Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of anti-war powerhouse Norma Becker, whose energy, spirit, and integrity fueled the opposition to the Vietnam War. A New York City memorial service held in her honor on November 3 drew hundreds, underscoring how her passion for peace won over the hearts and minds of many. She, herself, exemplified equal measures of heart and mind--impressing others with the sharpness of her intellect and her thoroughly analytical and logical approach to problems, but impelling them to act through her vision, her sensitivity, her soul. She was a public school teacher with a voracious appetite for learning and social indignation. For 10 years, she presided over the Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee, the most prominent metropolitan antiwar coalition in the country. She was a founding member of Mobilization for Survival and served as chair of the War Resisters League for 6 years. She lent her voice and talents, not only to the cause for peace, but to the Civil Rights Movement, as well. She has engraved her legacy into the American consciousness, and the country is the better for it. I submit for the Record and the interest of my colleagues some of the tributes paid to Norma Becker during her memorial service.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to echo the country's growing insistence that crack cocaine sentencing be reformed and that a sensible, fair policy replace it. I introduce the December 11 Washington Post editorial, ``Sense in Sentencing,'' and the December 12 New York Times Post editorial, ``Justice in Sentencing,'' to highlight how from all branches of government momentum is indisputably picking up in favor of reform. This week, a decisive Supreme Court granted judges greater discretion in sentencing, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission decided to retroactively apply the recent reduction of its sentencing recommendations--both a nod to the prevailing outrage concerning excessively stiff crack cocaine penalties. The Commission and the Court have done all they can. Now, it's our turn. The impetus falls on Congress to end the sentencing inequity that slaps the same 5-year sentence for possessing 500 grams of powder as it does for 5 grams of crack. That's a 100-to-1 disparity--and an average difference of 40 months in jail time--for two drugs experts say have no significant differences. Well, here's one significant difference: Over 80 percent of sentenced crack offenders are Black. These arbitrarily lopsided mandatory minimums have fueled the disproportionate rate and length of incarceration of Black men and swelled our prisons to a world-leading 2.2 million. The door to criminal and racial justice has been opened. It's now up to this Congress to step through it. Let's rally around The Crack- Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act, H.R. 460, and correct the sentencing of uneven punishments for nearly identical offenses. Sense in Sentencing:The Supreme Court Gives Judges Some Leeway in Drug Cases For roughly two decades, federal trial judges have chafed under the constraints of federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums that often forced them to hand down inordinately long sentences. Those injustices have been most pronounced in drug cases, particularly those involving crack cocaine. In two opinions released yesterday, the Supreme Court handed back some flexibility to judges and increased the chances that justice--not just retribution--will be exacted in future cases. By 7-2 votes, the justices concluded that trial judges have the leeway to impose more lenient sentences in drug cases than those called for by the federal sentencing guidelines. To pass legal muster, the sentences must be ``reasonable'' and ``sufficient, but not greater than necessary'' to ``promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense'' and ``protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.'' One decision yesterday concerned Derrick Kimbrough, who was arrested in Norfolk in 2004 with 92 grams of powder cocaine, 56 grams of crack and a gun. He faced 19 to 22 years behind bars, in large part because of the high penalties for crack offenses; he would have had to possess 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to get the same sentence. After considering Mr. Kimbrough's record of steady employment and his military service during the Persian Gulf War, the trial judge concluded that Mr. Kimbrough should serve roughly 15 years. In the second case, Brian Gall, along with seven others, was indicted in Iowa in 2004 for conspiracy to sell ecstasy, cocaine and marijuana. The conspiracy, according to the indictment, ran from 1996 to 2002. Mr. Gall, a former drug addict, sold ecstasy for roughly 7 months in 2000 but stopped using drugs 1 month after he began selling them and pulled out of the drug trade a few months later. He subsequently earned a college degree and worked in construction before starting his own company. When he was indicted, Mr. Gall had been drug-free and law-abiding for roughly 4 years. The presiding judge determined that the 30- to 37-month sentence called for by the guidelines was unjust and counterproductive. He sentenced Mr. Gall to 36 months probation. The justices rightly rebuffed the government's challenge to the reduced sentences. They recognized the wisdom of allowing those closest to the ground--the trial judges--to assess how best to exact justice in individual cases, even while endorsing the guidelines as a means to avert wide disparity in sentences nationwide. The evolution of crack sentencing could continue today when, perhaps coincidentally, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is scheduled to vote on whether to make retroactive the more lenient penalties it instituted earlier this year. The commission should vote yes and take yet another step toward bringing sanity to the crack laws. Justice in Sentencing With a pair of 7-2 rulings this week, the Supreme Court struck a blow for basic fairness and judicial independence. The