Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. RANGEL. Lastly, I would like to say, as the distinguished chair moves on to his retirement from this august body, that for as long as the gentleman has been a member of this Ways and Means Committee that I have admired and I continue to respect the fine work that he has contributed to the committee as well as to this House, and that his honesty, candidness, sincerity, and hard work to make this a better Congress and a better country certainly is appreciated now and will be in the future. And I would hope that the hard work that he has done on tax reform-- which is a very difficult, complex subject to deal with--that we might try to remember him for the fine work that he has done over these years, rather than on the eve of an election, where sometimes the leadership would want to make a political statement. I, for one, will never associate him with this piece of legislation, but, rather, for the outstanding contributions that he has made year after year, session after session--not for Republicans, not for the committee, but for this great country. And I thank him for his friendship over the years. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. It is awkward and embarrassing to stand on this floor to discuss something described as a Jobs for America bill. Fortunately, we Democrats don't have to expend too much energy because of the lack of credibility that the majority party has with any type of legislation designed to help those people who are without employment. The irony of this whole thing is that our distinguished chairman spent hours, days, weeks, and months putting together a tax reform bill that, even though it could be challenged in parts, all tax writers and people who respect the necessity of reforming the Tax Code lauded him for the work, the fairness, and, most of all, the lack of partisanship that went into that bill. Indeed, many of the provisions that are in this bill that could better be described as an opportunity for corporates to avoid paying taxes, many of those provisions in this bill were repealed in the chairman's bill that he presented to the Congress to be considered for reform. Let me strike that from the record. He did not bring it to the floor for it to be considered for anything. It was a strong political statement that he knew the majority of his party would not support. Having said that, it was a fine piece of legislation that gained support by eliminating the very same violations of equity and fair play that are now in this bill. $500 billion tab. $500 billion cost, not paid for, not a promise to pay for. And half of this is to make permanent the extension of bonus appreciation, which all economists, including those in the Congressional Research Service, say that in order to be effective, it should not be made permanent. In any event, I think, as we go home, we should recognize that there will be opportunity when we come back to really get together and have an effective bill. To do this, the Republican majority should not bring to the floor bills that have passed the House and been rejected already by the Senate, but should sit down with the administration, with the Senate, with the minority in the House and work out something that is for the good of all Americans. This happened yesterday, where we had honest, serious disagreements. But at the same time, we came together as a Congress in the House at least on what is good for the country. So, quite frankly, I don't think I will be using all of my time because what is before the House today is not a jobs bill but a public relations piece of political advertisement. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland to inform the gentleman from Georgia more about these corporations that are attempting to flee the United States, I would like to have good news for the distinguished chairman of the committee that this veterans bill has been so popular on the other side of the Capitol that it appears as though it is included in a Senate bill and, as we talk, is actually being attacked by the Republican minority on the other side. So, at least as relates to the veterans, if we can take it out of this hodgepodge that has politically been put together, maybe collectively we can do something for our beloved veterans. As far as the gentleman from Georgia is concerned, he had a problem in identifying the U.S. company that is going to receive a bonus, that is fleeing their tax obligation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) so he can help clarify those issues to explain exactly how this provision is costing us.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a hardworking gentleman on the Ways and Means Committee, one who has been outspoken on all of the issues that concern national security as well as the protection of our economy.