Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of an extraordinary member of my community, Dr. Muriel Petioni. Dr. Petioni has contributed to the health and welfare of the citizens of Harlem as a medical practitioner and public servant for more than 64 years. Born in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. She immigrated to the United States at the age of 5 and was raised in Harlem. After receiving her medical degree from Howard University, Dr. Petioni began her medical career at Harlem Hospital Center in 1937 as an intern. After marrying and starting a family, she returned to Harlem in 1950 where she established a family medicine practice in her father's office. In addition to her private practice, Dr. Petioni served in many positions that drew on her medical expertise. From 1950-1980 she served as School Physician in Central Harlem for the New York City Department of Health, as well as a physician at the Medical Clinic at Harlem Hospital Center. She also served as Supervising Physician for Central and East Harlem from 1980-1984. In 1982, she was appointed Assistant Clinical Attending Physician at Harlem's Hospital Center's Department of Pediatrics. In addition, she served as the first medical director of the Harlem Drug Fighters, a short-term community-operated detoxification unit based at Harlem Hospital in the late 1960's. Dr. Petioni has involved herself in many civic organizations. In 1974 she founded the Susan Smith McKinney Steward Medical Society for Black Women. Under her leadership, the SSMS, composed of women in the Greater New York area, concentrated its activities on networking, promoting the medical achievements of women, and outreach to young women interested in medical careers. In 1976, she founded and became the first Chairperson of the Medical Women of the National Medical Association. The organization would eventually evolve to become the Council of Women Concerns of the National Medical Association. For her works Dr. Petioni has been the recipient of awards and honors too numerous to mention. Among them, The National Sojourner Truth Meritorious Service Award from the Riverside Club of the National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women's Club, Inc., The Distinguished Service Award from the New York College of Podiatric Medicine, and the Health Service Award of the Harlem Service Center of the American Red Cross. After more than a half century serving the people of Harlem, Dr. Petioni shows no sign of slowing. She remains active in the Harlem community and presently serves on the board of numerous organizations including, The Harlem Health Promotion Center, The Greater Harlem Nursing Home, and The Harlem Congregations for Community Improvement. Dr. Petzioni also serves as Chair of The Friends of Harlem Hospital Center, an organization she founded in 1987. Its mission is to engage in and support activities that promote the work of the hospital. As can be seen, the contribution that Dr. Petioni has made to her community has been immeasurable. When she arrived in Harlem as a young girl, I wonder if she had any inclination of the impact her life would have on the people of this community. My duty on this day is to let her know and all those who may read this Record, that the works and deeds of Dr. Muriel Petioni are evident in Harlem today, and it shall remain so for generations to come.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of the late William M. Burke, who passed away recently after a brief illness. Mr. Burke was the founder of the Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars in 1975, and he served as the President until his passing. Mr. Burke's tireless work in developing the ever-widening circle of influence of the Washington Center has empowered thousands of young people to discover the leadership qualities that they already have and to nurture those talents through experiential education both here and abroad. Bill Burke believed that young people should embrace the values of self-respect, courage, ethics, teamwork, and leadership. These were some of the values that Bill himself demonstrated in his own life. Mr. Burke sought to educate the leaders of tomorrow by exposing them to the leaders of today. Members of every branch of government, foreign dignitaries, corporate CEOs, academic leaders, and over 33,000 alumni have forged partnerships with the Washington Center over the years. The alumni of the Center have reached some of the highest levels in the public and private sectors. Bill Burke addressed divisive shortcomings in equal access to the Washington Center by leading the development of the Internship Initiative for Students with Disabilities, the Native American Program, the Diversity in Congress Program, the Minority Leaders Fellowship Program, the Women as Leaders Program, and the NAFTA Internship Program, as well as a growing international program. I have been a supporter of the Cordova Congressional Internship Program, which brings 20 Puerto Rican students into congressional offices to live and learn about life in the United States. Bill Burke has embodied the most honorable models as a mentor, teacher, father, and husband. We extend our condolences to his wife Sheila, and to his two children Barry and Reavey, and to his colleagues and friends, in whose lives will now exist a vacuum once filled by a great man. And to all people who have felt the extent of Mr. Burke's passion for empowering the young people of this nation to achieve great things, continue to embody the values that Mr. Burke endeavored to instill in you. Mr. Speaker, let us as a Body recognize the legacy of Bill Burke, and honor his memory here today.