court restored a vital measure of discretion to federal trial judges to impose sentences based on their assessment of a particular crime and defendant rather than being forced to adhere to overarching guidelines. Beyond that, one of the rulings highlighted the longstanding injustice of federal guidelines and statutes imposing much longer sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine, which is most often found in impoverished communities, than for offenses involving the chemically identical powdered cocaine, which is popular among more affluent users. The rulings provide fresh impetus for Congress to rewrite the grotesquely unfair crack cocaine laws on which the federal sentencing guidelines are partly based. Those laws are a relic of the 1980s, when it was widely but wrongly believed that the crack form of cocaine was more dangerous than the powder form. We are pleased that the United States Sentencing Commission recently called for reducing sentences for some categories of offenders and has now called for applying the change retroactively. The real work still lies with Congress, which needs to rewrite the law. Building on a 2005 decision that held the sentencing guidelines to be advisory rather than mandatory, the new rulings affirm that the guidelines are but one factor to be considered by a trial judge in arriving at an individual sentence, and that an appeals court must have a strong reason to overturn that sentence. In one of the cases, the justices supported a district judge in Virginia who gave a military veteran convicted of crack dealing a sentence of 15 years, rather than the 19-22 years that the guidelines recommended. The ruling described the federal crack law as ``disproportionate and unjust.'' Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that it would not be an abuse of a discretion for a trial judge to conclude that the crack/powder disparity resulted in a longer-than-necessary sentence for a particular defendant. In the other case, the court found that a trial judge was within his rights to impose a light sentence on a man briefly involved in selling the drug Ecstasy while in college. In reviewing sentences, wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority, appellate courts must apply a deferential abuse-of- discretion standard to trial judges' decisions. There is a danger that the new procedures outlined by the court could end up making federal sentences unfairly disparate across the country, undermining one of the important objectives of having sentencing guidelines in the first place. If that happens, Congress will have to address the problem. For the moment, the Supreme Court's latest adjustment in sentencing strikes us as a positive development, one with much potential for advancing justice.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tenth anniversary of Dow Jones Indexes, which will be celebrated on December 14, 2007, in New York City. Our good friend and former colleague, Guy Vander Jagt, who we lost this year, was proudly associated with Dow Jones and Company for much of his professional career, and I know that if he was still with us he would be joining in this anniversary celebration. For over a century the name of the Dow Jones & Company has been linked with integrity and business investment in America. Much like other words that have entered the America lexicon in everyday use, ``Dow Jones'' means stocks and their value on Wall Street to virtually every American. It is remarkable that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is the oldest continuing stock market index in the world. However, over the past 10 years of serving the American people, Dow Jones Indexes has grown far beyond just the time-honored Dow Jones Industrial Average to become a leading authority in the global financial markets, researching, launching and supporting a staggering 130,000 indexes, tracking equity markets and other asset classes around the globe. For example, The Dow Jones Wilshire Indexes are benchmarks for the entire institutional investing community--affecting the retirement plans of Americans across the land. The Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Indexes and the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes are just two more examples of more specialized Dow Jones indexes that have changed the way the world views these markets. Through expansion and innovation in financial markets, the Dow Jones Indexes have continued to serve as a linchpin of the American financial industry. Indeed, across America and around the world their innovations have changed the very landscape of investing and the financial community. Today, over $2.1 trillion of assets--from millions of investors worldwide--are linked to indexes published by Dow Jones Indexes and STOXX, its joint venture in Europe that is co-owned with Deutsche Borse and the Swiss Exchange, SWX. Through its growth, Dow Jones Indexes has helped to build awareness and drive the adoption of index-based products as an important investment category, a trend that is widely viewed to benefit investors by offering them diversified, transparent and low-cost investment alternatives. The indexes additionally offer investors tools with which they can appropriately evaluate their portfolio's performance, no matter what its composition. It is with this background that I wish to recognize the Tenth Anniversary of Dow Jones Indexes and their service to the American people. I would like to recognize John A. Prestbo, one of the first recipients of the William F. Sharpe Indexing Lifetime Achievement Award, which recognizes the most accomplished innovators and practitioners in the indexing industry. He was awarded this prestigious honor for serving as the long time Editor and now Executive Director of the Indexes group within Dow Jones. Along with the stewardship of Michael Petronella, the group president and over 200 dedicated employees, they continue to innovate and grow and strengthen the vast family of Dow Jones Indexes, and with that growth they have helped to serve, enhance, and protect the dreams of millions upon millions of Americans who are planning their own financial futures.