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as we close out on this bill, I would like to enter into the Record a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This is an objective report on the subject that we have just talked about, and that is whether or not the Affordable Care Act has caused a loss in full-time jobs. This report clearly shows that we have had a rise in full-time work in connection with the health care reform bill. [From Off the Charts, Sept. 17, 2014] Census Report Shows Rise in Full-Time Work, Undercutting Claims by Health Reform Opponents (By Paul N. Van de Water) Yesterday's Census Bureau report shows that the share of workers with full-time, full-year work rose in 2013, while the share with part-time, part-year work fell. This finding further undercuts assertions that health reform is causing a large increase in part-time employment--as proponents of a House measure to change health reform's rules on covering full-time workers claim. Health reform requires employers with at least 50 full- time-equivalent workers to offer coverage to full-time employees--defined as those who work at least 30 hours a week--or pay a penalty. Critics claim that employers are shifting some employees to part-time work to avoid offering them health insurance. But the data provide scant evidence of such a shift. To the contrary, part-time work became less frequent last year. ``An estimated 72.7 percent of working men with earnings and 60.5 percent of working women with earnings worked full time, year round in 2013, both percentages higher than the 2012 estimates of 71.1 percent and 59.4 percent respectively,'' according to the new Census report. These data are consistent with a recent Urban Institute analysis that found little evidence that health reform has increased part-time work. The share of involuntary part-timers--workers who'd rather have full-time jobs but can't find them--tells a similar story. If health reform were distorting hiring practices, as critics assert, we'd expect the share of involuntary part- timers to be growing. Instead, as the chart (based on Labor Department data) shows, it's down by 1\1/2\ percentage points from its post-recession peak. My colleague Jared Bernstein finds that this pattern is typical for this stage of a recovery. Later this week, the House will consider a proposal (part of a so-called ``jobs bill'') to raise health reform's threshold for full-time work from 30 to 40 hours. But this step would make a shift toward part-time employment much more likely--not less so. Only about 7 percent of employees work 30 to 34 hours (that is, at or modestly above health reform's 30-hour threshold), but 44 percent of employees work 40 hours a week and thus would be vulnerable to cuts in their hours if the threshold rose to 40 hours. Employers could easily cut back large numbers of employees from 40 to 39 hours so they wouldn't have to offer them health coverage. If you exclude workers at firms that already offer health insurance and thus won't be tempted to cut workers' hours, more than twice as many workers would face a high risk of reduced hours under a 40-hour threshold than under the current 30-hour threshold, according to New York University economist Sherry Glied. There's little evidence to date that health reform has caused a shift to part-time work. There's every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment, as we have explained. And raising the cutoff for the employer mandate from 30 to 40 hours a week would be a step in the wrong direction.

Mr. RANGEL. Now, the gentleman knows also that in order to get a bill passed, it really helps if you get the cooperation of the President of the United States. I would like to submit a statement for the Record from the administration which says that if this bill was to reach him that he would be forced to follow the advice of his administration specialists and veto it. On the other hand, I think it is abundantly clear that the Speaker knows that the President has reached out to him and to the Senate to come together to create jobs. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 4--Jobs for America Act (Rep. Camp, R-Michigan, and 4 cosponsors) The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4, which incorporates several bills that have previously been passed by the House during this Congress, including a number of bills for which the Administration issued Statements of Administration Policy strongly opposing passage and indicating that, if presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto them. The Administration wants to work with Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. The Administration continues to support tax proposals that would benefit the Nation's economy and small businesses, such as making permanent the research and experimentation tax credit and increased expensing for small businesses. However, making traditional tax extenders and costly business tax cuts permanent without offsets, while at the same time allowing taxes to increase on 26 million working families, represents the wrong approach. In addition, the Administration welcomes ideas to improve the Affordable Care Act. However, H.R. 4 would undermine that Act by shifting costs to taxpayers and causing fewer Americans to have employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. Also, the Administration is committed to ensuring that the benefits of regulation justify their costs and that they are tailored to advance statutory goals in a manner that is efficient, is cost-effective, and minimizes uncertainty. However, H.R. 4 would throw all major regulations into a months-long limbo, marking a significant departure from the longstanding separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches and, fostering uncertainty and impeding business investment that is vital to economic growth. Furthermore, the bill would impose other unnecessary requirements on agencies that would seriously undermine their ability to execute their statutory mandates. Finally, the Administration is committed to sound long-term management of Federal lands for continued productivity and economic benefit, as well as for the long-term health of the wildlife and ecological values sustained by these holdings. However, H.R. 4 includes numerous harmful provisions that would impair responsible management of Federally-owned lands and undermine many important existing public land and environmental laws, rules, and processes. If the President were presented with H.R. 4, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield the gentleman from Maryland 30 more seconds.