misconduct.'' By last March, he had seen enough. He ordered the base's newspaper, The Fort Drum Blizzard, to publish the names and photographs of all soldiers charged with drunken driving. To date, at least 116 have appeared. Half were combat veterans who had returned in the last year, the general said, though others may have deployed earlier. Most returning soldiers readjust after a few months. But the general estimated that at least 20 percent turned to heavy drinking or drugs--typically ``the first signal that there is something wrong.'' Across the military, the precise dimensions of the problem are elusive, especially since the different branches largely keep their own statistics. Many studies do not distinguish between servicemembers who have seen battle and those who have not. What is more, behavior becomes far harder to track when servicemembers leave the military. Even so, a variety of surveys, as well as anecdotal evidence and rising alarm in many military communities, indicate growing substance abuse among recent combat veterans. Of particular concern are members of the National Guard and reserves, as well as recently discharged servicemembers, who can lose their bearings outside the camaraderie and structure of the military. In the Army, which has the bulk of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's most recent survey of health- related behavior, conducted in 2005 but released last year, found that for the first time in more than 20 years, roughly a quarter of soldiers surveyed considered themselves regular heavy drinkers--defined as having five or more drinks at least once a week. The report called the increase--to 24.5 percent in 2005, from 17.2 percent in 1998--``an issue of concern.'' Perhaps the best monitor of recent combat veterans'' mental health is the Pentagon's postdeployment survey. Reflecting concern about heavy drinking, the latest report, published last November, introduced a question about drinking habits. Of the 88,235 soldiers surveyed in 2005 and 2006, three to six months after returning from war, 12 percent of active- duty troops and 15 percent of reservists acknowledged having problems with alcohol. While drug use decreased substantially after 1980, when the military cracked down, it has increased slightly in the Army and the Marines since 2002, the behavioral survey said. Experts say that, in some cases, troubled combat veterans are more prone to use drugs after leaving the military. In general, studies find that drinking is more prevalent in the military than in the civilian population; the behavioral survey reported that heavy drinking among 18- to 25-9-year- old men in the Army and the Marines was almost twice as common as among their civilian counterparts. Heavy drinking or drug use frequently figures in what law enforcement officials and commanders at military bases across the country say is a rising number of crimes and other examples of misconduct involving soldiers, marines and recent veterans. ``Alcohol and drug use starts a cascade of worse problems,'' said Dr. McCormick, the task force member, who recently retired as director of mental health for the state veterans affairs system in Ohio. ``It's like throwing gasoline on fire.'' Most cases involve low-level misconduct. From 2005 to 2006, for example, ``alcohol-related incidents''--mostly drunken or reckless driving and disorderly conduct--more than tripled at Fort Hood, Tex., according to information released to the Pentagon task force. Other statistics showed a similar pattern throughout the Army, a task force member said. The Marines, filled with young men drawn by the corps' hard-charging image, have traditionally had the military's highest drinking rates. While the behavior survey showed a slight decrease in heavy drinking after 2002, it showed an increase in binge drinking. The Marines also reported a rise in alcohol-related incidents. Sometimes, though, substance abuse becomes a factor in major crimes. This year, a New York Times examination of killings in this country by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan found that drinking or drug use was frequently involved in the crimes.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Thirty seconds? That is no time.

Mr. RANGEL. Why would you wait until the last day? You know, you guys have been in office all this time, and now you want to talk. This is absolutely ridiculous. And we should resolve the problem by having a trigger, and cut across the board. Just have a trigger? Is that the way you think we are going to have a system? How much time do you yield to me, my dear friend from California?

Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, as we move toward the end of this legislative session, I would hope, at some point, that the minority just not be guided by blind ideology and to see whether we can prepare ourselves to work together in the future. In all of the years that we have had this administration, they have talked about the unfairness of taxes, and yet they have not seen their way clear even to suggest what we should do about it. I know they are busy starting wars in various places, but it would seem as though the executive could take a deep breath. They talk about entitlements, how we have to get rid of them, that it is causing us to go into bankruptcy. And unless I missed something during my brief illnesses, they have never suggested what you do with Social Security; not a note, not anything private, not a call from Paulson saying, can we talk? And now we talk about----

Mr. RANGEL. Well, why don't you give me the additional time and----

Mr. RANGEL. How much time are you ready to negotiate here? We can work out something.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alvin Ailey, a pioneer in the art of modern dance whose work is renowned throughout the world and beloved in his hometown of Harlem. This year, the Dance Theater celebrates 50 years of enriching the lives of audiences throughout the world. The group has since won critical acclaim and has been called an ambassador of American culture. Today, the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater has performed in 48 states and 71 countries for an estimated 21 million people. By integrating African-American tradition with classic modern dance, Ailey's Dance Theater has created a unique experience that speaks to audiences all over the world. The innovation and freshness that Alvin Ailey brought to the world of modern dance has forever elevated the standard for performance art and has effectively engaged people of all backgrounds and world views with the Theatre's legendary ``Revelations.'' After 50 years, it is true now more than ever that to watch the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater is to watch art come alive.