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 888, Genocide Accountability Act of 2007, which ensures that U.S. laws provide adequate authority to prosecute acts of genocide. Genocide, despite its being such a heinous and atrocious crime, has taken place too frequently, it needs to stop and the perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. This systematic destruction of a group of people based on religion, ethnicity or nationality is one of the most horrifying acts that a person can imagine. Genocidal tendencies can be traced back to the Armenian Genocide that occurred more than seventy years ago and again during the Holocaust. But the end of those conflicts did nothing to prevent genocide from being committed again. Acts of genocide occurred again in Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda and are currently taking place in Darfur. Too many have died and continue to die as we stand by and watch. It is our job to do whatever is in our power to end these conflicts. Individuals who have committed acts of genocide have been identified as seeking refuge in the United States. The constitution of the United States does not allow them to be prosecuted here because they are not U.S. nationals. The Genocide Accountability Act of 2007 will give the U.S. the authority to prosecute the perpetrators in the U.S. as opposed to just deporting them and not knowing if they will ever be held accountable for their actions. This bill will assure that justice is served for their acts of torture and murder. By passing this bill we are contributing to the welfare of the world. Genocide affects people around the world and not only the direct victims; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 80 years Dazivedo Watson graced us with his winning charm, political acumen, pioneering spirit, and love. His contributions to the African and Caribbean American community are bountiful; his contributions to his country: limitless. He remains, foremost in my mind, a humble public servant, a dedicated family man, and my good, good buddy. It is in this regard that I introduce the following laudatory letter, which best captures the litany of honors to his name and the essence of his brilliant character. November 2, 2007. Mr. Errol Watson, c/o Crown of Life Love Ministry, 222 West 145th Street, New York, NY. Dear Errol and Family Members: I was deeply heartbroken to learn of the passing of your dear father, grandfather, uncle and my buddy, Dazivedo Watson. Just a few months ago, we celebrated Dazivedo's 80th Birthday, and now we are saying good-bye to a great friend, devoted family man, ally, and one of Harlem's most distinguished political strategist, novice, and loyal Democrat. Daz, as he was known to all of us, was on the forefront of every political battle, whether as a supporter or adversary, he dedicated his life to winning, and never losing. In every campaign, Daz gave his all. Dazivedo will be remembered, not only as an institution, but also as Harlem's gift to the political process. As a political advisor, confidante, and staffer to the late great Harlem Councilman, Frederick E. Samuel, Daz helped to influence African and Caribbean Americans to empower themselves, their neighborhood, and their community. That empowerment led to the election of the first African American Mayor, David N. Dinkins, the first African American State Comptroller, H. Carl McCall, the first African American Lieutenant Governor, David A. Paterson, and the first African American Chairman of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means, Charles B. Rangel. We are all in his debt. Let me also extend my sympathies to the Frederick E. Samuel Community Democratic Club family, and its illustrious leadership, the Honorable C. Virginia Fields, the Honorable Keith L.T. Wright and the Honorable Wilma Brown. Let our work on behalf of the community reflect the legacy of our beloved Dazivedo Watson. Your family and our community have endured a great loss with the passing of Dazivedo. My political family, and my office and I will support you during this time of mourning and grieving. Let us celebrate his life and keep his memory forever in our thoughts and prayers. Sincerely, Charles B. Rangel, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 861, I call up the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, after my speaking, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and that he be allowed to assign it to speakers on behalf of the bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am so proud to have the opportunity to say once again that fulfilling our constitutional responsibility, the Ways and Means Committee has reported out a bill to provide relief to upward of some 25 million people from being hit by a $50 billion tax increase, which it was never thought could happen to these people. By the same token, almost separate and apart from this, we have an opportunity to close a very unfair provision that we find in our Tax Code, that certainly no one has come to me to defend, which prevents a handful of people from having unlimited funds being shipped overseas under deferred compensation and escaping liability. It is just plain wrong if we were talking about this by itself. But we are not doing that. We are talking about bringing something together that I don't see how anyone can be opposed. So let's talk about the things that we all agree on. Nobody, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, believes that these taxpayers should be hit by a tax that we didn't intend. Two, no one has the guts to defend the offshore deferred compensation. You may have some feelings about it because of a couple of friends, but we know it's indecent and immoral. So what is the problem? We raise the money and we hope that, through this and others, we will be able to pay for the loss of revenue that is enacted by the patch. That is the $50 billion. I wish that I could yield all of