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we were serious about passing a bill that has been rehashed in this House and no action has been taken upon it, common sense and reason would dictate that we would work with the Democrats, work with the Senate, and work with the President to get one passed. This bill transcends over eight or nine different legislative committees, and the ranking member--one who has so much jurisdiction over this issue--would share with the House and the country what parts of this bill she believes would create jobs, if any part. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. RANGEL. I yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume to close.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Certainly, we all will be getting a lot of mail from the logging companies asking for this legislation in order to create jobs. I wish included in this package would have been the earned income tax credit, a bill that keeps people who work hard each and every day out of poverty by subsidizing their wages, but that is too much like creating jobs, and it is not in this package. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished and articulate Member who serves on the Judiciary Committee and has a ranking position on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over part of this bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my friend, who eloquently mentioned how the Congress should and could be working more closely together. Again, I say that yesterday proved it. I am certain that the eloquent gentleman from Pennsylvania would have to agree that, if we were passing bills in the House and they were not going anywhere, any legislator would have to find out why. It would seem to me that we would go to the minority party, we would ask to sit down with the Senate, we would work with the Department of Labor and the administration, and we would do that just before we were going home to attempt to get reelected. I don't challenge the sincerity of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but just bringing in bills that you know are not going to pass the Senate, bringing in bills the administration has already said that they would veto is not the way to success. It may be a good political statement, but it is certainly not the way to pass legislation. I have the great honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who has distinguished himself nationally in terms of being a legislator with a heart and common sense. He is the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, that has attempted to show the entire country exactly what is going on and not going on in the Congress. I look forward to his eloquent remarks on this sensitive, important subject.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois what he should be doing as a part of the majority, but if I had a bill as good as the one that he had, I certainly would not allow it to be included in this piece of political legislation. Because it would serve the veterans of this great country, I would say, give me a break and let the House and the Senate and the President give this legislation a chance. But I am not in the majority, and I respect that you are doing the best you can with what you have to work with, and I respect you for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. Most Americans know, like with our family, he has the responsibility to suggest to this august body exactly how much we are spending, how much we owe, and which is the best way to bring some balance to it, and I am so proud to be able to serve with him.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), one of the hardest working members of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is 10:40, September 17, 2014. And for me, this is an historic event, because I will be able to tell my grandkids and those who would listen that on the eve of the House of Representatives taking a vote that would expand the war powers of the President of the United States, that I stood in the well of the House talking to a House that was void of any Member of the House of Representatives. I make this point not so much to indicate the importance of anything I might say this morning, but because I really think that the whole country should be concerned about the gravity and importance of the vote that we take today, which in my 44 years I cannot think of any vote that is more important and certainly more historic. It goes unchallenged that the vote today would expose more members of the military to bodily harm. It is clear that the administration has called this a war on ISIS or ISIL. It is abundantly clear that the threat to our national security is subject to a whole lot of debate. And while I may not have the answer to whether or not there is a threat, to me, I cannot think of anything more important than the 435 Members of the House and the 100 Members of the other body, at least before we vote, to be able to debate this issue. I intend to vote against the amendment that would include an expansion of our military venture, which means that I will be forced to vote against the concurrent