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is losing an extraordinary man in Congressman Amo Houghton. He has been my colleague in the House, in the New York Delegation and the Committee on Ways & Means. I have been privileged in every way to be his colleague, as there is no one who more exemplifies public service. Amo Houghton is of a distinguished and affluent family, yet he is interested in neither wealth nor leisure, forging a career dedicated to serving his fellow man. Throughout his significant career, Mr. Houghton represented one of the more economically depressed districts in New York State, a fact that never deterred him from trying to improve the economy of the New York Southern Tier. He was a successful businessman before becoming a politician, and it has been said that he would surely have become a missionary, had he not been elected. Amo Houghton quickly became one of the most beloved Members from either side of the aisle, most likely because of his unifying nature; Mr. Houghton was not one to participate in partisan sniping, always calling for understanding and compromise. Never neglecting any of New York's citizens, he pledged his complete attention and support to those in New York City, the suburbs and many smaller cities and rural communities, like those in his district. The House will find itself at a loss without the talents and graces of this remarkable man. It will miss his civility and his wisdom, his spirit and determination, but it will be his optimism for our Republic and his respect for the beauty of human life that will be missed most of all. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the career of Representative Jack Quinn, one of the most optimistic Members I have met. I have had the pleasure of serving with Jack since 1993; he is a man who signified the old values of the Republican Party in New York. Mr. Quinn's respect for the working class, fiscal responsibility and civil rights are lasting testaments to his impressive legacy. It could not have been an easy task in representing the City of Buffalo, which has suffered so many devastating economic downturns over the past few decades, yet Mr. Quinn was constantly re-elected in a district overwhelmingly comprised of registered Democrats. This fact is a tribute to his keen understanding of the needs of his constituents even where they may contradict with the leadership in the House of Representatives. Jack Quinn is one of those Members for whom no one has a bad word and with whom no one has had a bad experience. He has the range to be comfortable with factory workers to business leaders to Democrats and Republicans alike. His independent nature and policies are deserving of the highest mark of honor; a man of Jack Quinn's poise and positive energy will be sorely missed in the halls of Congress.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, by now we are all aware of the ongoing crisis in Darfur, Sudan. The United Nations and U.S. officials have both asserted that the situation there is currently the worst humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world. To date, 1.4 million people have been internally displaced, 200,000 have been forced into exile, and an estimated 70,000 civilians have been killed. Some figures put the number of lives lost at nearly 300,000. In light of this incomprehensible tragedy, I am extremely pleased to support the passage of the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004, S. 2781. The bill represents a non-partisan effort to provide adequate humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance to the Darfur region, as well as, hold accountable the perpetrators of the atrocities. The bill seeks to appropriate $200 million for Darfur humanitarian relief, as well as assistance to the African Union's peacekeeping efforts in the region. through the application of economic sanctions, the bill will also seek to take punitive action against the Government of Sudan if it continues its brutal transgressions against the Darfurian people. In addition, the bill will appropriate $100 million in FY 05, 06, and 07 for reconstruction efforts in Southern Sudan. The passage of S. 2781 will send a clear message that the people of Darfur are not alone in their struggle, and that the acts being perpetrated by the Sudanese government will not be tolerated. As a co- sponsor of H.R. 5061, the companion bill to S. 2781, I urge my fellow colleagues to lend their support to this critical measure, as it now lie son the cusp of passage. I cannot stress enough its importance. Its success will no doubt aid in the cessation of genocide in Darfur, and the ability of its people to rebuild their lives and reclaim their liberty. As a nation that values freedom, we must make certain that it endures, not only for ourselves but for all our human brethren. S. 2781 is but one step in that eternal endeavor.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to join in the bipartisan request that we try to work this out. The request sounds like a drunk going to an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting, saying just give me one more drink and I will not do it again. But there has to be a program involved in joining with my colleagues in this bipartisan approach, and we have a program and that is pay-as-you-go. My colleagues cannot help themselves with spending. They think they have a credit card with no limit on it. They go to the richest of their friends and they tell them, they do not ask for it, that they are going to give them a $1 trillion tax cut. Then when they ask, well, where are we going to get the money, do not worry about it, we will increase the debt ceiling, we will just borrow some money. Who are we borrowing the money from? The Japanese and the Chinese. What kind of patriotism is that? What kind of bipartisanship do my colleagues want for that? The truth is every day for the next 2 years we are going to be dealing with the moral issues that encompass this Congress and this country, and the quicker my colleagues try to explain how they can take a surplus projected at $5.6 trillion and then come up and waste it and come up with a deficit of $3 trillion, the quicker they can see that the interest on this debt is going to be larger than the things that they talk about in the Koran, in the Bible or in the Torah and all of those things. That is, talking about education and health care and help your fellow man and let us not help the high rollers that my colleagues try to do. So we are prepared to work in a bipartisan way. If a creditor wants to try to help someone that just could not control the spending, the first thing they do is get a plan. We will give my colleagues plenty of opportunity to be bipartisan by saying pay-as-you-go. Do not stop everything. Do not hurt the aged. Do not hurt Social Security. Do not hurt Medicare. We know how compassionate they feel about those issues, but do not get us involved in anymore debt unless you have some kind of a cockamamie plan to get us out of the mess that you put us in. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for the purposes of control, who has a true understanding of patriotism and compassion and moral values, and take notes because my colleagues are going to be hearing a lot about this.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the United States-Caribbean relationship has long been characterized as one of dependency. More specifically, the Caribbean has historically been portrayed as overly reliant on the United States, while having minimal significance to our country beyond general geopolitical concerns. Indeed, the widespread damage wrought by the recent Caribbean hurricanes has necessitated assistance from the U.S. However, a broader look at the current reality points to a highly reciprocal relationship, with the Caribbean proving to be an increasingly important component of the economic and commercial interests of the United States. A telling indicator of the evolving U.S.-Caribbean relationship is in the area of trade. The Caribbean is now the 13th largest importer to the United States and the 8th largest destination for American exports. U.S. exports to the Caribbean have helped to sustain nearly 500,000 U.S. jobs. While the magnitude of Caribbean trade with the U.S. is changing, so too is the nature of that trade. The Caribbean is not simply a supplier of agricultural products, or an American tourist destination. It is now becoming a significant source of U.S. energy imports. An October 7th story in the New York Times examined this recent ascendancy, with a focus on the island nation of Trinidad and Tobago. In the last few years, the Caribbean, led by Trinidad and Tobago, has positioned itself as significant player in energy trade with the U.S. Already an important regional exporter of crude oil, Trinidad is now the leading exporter of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) in the Western Hemisphere. After 9-11, the U.S. sought to find energy sources beyond the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Additionally, rising gas prices, and increasing domestic shortages increased U.S. demand for LNG. Trinidad has impressively stepped in to fill that demand. Since 2001, it has been the leading exporter of Liquid Natural Gas to the United States, accounting for 75 percent of all LNG exports. These exports are projected to further increase over the next decade. Additionally, a planned LNG pipeline from Trinidad to surrounding Caribbean islands will increase the refining capacity of the surrounding region, as well as spur the region's ability to engage in related manufacturing. Besides Trinidad, other countries in the region have plans to increase their energy market presence. At an October 11th address, Jamaican Commerce, Science and Technology Minister, Phillip Paulwell, stated that three oil and gas systems have been identified in Jamaica for the first time. One of the systems has possible reserves of 2.8 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 10.6 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas. With its close proximity to the United States, development of Jamaican energy resources would be a very beneficial endeavor for both nations. As can be seen, the importance of the Caribbean to the United States has radically evolved over the last several years. This evolution will only be strengthened as we move towards greater regional integration through agreements like the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Future U.S.-Caribbean policy must take into account this new and mutually beneficial dynamic. A Small Island, A Big Exporter of Energy

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the ongoing crisis in Darfur, Sudan continues to be an issue of high concern to the American people. According to United Nations and U.S. officials, the situation in Darfur is the worst current humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world. Out of a population of 7 million people, 1.2 million are internally displaced, 200,000 have been forced into exile, and an estimated 70,000 civilians have been killed. The crisis necessitates not only financial assistance, but also that of a military and logistical nature. A November 17, 2004 editorial in the Washington Post spoke to the current state of the Darfurian peacekeeping effort. Despite widespread condemnation by the international community regarding the Darfur genocide, few in the West have been willing to offer troops or logistics to the peacekeeping effort. The African Union has attempted to fill the void through its seven hundred man observer force. However, the AU force is severely undermanned and underfunded. The AU asserts it will need $80 million just to sustain a force of 3,000 for one year. Many experts believe that an additional 30,000 to 60,000 troops will be needed to adequately secure the Darfur region. This is in addition to the need for logistical support and increased provision of military vehicles and aircraft. The AU will no doubt need assistance in such an endeavor. America, as the greatest military power in the world, should not allow this deficiency to continue. Indeed, the U.S. currently has a contingent of 2,500 troops in nearby Djibouti, from which it can initially draw. The U.S. military airlifted several hundred African soldiers from Nigeria and Rwanda into Darfur last month, but this represents the only major U.S. logistical operation to date. More can and must be done by the U.S. in providing military and logistic resources for the Darfur peacekeeping effort. The Administration has long cited the liberty and freedom of the Iraqi people as a rationale for its military commitment in that country. I know we all agree that the people of Darfur deserve the same, so I am hopeful that progress can be made on this important issue. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2004] Diplomacy and Darfur A full arsenal of diplomatic tricks has been tried on behalf of Darfur, the western province of Sudan where the government is orchestrating genocide. A number of A-list statesmen--Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, U.N. Secretary, General Kofi Annan-- have journeyed to Sudan to demand an end to the killing; still the genocide continues. Cease-fires, undertakings and protocols have been negotiated and signed; still the genocide continues. Two U.N. Security Council resolutions have condemned the government's behavior; still the genocide continues. Tomorrow and Friday, in a triumph of hope over experience, the Security Council will convene an extraordinary session in Kenya, hoping to shine the spotlight on Sudan's suffering. But unless the council members stiffen their rhetoric with sanctions, they will spotlight their own impotence. Sudan's pragmatic dictatorship has bowed in the past to determined external pressure. It expelled Osama bin Laden and negotiated an end to its long-running war with rebels in the south, both thanks to the threat of sanctions. But Sudan's rulers do not make concessions if they don't have to do so, and they believe they can exterminate tens of thousands of people in Darfur and get away with it. When outsiders wax especially indignant, the junta signs another protocol and makes a tactical concession. But its strategy remains unchanged: to cement control over Durfur by decimating the tribes that back various local rebels. The first phony concession came in April. Sudan's government signed on to a cease-fire promising to ``refrain from any act of violence or any other abuse on civilian populations.'' Since then the government has participated in unprovoked assaults on villages, murdering men, raping women and tossing children into flames that consume their huts. In July Sudan's rulers signed a communique with Mr. Annan, promising to ``ensure that no militias are present in all areas surrounding Internally Displaced Persons camps.'' Since then militias have continued to encircle the camps, raping women and girls who venture out in search of firewood. In August Sudan's government promised Jan Pronk, Mr. Annan's envoy, to provide a list of militia leaders. No list has been forthcoming. Last week, in a concession that perhaps reflected nervousness about the approaching Security Council meeting in Kenya, the government signed two new protocols, committing itself among other things to protect the rights of Internally Displaced Persons.'' A few hours later, government forces stormed a camp for displaced people. In sum, the considered judgment of Sudan's rulers is that they can flout international commitments with impunity. Unless that judgment can be changed, the Security Council session in Kenya will not achieve anything. Sudan's dictatorship must be credibly threatened with sanctions that target officials responsible for war crimes, and these officials must also be made to face the possibility of prosecution. Beyond that, outsiders need to recognize that there is little prospect of security for Darfur's people--and therefore little prospect of a return to destroyed villages, a resumption of agricultural production and an escape from starvation--without a serious peacekeeping force. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N. commander in Rwanda during the genocide a decade ago, has suggested that a force of 44,000 is needed. Charles R. Snyder, the senior State Department official on Sudan, has estimated that securing Darfur would take 60 to 70 battalions. More than a year and a half into Darfur's genocide, the United States and its allies have proved unwilling to consider that kind of commitment. They have moved at a snail's pace to support a 3,500-strong African Union force, which in any case would be inadequate; the record of deploying underpowered peacekeepers in war zones is that the peacekeepers get humiliated. The allies are starting to discuss another U.N. resolution, but this seems likely yet again to lack a real threat of sanctions. Up to a point, this is understandable: Security Council members such as China are opposed to strong action, and the United States is conserving limited military and diplomatic resources for Iraq and the war on terrorism. But Darfur's crisis is so awful that the usual balancing of national priorities is immoral. Some 300,000 people may have died in Darfur so far, and the dying is not yet finished.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the work of the Full Circle Life Enrichment Center (FCLEC) located in the Bronx, New York. Founded in 1999 by Derek Suite, MD, the FCLEC serves as a non-profit faith-based community mental health education and training center. The center is dedicated to destigmatizing attitudes towards mental health problems, increasing access to mental healthcare and helping to empower families that deal with life's challenges. Problems such as depression, anxiety, unemployment, domestic violence, trauma, marital conflict, drug use, HIV/AIDS, asthma, diabetes, racial disparities, homelessness, and unemployment have become steadily more pressing over the past decade. This organization has contributed valuable resources to the Bronx community and has set an exceptional example of service. Full Circle has again and again demonstrated its commitment to compassion by offering over 50 workshops in 2003 that addressed some of the most troubling trends in urban communities such as the rise in depression, domestic violence, marital conflict, drug use, HIV/AIDS, asthma, heart diseases, diabetes, racial disparities, homelessness, and unemployment. These seminars bring together leading urban health care experts and educators who share a strong belief in a spiritually- sensitive approach to tackling the most pervasive of inner-city concerns. Full Circle has positively affected over 10,000 lives, and its impact has spread hope in people's lives. Once again, let us as a body commend the efforts of Full Circle and acknowledge publicly the contribution of this organization.