our time to the Republicans to explain once again, as eloquent as my dear friend Mr. McCrery is, as to why this is not borrowing. Mr. Dreier yesterday in the Rules Committee says it's not borrowing because we never intended for this to happen. Well, if it works for you guys, I'm going to try it when I get home with my creditors and say, hey, it wasn't meant for me to be broke and so it's not borrowing; just ignore it. But it doesn't work that way on pencil and paper. Either you have got to cut programs by $50 billion, raise the revenue by $50 billion, or mumble for $50 billion. Enough of the mumbling. Can't we unite on this, and at least let them know in the Senate that the House of Representatives is the House of the People, that we believe in what we're doing? And let's remember this; that we know the President, when he is closing things that he wants to be closed on to raise revenue, it's not a tax increase. He and Secretary Paulson call it, what, a loophole closing. That's all we're trying to do in paying for this. And so, remember, the President won't be with you in November, but I will be, trying to help all of us to understand that we did the best we could for the Congress and for the country. So we are giving the other body another opportunity. Hopefully this time they will not be irresponsible but they will join with us in doing two things: Reform the system for a provision that only benefits a handful of people at the expense of the United States Treasurer; and, two, prevent this burden from falling on 25 million innocent, hardworking American people. At this time I would like to yield the balance of my time to Chairman Richard Neal.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, a special thanks to Jim Clyburn, our Whip and leader, for reaching back to pay tribute to an American that so often people forget what one can accomplish in this great country if they are willing to work hard. You know, Mr. Clyburn, I knew the world famous owner of Sylvia's when she was a waitress at a restaurant just one block away where she anchored her success, and she and her husband came together and went to South Carolina, two friends, in order to get the money necessary for her to start her own future. Mr. Woods, and we just lost him a few years back, would be up at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning with that truck, going to the produce markets, picking the best vegetables, and then she would have her children and now her grandchildren, all a part of this wonderful family, and now that she's reached a point that her products are sold in supermarkets and throughout the world and that she has acclaimed a great deal of attention from tourists all over the world as these tourist buses are lined up, it doesn't surprise anybody to see Sylvia there asking these customers that she probably will never see again in life, How did you enjoy the meal and what can we do to help? So let me thank you on behalf of all of Harlemites, even Congressman Gregory Meeks from the borough of Queens, who has to admit that coming from Harlem means a special thing to us, because he was one of us before he lost his way. And so when I heard that you were doing this on behalf of Harlem, who cherishes the rise of Sylvia's late husband, her children and her wonderful grandchildren, who still bring people from all over the world into the village of Harlem, let me thank you, Jim Clyburn, for reminding us that we have so many heroes and ``sheroes'' in our country, and they deserve what you're doing for them in South Carolina. I thank you.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my full support for H.R. 2634, a bill that would provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United States and the international financial institutions by low-income countries, and for other purposes. The Biblical scripture love thy neighbor, does not just call for the expression of care and concern for neighbors who live in close proximity. It also calls for reaching out to neighbors world wide. I believe it is especially important to be concerned about and help our neighbors who live in countries that are challenged daily with enormous issues involving poverty, hunger, homelessness, high unemployment, crime, illiteracy, and HIV/AIDS. Some of these countries include Angola, Haiti, Liberia, and Kenya just to name a few. I support this bill because it could help our neighbors who are struggling everyday to live with and combat very difficult social and economic problems. I suspect that if economically disadvantaged countries were in a position to resolve their problems without assistance, they would. Helping to resolve these issues would lead to improvements in the quality of life for our neighbors, global economic stability, and world peace. Jubilee USA Network, one grassroots organization that consists of churches and community organizations, has been dedicated to educating members of Congress and the public since the late 1990s on this issue. Their hard work, along with other organizations has created a movement that has made a difference. Some 30 nations have benefited from different types of debt relief estimating approximately $80,000,000,000. Other notable progress has been made with this issue. Agreements made with the African Development Bank, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have eliminated debts by some poor countries. To observe the success thus far, Jubilee USA Network held a prayer breakfast on October 16, 2007, in the Rayburn House Office Building. From the overseas community, the prayer breakfast was attended by the Honorable Ombeni Sefue, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States, the Honorable Given Lubinda, Member of Zambia Parliament, and Rt. Rev. Jean Zache, Episcopal Bishop of Haiti. It is important for the U.S. to gain support for the debt relief of poor countries as a part of its foreign policy and I thank Jubilee USA Network for continuing to raise awareness of this issue. Further, I thank my colleagues Maxine Waters, Spencer Bachus, Carolyn Maloney, Donald Payne, Emmanuel Cleaver, Barbara Lee, and Luis Gutierrez for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which is a bill to support humanity.