resolution. But I think the House Members, Republicans and Democrats, should resent the fact that these votes are combined into one vote. The vote as to whether or not it is constitutional, the vote as to whether or not it is a threat to the United States security, the vote as to how we are going to pay for it, the vote in terms of who is going to make the sacrifices, these are the things that should be debated. There is no lawful reason why these two issues have to be joined in one vote. I do hope I get an opportunity to bring an amendment to the authority of the President to use military force by conditioning it to two things: that if this Congress and the American people believe that we have a threat to our national security, then by all means we should be prepared to make the sacrifices to protect our country. What are those sacrifices? Well, one is financial sacrifice. Because the trillions of dollars that was spent--I think it is close to $6 trillion since we have been involved in the Middle East--most of the profits have been made by the military industrial complex. But the $6 trillion comes out of our budget, and there is not a war tax. I think we need that. The other question has to be that we cannot dismiss the military that is in Iraq today and those that may be in that area, whose lives are endangered. That is less than 1 percent of United States population is making the sacrifice. We already lost 6,800 American lives in this war, and it is very difficult to explain to their families and friends at funerals what the cause was or whether we won or lost. But the question should be once we make a determination that there is a threat to our national security, we should have the mandatory Selective Service Act reinstated. We already have it on the books. We should activate it to make certain that if you are voting to put more men and women's lives into jeopardy, make certain it is universal men and women would be selected to make certain that they provide for a national service of some sort. So what I am suggesting is that I can never believe that this country would be voting this day and that the debates would be that I would be talking to an empty Chamber in pleading for the American people that if you are going to make a decision that we should really go to war, because there is a threat to the security of the United States of America, one, that should not be debated just on the question of the continuance of support of the budget of the United States.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank you so very much for giving me this opportunity to address the House. I think today and tomorrow may be recorded in history as one of the most serious decisions that this Congress has had to make. Personally, I don't know enough to see where the President needs authority to do what we are about to allow him to do because of a threat to the United States of America. I have talked with everyone that is willing to listen to me in my congressional district and they have given me a whole lot of things that they are concerned about. But I haven't come close, as much as they love this President of the United States, in convincing them that training people overseas that we don't know to fight ISIS is in their best national interest. The point that I asked to come to the floor is that it is so easy to try to bring justice to a situation if it doesn't cause you anything or any inconvenience. Already we have lost trillions of dollars and over 6,000 lives in this area, and I don't think we have yet to declare war. What I am suggesting on drafting legislation is that if it does reach the time that this honorable body is prepared to discuss all of the issues and determine whether or not any enemy is a threat to the United States and that we are going to go to war with them, that we should attach to that two provisions that would force every American to evaluate whether or not they believe that they are prepared to make sacrifices. One of them, of course, is a war tax. These last wars, the only people who have suffered were those people who had boots on the ground or those people who know people or those people who went to the funerals. Certainly those that have gained profit because we needed their services overseas, they haven't made any sacrifices. When it comes down to discretionary spending, what I consider a threat to the United States of America is our failure to provide money for research, for development, for education, for jobs, for infrastructure. But if we attach the two things to any bill where we are prepared to debate and determine whether our great Nation is being threatened, then I don't think it is asking too much of Americans to be able to say, yes, we are willing to pay taxes for it, and, yes, we are ready to have mandatory recruitment of young men and women who are prepared to say that if our Nation is in trouble we all should be doing something. But all these people that are willing to fight with other people's kids I think is not the standard that this august body should have.