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) not for what he does for our party or for the Congress, but what he does for our great country. I would like to talk about the question of morality, the responsibility of government. And some may say, well, what has that got to do with the debt ceiling? Well, it would seem to me that if people would look at the responsibility of our government as relates to spending, to believe that we have a credit card, because that is what we do, we are borrowing money, and that the head of our household was borrowing money but not letting anybody know what he was doing, that would be irresponsible and immoral. It seems to me that if we had a head of a company that inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus and then when we went to look at the books found out that he wasted $9 trillion and had a $2.6 trillion indebtedness, that that person may not be impeached but certainly would be fired from the job. Some might say that they do not really feel the pain of borrowing. And I guess irresponsible heads of households really do not feel the pain of borrowing. Imagine how good it might feel to somebody to be given a credit card and to be told they do not have a limit on what they spend; or to feel that they do not have to tell the American people what they are spending and what they are borrowing; or to be able to say, well, it does not make any difference, I will hide it in a bill and they will not ask me any questions; or to believe that the best way to run the country is to give a $1 trillion or a $2 trillion decrease in taxes to those people who are in the highest income tax bracket. Suppose those people knew that in order to do this that you would have to borrow the money in order to please a small group of people? To get back to the questions of moral values, is it morally right to spend money, to give tax cuts, knowing that the Social Security System, where we made a moral and political and legal contract with the American people, promising that if they lived long enough or if they had disabilities or if they survived a tragedy that that system would be there for them? Is it fair to leave that system so insecure that young people now have no idea whether it is going to be there for them, when that money could have been used to shore up the Social Security System so that we would be fulfilling a moral promise to these people rather than fulfilling a political obligation to supporters? To talk about moral values, if you knew that 45 million Americans, most of whom work every day and had no health insurance, what would be more important morally, to provide for the health care of human beings, Americans, or to give a tax cut? Let us talk about moral values in terms of education, to make a person more productive, to make a person have self-esteem, to make a person want to get married and have a family. Is that not moral values? Is it more important to give a tax cut and to borrow money to do that than to make certain that every kid in America has a chance to fulfill whatever their brains would allow them to do because they had access to education? What about our old folks? Getting old is getting to be a problem just in maintaining one's health because of the cost of prescription drugs. They let you get to a doctor, but you cannot even afford to do what the doctor is suggesting that you do. You do not have to be religious to understand that if you had the money to provide national health care prescription drugs, the moral thing to do is to help those who have not got and to say God already blessed the wealthy. Those are moral values, to be able to do that. It just seems to me that the most irresponsible thing to do is to borrow the money and to know that you will never pay for it, to borrow the money and to know that the interest rates are going to fall on your children, not you. You will enjoy the benefit of supporting the war and giving the tax cuts and rewarding all of the lobbyists, but the people who pay for it are not just today's taxpayers, not just today's children, but the unborn are born with this debt on their heads. It will be hard to explain to them what happened in this Congress, what happened in this Presidency, what happened in this era that caused us to believe that we knew so much about the economy that we could go into debt $14 trillion and say, let our kids pay for it. Is that the moral thing to do? Madam Speaker, it is not the political thing to do, it is not the moral thing to do, but that seems to be what is so important. The President would have us believe that he may not be right all the time, but we know where he stands. How are we going to know where he stands if his party does business in the middle of the night? How are we going to know where he stands if we cannot even find out what the interest on the debt is going to be? And let me say this. Every household plans for what they have to spend, and it is difficult to explain this in terms of trillions of dollars, but what if you knew as the head of a household that you had this credit card, that you could buy anything that you wanted on this credit card and not pay for it? But every month the credit company will be sending you a bill, and it will show you what the service charge is going to be, what the penalty is going to be, or in our case what the interest is going to be. And what would happen in this household, I ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), if you looked at your bill and you looked at what you had to pay and you found out that in 10 years the interest that you are paying on the money that you borrowed exceeded all of your budgetary responsibility