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend and colleague for yielding and giving me the opportunity to rise in support of this bill. I am confident that this Congress will be noted for the initiative that we are voting on today and that the American people will not be as concerned with the process and the procedure as they would be as to what did the Congress do in terms of dealing with the issue of global warming as well as relieving us of the dependency on foreign oil. These are the crucial issues that Americans have looked to us to deal with. And I don't think it can be challenged that although there are those who have objections that it is not all that they would want it to be, it is a step that all of us in Congress should be proud that we moved forward. The Clean Renewable Energy and Conservation Tax Act of 2007, as included in H.R. 6, presents a step in the right direction to present solutions to the problems that our great Nation and, indeed, the world are facing. What did we do? To accelerate the use of clean, domestic, renewable energy sources and alternative fuels; to promote the use of energy- efficient products and practices and conservation; and to increase research and development in the deployment of clean, renewable energy and efficiency technologies. The tax title of H.R. 6 makes good on this promise. The compromise package includes robust incentives for renewable energy production, increased efficiency, plug-in electric drive vehicles, and incentives for carbon capture, as well as the sequestration of coal demonstration projects. The package facilitates and advances the development of advanced electricity infrastructure, it contains incentives to mitigate carbon remissions, it promotes the production of renewable energy and security of our domestic fuel supply, and it encourages energy savings and efficiency. This package cost is fully offset by including certain provisions that were loopholes that were undeserved of being given to oil and gas giveaways, not to the smaller suppliers of oil, but to the very largest that have had obscene profits without the benefits of the technology necessary to remove the dependency. Specifically, the package will repeal the domestic manufacturing incentive for the top five integrated producers while freezing reductions at 6 percent for all others in the oil and gas sector. The package tightens foreign tax credit rules for foreign oil and gas extraction income and foreign oil-related income. I want to take this particular time to thank Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and, more particularly, John Dingell for bringing together the interests and concerns of the standing committees and having us come forward as a body to fulfill the commitment that we made earlier on that we were going to respond to the needs of the people of our great Nation and certainly to the people of the world. I do hope that while there has been a lot of partisanship in terms of lack of cooperation on the other side, that at the end of the day when people at town hall meetings or our children and grandchildren would ask the questions, what did we do, we can say we supported this great historic piece of legislation.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute one of Jamaica's favorite sons, Herb McKenley--a world-class track star whose awe- inspiring athletic feats filled the streets of Jamaica with pride. Noted as one of the island's greatest athletes ever, McKenley brought home an Olympic gold medal in 1952 as part of the country's relay team. A man of limitless determination and impressive humility--once claiming that his running philosophy was to simply ``run as fast as I can, as long as I can''--McKenley set a slew of world records and earned myriad accolades to his name. His recent passing marks the culmination of a life spent sprinting towards goal after goal, and reaching every one of them. New York fans were treated to the sight of the 6-foot-1 dynamo whizzing down the indoor tracks at the old Madison Square Garden for the Millrose Games. He set the then-world record for a 440-yard sprint in 1947, finishing it in 46.3 seconds at a time when tracks were clay or dirt--not the artificial surfaces of today. His second world record was set a year later, when he ran 440 yards in 45.9 seconds. He nabbed a Silver Medal in the 1948 London Olympics and two more in the 1952 Olympics in Helsinki, missing the gold in all three to heartbreaking, photo finishes. The powerfully built man with an 8-foot stride is forever memorialized in Jamaica by the Herb McKenley Crescent, and not long before his passing, he was awarded its third highest honor, the Order of Merit. His life's achievements read as one amorous letter to his native Jamaica. Born in the city of Clarendon on July 10, 1922, he sometimes skipped the bus after discovering that running got him places faster. One of those places was to college, when he became the first Jamaican sprinter to receive a college scholarship in the United States for the University of Illinois. After racking up his world-renowned honors, he coached Jamaica's national team for 20 years, between 1954 and 1973, and served as president of Jamaica's Amateur Athletic Association for 12. A celebration of his life is, ultimately, a celebration of Jamaica, and the permanent stamp it has left on the cultural, athletic, and historic narrative of the world. It is in the spirit of great mourning but also of great pride that we commemorate his legacy. He has forever etched his story into the Jamaican consciousness, impressing upon us New York track fans the strength in being unapologetically persistent and passionate.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support naming the great hall at the Capitol Visitor Center the ``Emancipation Hall.'' It is in the spirit of this country's great advances--particularly in solidifying our most precious values of freedom, equality, and justice--that I urge this body to move forward with this measure. Let the tenets of our great democracy ring down that hall--and throughout all the halls of Congress.