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. We were talking about war and peace. To me, we are still talking about a moral issue. Here in this great Nation, the richest in the world, we are asking people to work 40 hours, many without sick leave, many without vacations or vacation pay, and--at the end of the day--end up in poverty. There is something terribly wrong with that picture. It seems to me that it goes beyond just doing the right and the moral thing. Even churches and synagogues and mosques should recognize that their membership is going down because you can't pay the rent, buy the food, and still give your money to the religious institutions. Beyond that, what are they going to do with the money? I will tell you: they are going to be able to get nutritional diets for their kids. They will be able to buy clothes for their kids. They can aspire that their kids get a better education and be able to get higher jobs and have higher ambitions. They can make America more productive because they have more self- esteem because being poor is not the worst thing in the world, if you feel that you can come out of that poverty and you have an opportunity to do it. There is something worse going on in this country today. I was privileged years ago to sponsor a bill that we all know is the earned income tax credit, and the earned income tax credit says this shouldn't happen. If you have got a family and, after you follow the Federal formula, you are still poor, why, we will give you a check. You won't owe taxes; we will give you a refundable check. Guess what? Some of the people that are hiring these people at very low wages also hire accountants that advise the potential applicant how to become eligible for the earned income tax credit. So they give a little bit, the government gives a little bit, and the people still end up poor. It just seems to me this is not a Democratic issue; it is not a Republican issue. It is an issue of: What does America stand for? Where is the equity involved if we are not going to allow our country to be pumped up by the middle class people who made this country great? We are not a country of rich and poor folks. It is the middle class that have demands, that want to go to the local store, so that they can sell and hire people and have communities that feel proud about themselves. I know one thing: with the rents that are going up in communities all over this country and people who used to consider themselves middle class, you miss one or two payments of your rent--and Judge Judy doesn't want to ask you what were the circumstances. If you didn't pay your rent, you are going to get evicted. If you don't have resources, if you have no place to go, you can go from a plateau that you thought was middle class into a homeless shelter. Getting out of that situation and seeking employment is almost impossible. How much does it cost? Hundreds of billions of dollars in social costs because you wouldn't give Americans an opportunity to earn a living wage. So it is lonely down here with you guys, but I do hope before we leave that we can have not just Democrats, but all of the Members be able to go back home and say, ``I was late getting this started, but we do have the issues, and we are going to make you proud.'' Thank you so much for taking the time to allow us to express what we know most people believe, but politically, they can't support.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank you sincerely. It looks like it is going to be pretty lonesome in this House. I have been looking since I have returned from the recess to see how a nation that is about to embark on another intrusion, military intrusion, what concerns we would have to have and to explain when we go home and tell our constituents that we have done this because of you, that your Nation's security was threatened. Now, I agree with the gentleman that when we see these atrocities committed something should be done, but by us? Haven't we suffered enough? Haven't we sacrificed enough? So few Members of Congress have to attend the funerals of those dedicated men and women. Less than 1 percent are making this sacrifice. There is no financial sacrifice being made, no tax put on the war, and people think that people are volunteering to put themselves in danger. Well, the families don't always feel the same way about it. And I have been involved in being a part of getting citizenship for people who have come to this country and enlisted and fought and died for this country, and I give the family a little flag. Now, it wasn't too long ago that America was under the impression that enough is enough. We have lost. We have sacrificed enough. We have got to get Iraq on its feet, help stabilize the government, and then we will get on and deal with Syria. Now, in the old days, when I was in the Army, we knew who the enemy was. They had uniforms. They had flags. But as I understand, the fluid situation that came to our intelligence during the recent recess, it seems as though ISIS is worse than al Qaeda and all the other evil terrorists that we have been involved with and that now some of them have acquired weapons that we have given to some of the Arab cults that were our friends, but somehow the weapons have been taken and are in the hands of people that I am not certain which ones are our friends. Now, I know the President has said no boots on the ground. I don't know what that really means, that we don't expect to lose any American lives. I don't know whether that means that only drones will be used and that we can rest assured that no American in uniform is going to be fighting anybody in that part of the world. But since the threat to our national security appears to be so uncertain, and since the President believes he already has the power constitutionally to enter into this stage of engagement with this threat to our national security, and since I know that, polls notwithstanding, very few Americans are going to have a problem going to sleep tonight thinking