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the many somber ones already extending sympathy and well wishes to the people of Mexico after the extensive flooding there last Saturday. The images were startling and sobering--a dramatic reminder of our own travails following Hurricane Katrina, as thousands in Mexico waited for rescue atop their rooftops. The southeastern state of Tabasco was struck the most crippling blow, as water inundated its capital city, Villahermosa, and affected as many as 1 million of the state's 2.2 million residents. Words can only go so far. We should offer any and all resources that might soften the devastation in Mexico. When our struggling neighbors cry out, America heeds their calls. One of the worst natural disasters in that country's history requires immediate and attentive support. We are with Mexico in this time of tribulation. This call to action merits our full endorsement--and the Mexican people, our most genuine compassion.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in reverence of the 100 years Augustus Freeman ``Gus'' Hawkins, the former representative from Los Angeles, fought on this Earth for the causes of justice and equality. Prior to his passing, he had been the oldest former member of Congress, and the longevity of his legacy will easily match the longevity of his years. He was the first African American elected to the House from California--and, indeed, from the entire western United States--as well as a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He was instrumental in the passage of the watershed Civil Rights Act of 1964, sponsoring its equal employment section setting up the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We honor him for the strides our community, and our country, took under his stewardship, and for his impeccable sense of purpose that inspires us today.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my full support for the Second Chance Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize the grant program for reentry of ex-offenders into the community. With the dramatic increase in criminal convictions involving illegal drugs since the 1980's, the Nation's prisons have become severely overcrowded. As a result, every day hundreds of men and women are released from prison into their communities for the difficult task of restarting their lives. It is even more difficult for those who have been incarcerated for a lengthy amount of time, those with limited education, and those who lack basic job skills. These men and women need assistance transitioning back into the community. Some assistance is needed with locating housing, finding employment, getting drug treatment, and mentoring. This bill would provide that assistance. It is crucial to provide that assistance because it will reduce recidivism, improve lives, and improve communities. At a time when communities all across our great country have been torn apart by crime and drugs, we need to do all we can to help Americans who need a second chance at life. Let's send a message to America that we care about those who need help getting on their feet. I thank my colleague Danny Davis for introducing this important bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I hope that this could be considered the National Lobbyist Day for the middle class, because, certainly, this is what we are trying to do. Let's talk about the issues that we agree on. The alternative minimum tax was a bad idea when it got started in 1969; it's a worse idea now. If the House and Senate and President fail these taxpayers that are being held hostage for a tax that everyone knows is unfair and inequitable and should never have existed, then it would not be a Republican or Democratic issue; it would be that this country let them down. In doing so, we would have violated the trust that we hope that people would have in the tax system. At the end of the day we are committed to eliminate this tax. My good friend Mr. McCrery and I had agreed early on that the only way you can tackle such a big fiscal problem is through tax reform. So it's clear that we can't do that this year; and so if we do nothing, 23 million hardworking people would be hit with this unfair tax, and we are committed that it's not going to happen. We can talk about that, but I don't think it's necessary. As far as the extenders are concerned, I really think they speak for themselves. Mr. McCrery and I wish we had enough time to really study each and every one of them as well as other parts of the Code to see whether or not it serves any economic function, but time is not our friend, and so we agreed that we would extend these expiring provisions and review them when we have more time next year. So that's not an issue. The issue has to be how do you pay for it. This is where we are going to have some major fiscal and political problems. Why? Because the Congressional Budget Office would say that if we did nothing and this unfair tax was not changed, that we would raise $50 billion. That means that even though they may think and hope that we don't do this, they haven't scored that we have to recognize that $50 billion is not going to be there and we, abiding by what we think is fiscally sound provisions in PAYGO, have to recognize that if we do the right thing, we'll be $50 billion short. What are our options? One, to cut spending by $50 billion. Well, theoretically it may be an option, but politically it's not. The second thing we could do is raise the revenue. Very interesting, because the major part of the debate if we had time would be if you saw the most outrageous abuse of the tax system where someone was getting preferential treatment and that the only reaction would be how could that happen, and you wanted to close it, take my word for it, to the person that you are closing, what they call an incentive will be considered by them as a tax increase. Even Secretary Paulson, who wants us to dramatically reduce the corporate rate of taxes, I can't wait to hear how he intends to pay for it, because I know he is going to be talking about unfair advantages that's in the Code, and some Democrat is going to call it a tax increase if he closes the loopholes. It's really a semantic thing; it's a political thing. But I suggest to you that even if we were not looking at this as a revenue raiser, and you take a look at what we are using, how could you possibly call it a tax increase when we are trying to bring some degree of equity to the system? It's simple: when people are doing their job, and, I might add, a very good job, in managing other people's money, in creating jobs, in making the economy more prosperous, and making hundreds of millions and billions of dollars because they have earned it the hard way, creative fiscal management. And they pay 35 percent in taxes because it's their income, the same way you sell a house, it's your income. You have a law case and they give it to you, it's your income and you pay 35 percent income. Now, we would like to believe that capital gains taxes means that you're special people, you actually are investing capital. My God, you're taking risks, and so we're going to give you a lower tax rate of 15 percent. But if you find someone who would say that, well, I'm not taking risk but I'm a partnership, and I really think that the way they're paying me, even though it's the same as the competitors are being paid, I have decided that this has been a return on a capital investment. Why shouldn't all of the debate today be on the turning point? When two people are doing the same thing equally as well, and really, being rewarded in a very generous way, why should one group be treated differently than the other group? And if you want to call it a tax increase and bringing equity and fairness to the system and making the field even as it relates to the Tax Code, let's talk about this, because I'll bring some arguments and statements for the people doing the same job and paying 35 percent interest, and they're just as creative, just as good, and they ain't thinking about leaving the business. And so that ends the argument, except for the ones that I'm anxious to hear from my dear friends on the other side of the aisle, because they're not just saying that they're going to stick with their buddies with carried interest. They're saying that we really don't have to deal with this at all. And once I'm convinced that they're right, I'm going to try to do this at home, and that is, we expected $50 billion. You're going to have to live without the $50 billion, but you don't have to cut your expenses by $50 billion, nor do you have to raise the revenue for $50 billion. As a matter of fact, you don't have to do anything. Act like it never happened. This is not a tax cut. This is preventing a tax increase, so therefore, the money that you expected, the $50 billion, you shouldn't have. Now, on our side of the aisle, we spell that B-O-R-R-O-W-I-N-G, ``borrowing.'' I know that word is so distasteful to you, but where I got it from was Chairman Greenspan. He said, I supported the Bush tax cuts, but I wanted them to really cut spending. And what did they do? B-O-R-R-O-W-I-N-G. Well, you may not like the word, but at the end of the day, every Congressman's going to tell you, if you expected $50 billion, you thought it was unfair to tax people that, you removed the burden, you've got to do one of three things: pay for it, cut spending, or borrow the money. You've decided to find words to make it more comfortable to borrow the money. And I'm anxious to hear that, because if it works for you, I'm going to try to convince my leadership to have it work for us, because pay-as-you-go may be fiscally sound, but I have so many problems with infrastructure, so many problems with health, so many problems with education, that if I can find a way as great as you have, it may work for all of us. But I really don't think that that is going to fly. The American people deserve help. I reserve the balance of the time as I anxiously await to hear the minority explain why this is not borrowing. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee that has really drafted most of this legislation, Congressman Neal of Massachusetts.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 809, I call up the bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just hope that the minority leader recognizes that we in the House have a constitutional responsibility to either raise the revenue, notwithstanding what the other body may or may not do, and that should never inhibit us from doing what we consider is the right thing to do, because constitutionally we are right.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge that more be done to reduce the rates of recidivism in our Nation's swelling prisons. We must work--intelligently and compassionately--to better reintegrate former prisoners into our society, and the Second Chance Act of 2007 is effective on both counts. It intelligently saves taxpayer dollars and works to bolster public safety, investing resources in a consortium of services proven to keep ex-offenders on the right path. It compassionately addresses the prevalence of substance abuse and poor mental health in that group, and strives to strengthen broken families so that children may stand to benefit. Our prison system is a revolving door, leaving many without the ample skill or support necessary to become productive members of society. It's why a staggering majority of state prisoners are released only to find themselves back behind bars at least 3 years later. An increasing number of formerly incarcerated citizens are without suitable education, physical and mental health, employment, or mentoring services--the kind this measure would assist in providing. A central tenet of our criminal justice system is rehabilitation. We must not abandon that fruitful and moral imperative. About 650,000 people are released from prison each year, and it is incumbent upon us to take preventive measures for the sake of our communities and our children. We owe it to them to do far, far more.