about ISIS, it would seem to me that one of the ways that we could discuss and debate this is a part of what I was saying when I introduced the draft bill. I don't want to see our young people having to serve in the military. I think it is good to have some type of public national service, but I don't think people should be trained to kill. But I know one thing. If the security of this great Nation is at risk, it shouldn't be less than 1 percent of America that has to be placed in harm's way. So, even though most of the lives we lost started off with not troops going in initially, but consultants, advisors, and those that are going to instruct our friends to defend themselves, but ultimately the number gets larger and larger and larger. So I am going to submit some kind of way that one criteria that Members can use when going back home when their voters ask, ``Well, what was it that impressed you so much after all our country has suffered in getting involved, all the trillions of dollars, the 6,000 lives, what did they say that caused you to believe that our Nation was threatened?'' you might say that we had attached to that a draft bill, and we said that if it appeared as though our Nation was going to embark on a military excursion in another country, every American must be registered between certain ages, men and women, if they are able, to say our security has been threatened, and we should be proud as Americans to say that that is the reason why we have done that. I bet you one thing. If that is what we were talking about this recess, neither party would be anxious not to have a vote on this, and we wouldn't be getting out of here tomorrow or the next day or the day after if we have to explain why someone's son, husband, or brother or sister may have to be involved in Selective Service because we felt in our hearts that our Nation's security was threatened. So I, like you, want to hear what the President has to say. When Republicans come to the floor and say they are going to join with Democrats to support the President, that is something I haven't heard of in years. So I do hope that the President is able to bring us together with a better understanding as to we as Members of Congress and Representatives of the Nation's citizens and noncitizens, that we can come together, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Members of the House of Representatives where the people govern. And all of us would feel better in knowing it is not an easy choice, but we are convinced that it was the best choice. So thank you so much for taking the time out, and I only hope that 435 of our Members would be doing the same thing so I can leave more secure in knowing that I have done the right thing. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2014 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations--NECO, the Ellis Island Medals of Honor pay tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. The Medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from diverse ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage and culture. We honor these outstanding individuals because the important work they do today, creates a better world for all of us tomorrow. Since the Medals' founding in 1986, more than 2,000 American citizens have received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, including six American Presidents, United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders. This Medal is not about material success, nor is it about the politics of immigration; it is about the people who have committed themselves to this nation, embraced the opportunities America has to offer, and most importantly, who have used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in our country and in the lives of its people. Citizens of the United States hail from every nation known to man. The iconic metaphor of this nation as a veritable melting pot of cultures continues to ring true, and it is this diversity that adds to the unique richness of American life. It is the key to why America is the most innovative, progressive and forward thinking country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our forebearers to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. This award serves to remind us all that with hard work and perseverance anyone can still achieve the American dream. In addition, by honoring these remarkable Americans, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they have made to America. I commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as to promote unity and a sense of common purpose in our nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO and in congratulating all of the 2014 recipients of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. I also submit the names of this year's recipients. 