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, distinguished members of the Rules Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity, and thank you for allowing me to follow my friend, Mr. Dreier. I just hope that I don't drink the water on that side of the aisle because it's very difficult for me to follow in the logic. Let's talk about where we are in complete accord. Whoever thought of this cockamamie idea in 1969 was wrong. And as far as the voters are concerned, you can call yourself Republican or Democrat, who now holds them hostage, but if we don't give them relief, you can bet your life it's going to be the Congress of the United States and this President. The President realizes we should eliminate this. He hasn't given us a plan, an idea, a thought, just get rid of it. And the Congressional Budget Office says that if we don't get rid of it, that $50 billion will be coming into our budget, we will have $50 billion. Common logic would dictate that if we do get rid of the AMT, which is the right thing to do, that we will lose $50 billion from the budget. What happens at home? What happens with a corporation? What happens with this congressional board of directors if we find with the budget that $50 billion that's missing? One of the things we can do is cut spending, by what? $50 billion. Another thing we could do is say forget about it. We did it before with the tax cut, just borrow the money. Just borrow $50 billion. I guess you can call that repealing. Or we could say the responsible thing to do is raise the additional revenue. Standing by itself, forgetting the fact that it's a pay-for, who in the world would believe that it's fair for corporations and partnerships to be doing the same work, managing other people's money, being successful, making this great contribution to society, except one group pays 15 percent because they've created the imagination that their work is really capital, when they take no risk, and the others give 35 percent. Fairness dictates this is not a tax increase. This is a closing of a loophole, and you should be proud to participate in that.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Well, it was about the Panama complication, because it was my understanding, to a large extent, that it would be the administration to make the decision or to respond to the answer that you asked of the majority leader. And it's because of the complication that they'll have to decide, politically, as to how they want to handle it, because it goes beyond a trade agreement. It's involved with State Department policy. And I always get the impression, since the FTA with Korea that's been left out of the discussion with me, that when the administration believes it has completed its negotiation on the executive level, then they too would be coming back to the Congress. And of course Colombia has its own special problems, which we can talk about at a different time. So I just wanted to say, as it relates to Panama and Korea, it was my impression that the administration has to make some major decisions before we can respond.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time that remains.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, this is a very exciting, historic day for me. It was an opportunity to break a deadlock of lack of civility on the Ways and Means Committee, which I really, deeply appreciate being a member, as well as being Chair; to get to know Jim McCrery, not as a Republican, but as someone that we can have serious philosophical and political differences, at the same time want to do what's best for our constituents and our country; for Sandy Levin who is more than a Member of Congress, but in the marrow of his bones he understands what it is for working people to have opportunity to have self-esteem and to want to do for themselves, their community and their children; and to have a Speaker like Nancy Pelosi, who's prepared to think as to what's not best for Democrats or even the Congress, but what's best for the country and to encourage people who have different views to come together, so that nobody from any country could say that we have a trade policy that's Republican or Democrat, but we have in the United States of America a United States trade policy. This is a very historic vote. It breaks the ice and opens an opportunity. But also it brings about a lot of candid discussion. And I would suggest, for any Member that has campaigned against trade, that said it over and over that trade is bad, or any person who's campaigned against NAFTA or CAFTA, or all of those things which this is not, then you owe it to yourself and you owe it to your constituents to vote against this bill, because if, in your conscience, you believe that things are so bad in your district, people have lost jobs, lost homes, lost hope, and this country has let them down and the multinationals have let them down and trade agreements have let them down, then your conscience demands that you vote ``no'' because this is what you believe in and this is what you should do. But for those people who truly believe that they come from communities that God has blessed them with the opportunity to grow more food than this Nation needs, to make more equipment than this Nation needs, and to know that in their towns and villages and congressional districts, they cannot eat and they cannot use, for those people who understand that exporting things means not that we're trying to help other countries, but we need the talents, we need the productivity, we need the competition, we need the workers for the Nation to survive, for those people like the State of New York, there are patches there that people have no hope for the future, and they would want to vote against it. But they'd better not talk with my mayor, because services are going to be a boon directly for all the people in our city.