2014 Ellis Island Medal of Honor Recipients Salpy Akaragian RN-BC, MN; Iran Davar Ardalan; Marina Arsenijevic; Sherry S. Bahrambeygui; Lily Ring Balian; Maria Bartiromo; Gerald A. Benjamin; Robert S. Bennett; Norbert R. Berg; Narpat Bhandari; Barbara J. Bowers, M.D., Ian Bremmer; Major General Mark A. Brilakis; Charles Ta-Peng Chang; Edwin M. Chang, M.D.; Hazem H. Chehabi, M.D.; Quyen D. Chu, M.D.; Vice Admiral Daniel L. Cooper; Brigadier General Ruben A. Cubero; Vice Admiral Philip Hart Cullom. H.E. Archbishop Hovnan Derderian; Samir A. Desai; Paul J. DiMare; Captain Jeffrey F. Dixon; Diana L. Ecclestone; E. Llwyd Ecclestone; Salim F. Fadil, M.D.; Phillip Frost, M.D.; Chief Thomas P. Galati; Diana Xing Wu Gao; Jean-Pierre Garnier, PhD.; Colonel Michael J. Gould; General Frank J. Grass; Scott Green; Felix `Phil' Grucci; Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr.; Samuel R. Harris; Richard B. Herman, Esq.; Evander Holyfield; Joan B. Horning. Professor David P.J. Hung, O.M.D., PhD.; Vahe Imasdounian; Jae Kung Jeung; Larry E. Jodsaas; Yue-Sai Kan; Shaygan Kheradpir; Minsun Kim; Gary Sze Kong; Gwen S. Korovin, M.D.; Dr. Alma Kunanbaeva; Kin Y. Lam, M.D.; Norma Lerner; Anita Bevacqua McBride; Douglas W. McCormick; Honorable Robert Carl McFarlane; Raffi Megerian; Dr. Aria Mehrabi; David C. Meltzer, Esq.; Ali Mojdehi; Darioush Nasseri, M.D.; Jerar Nishanian. Herbert V. Nootbaar; Dattatreyudu Nori, M.D.; Pejman Nozad; Ivan Obolensky; Fatih Ozmen; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Peter Kihyo Park; Jorge M. Perez; Lauren Pizza; Rabbi Joseph Potasnik; Arun Kumar Pramanik, M.D.; Helen Psaras; Major General L. Scott Rice; U.S. Representative Edward R. Royce; Major General Jay Santee; Elizabeth Sarquis; Timothy R. Scully, CSC; Ketki Sharadkumar Shah, M.D.; Yash Paul Soi; Andrew Strzalkowski. Abdul M. Suleman; Elie Tahari; Honorable David H. Thorne; Honorable Gaddi H. Vasquez; Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.; Honorable John P. Walsh; Robert R. Weinstine, Esq.; Honorable Jesse White; Steven W. Wong; Yannis C. Yortsos, PhD; Lotfi Zadeh; Tim H. Zagat; Charles Zhang. And receiving the International Ellis Island Medal of Honor, Ahmet Calik and Nigel Lythgoe.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the gentleman from Nevada for this opportunity to support H.R. 4443, naming a post office in my district after a fallen hero who, as was reported by the chairman, came to this country as a kid on August 24, 1984, with his family from the Dominican Republic. He didn't come to this country to become a hero; he came in search of the American Dream, as so many thousands of people have. Ultimately, after living and playing in the vicinity of this post office that we will name after him, he finished school and saw an opportunity in serving in the United States Armed Forces, as a matter of fact, joining the 2nd Infantry Division, which I was honored to serve from 1948 to 1952. Juan lost his life, and he gained his citizenship after that through provisions that we have made in the immigration law. There are so many thousands of young people that won't have post offices named after them, and some will be forgotten by many people who have no idea where our young people have lost their lives or what even they were fighting for. That is why it is so important for us as Americans, as we continue to fight the longest war in our history, you should remember that it is more than the post office, it is more than their life, but it is what this great country stands for as we try to protect America all over the world. It is so important to us, as Members of Congress who have this responsibility to determine when that moment comes, that our Nation's national security is threatened and when we will be going to war, and that these thousands of lives, not just the people who for economic or other adventurous reasons join the military, but in fact, a sacrifice that all of us have to make when our great Nation is threatened. We are still going through this period, and it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that when the President of the United States or Members of the United States Congress believe that our Nation's national security has been threatened, that we should also make certain that we have a mandatory service that goes with us, so that no matter what neighborhood, no matter what the economic status is, that when that flag goes up, all Americans, regardless of their age, should be prepared--should be prepared and anxious to make some type of sacrifice in support of our Nation's security. Certainly for those who are young enough to serve, they should not be confined to just those who volunteer, but everyone should be made vulnerable or at least given the opportunity to be drafted into the military to serve this great Nation. So I appreciate the support of the House to name this post office--it will be symbolic--on Vermilyea Avenue after the name of this brave young person, a son, a brother, a father, and--most of all now--an American who gave his life for this great Nation. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for giving me this opportunity.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this rule, exactly what bill is it that we are going to vote for or against as relates to the rule? Because depending on the substance of the bill, it is going to determine whether I vote for or against the rule. If they are not prepared to tell us exactly what the bill is going to be in it, how could we possibly make a judgment as to whether we support the rule?

Mr. RANGEL. May I further inquire, we are not asking you to opine anything, Mr. Speaker. We are asking you to tell us exactly what we will be debating. If we don't know what we are going to be debating--I am not asking the Speaker to tell us what is in the bill. I am asking the Speaker to find out from the majority exactly what this rule is going to be allowed for them to bring up so that I would know whether to stay here or not to stay here.

Mr. RANGEL. Debate on what, Mr. Speaker? Just tell me what will we be debating on? That is my question. You tell me what the Members will be debating on, and I am satisfied. I don't want you to opine. I want you to tell me what is going to be in the bill.