for clothing, for health care, for rent or mortgage, except for one issue? And that is where in 10 years this great country of ours will be; that the interest that we are paying on the debt that grows 50 percent faster than the economy will reach the point that it would exceed all of our discretionary expenditures, with the exception of defense. Which means what? It means that Republicans and others can say I supported Social Security, but the money was not there. I wanted to do more with education, but the money was not there. I want health to be improved, but the money is not there. And at the end of the day they may have succeeded in breaking our responsibility as a government for every social program that we have and the only item that would receive priority would be defense and supporting the war. Madam Speaker, I think that this type of thinking really violates our national security because Americans should know who are we borrowing the money from, who do we owe this money to, and how mean can we be in disagreements we have with people whom we owe money to. How angry can we get with the bank if we know they can foreclose? And the people who are lending this money are foreigners. It is not as though in the last 4 years we have made a lot of friends with foreigners, but they thought they were making a lot of money off our interest. And as the interest goes up, we would like to believe that we can borrow more money from them. But, guess what, one of the biggest purchasers of our debt is the People's Republic of China. A large chunk of the money that we owe to foreigners is to China. And whom do we have a problem with in terms of trade? The People's Republic of China. So what do we say as a great nation and lead organization of the World Trade Organization? We told China if they do not do what we tell them to do in terms of fairness and equity as relates to international trade, we will not do business with them. We want them to reevaluate how they deal with their currency. We want them to be fair and not dump their goods and have us lose jobs. And China would say to us, suppose we do not do any of those things? What are you going to do? What are you going to do to the bank that you owe money to? Suppose they unload that debt and let it flow out in the market, suppose we cannot borrow any more money, then we have to appease the people that we owe. Madam Speaker, it would be ironic that because of our hunger and our thirst to borrow, our irresponsible need to support tax cuts for the rich, our complete disregard for the health, education and welfare of our people, who brings us to our feet is the communists, not because of their guns, weapons and power but because they understood the capitalist system so well that they defeated the strongest capitalistic country that God has ever seen. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for just sharing with the American people the economic and fiscal policy that we are directing. I hope that some of the people who are as concerned as we are with moral values would recognize that far more important than just fiscal policy is how do we treat the American people that have needs. We owe them an education, a place to live, aspirations and health care, and it would be a shame if we are paying China more than we are paying for health care. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for giving me this opportunity to say what a moral pleasure it is for me, with the Committee on Ways and Means, in working with you in trying to get the people to understand that we are not trying to beat up on Republicans. We just want them to tell the American people what they intend to do, not in the middle of the night, not locked up in some omnibus bill, but to come here and challenge anything that has been said tonight. We will not see them, because too many people are watching. I hate to believe this will follow the pattern where at 2 in the morning they will have a bill and it will pass by one vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), an outstanding Member of our party and of the House.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You just cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want our American firms to be competitive in France and all over Europe and in Central and South America. If you give them incentives to be able to do this to compete, the jobs that they would have here, these firms in order to be successful have to have some workers. And we are not going to say that we are going to give passports to every American to find a job overseas. It is the multinationals that have to be governed by where the profits are, not where the patriotism is. So if you want to be competitive overseas, if you want them to be able to do the best vaccine in the world for flu, then you encourage them to do it overseas. But one day you will look around and you will see that all of this competition, we have taken our skilled labor jobs, things we used to be proud of, televisions, computers, cars, shoes, things that used to say ``Made in the USA.'' Now, if it is not made in the USA, I hope you are not going to give a passport or citizenship to those foreigners who are making it. I have nothing against the CEOs except I want it to be, not an equal playing field, I want to give every American manufacturer a fair advantage to have jobs here in the good old USA. I am sorry that there are other people that believe that these tax incentives are good for the United States when our jobs go overseas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the whole conference for having a major tax bill come to the floor, not in the middle of the night, but at least nine or ten o'clock, which is a courtesy. I only wish that he had given the Members of the House an opportunity to at least see the bill, but that is asking for too much. But, again, I want to thank him that he did get it on the Web site, and it is going to encourage a lot of Members on both sides to get more computer wise. We may not ever know what is in these tax bills; but we are learning, in the few minutes that we do have, what they do have in this tax bill. So remember, for people who do not know what they are getting and who is getting the benefits or whether it is tax related or not, if someone wants to say ``thank you'' or they are sorry that they missed me, go to waysandmeans.house.gov. I hope the other committees learn how to do this because I have spent 34 years here, and this seems to be a waste for us to ask what is in bills anymore since we have to go to the Web site. Or maybe we can find out how Members of the House really do not have to come down here. Just go to the Web site, ask what have they done, and if they are not a conferee, they can go to waysandmeans.house.gov. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the gentleman from Ohio, my friend and someone that has now brought us back to why we are here. From time to time people are talking about tobacco and sales tax and things like that; but as he pointed out, we are here to correct a $4 billion World Trade Organization problem that we had. If we had just taken away the subsidy, guess what? We would have reduced the deficit by $70 billion. But we took a big different course, and so we are taking care of tobacco, and we are also taking care of a problem that some people have in their States where they do not have income taxes so they want to get equity. I have to learn how to do all of these things in case the original purpose of the bill does not have enough supporters and we want to make it bipartisan. We have to find Democrats who have real problems back home in other areas. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) who really first brought this problem to my attention, and I wanted to make certain that it got in this bill before the Committee on Agriculture took care of it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to say that she is indeed a real Member from Washington. We will miss her. I want to thank her for her support for the real FSC bill that she supported Crane-Rangel. We will miss her. We thank her for the great contribution she made to our committee and to this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a new but a very hardworking Member who is going to get us away from taxes and the complexity of the legislation and get back to tobacco.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not have anyone left who wants to talk about tobacco, but I wish I had known the chairman would be this flexible. I had some draft legislation that I could have possibly gotten into the conference report, but I just did not know. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who would like to speak on a tax issue.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join in thanking the chairman for expanding the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means so all of us could have a better understanding of these agricultural problems. Quite frankly, coming from New York, I never did understand the plight of farmers and tobacco farmers, and I do not know how far we are going to go in expanding this, but I am glad that we have a gentleman from outside of the committee to recognize and to praise the chairman, as I do. Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) so we can further edify the Committee on Ways and Means about problems other committees of jurisdiction have.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. That was exactly what I was about to say, Mr. Speaker. They are telling us what is going on in this conference with those other people over there. What you should be telling us if this bill is so exciting for working people in America, why did you not give it to the Members to look at? The distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, he may not have a bill. No one else got a bill except we conferees, and I am not up to the 1,100th page yet. So all of the exciting things that you are hearing about what they finally put in the bill, I hope people go to waysandmeans.house.gov because none of the Members except the conferees have the bill. I do not know why they do not have the bill. But I suspect there are things in here that we are going to speculate that is in here and they will refer us to the problem page, wherever they are holding that bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a great friend and a great legislator and a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just note that I now get it. If you do not have enough votes to get a tax bill passed, reach out and get some farmers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), to further explore the problems that have been resolved for our farmers. (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member, a senior member of the committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that I am not saying this problem should not have been fixed, I just wondered whether it should have been in a tax bill. I am certain that those that want to see other problems that were fixed can go to WaysandMeans.House.gov and they will understand why we had to fix bows and arrows, and fishing tackle boxes, and foreign made seal fans, how we had to help native whaling tribes, how we had to help foreign horse racing and dog racing gambling, how we had to help pro sports team owners, how we had to shorten the depreciation period for car race tracks. This is really not admonishing, or, in any way, degradating the chairman, it is just we do not have the bill and we do not know what else is in there. So it is good to hear from Members that do know, because they know they promised to vote for the bill in order to get relief. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), whose taxpayers will be hurt seriously. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have taken care of sales taxes and tobacco. I do not know whether we are taking care of the Treasury, though, because they had sent a terrible letter to us indicating that they thought that this bill had too much in the way of special interest tax provisions, which benefited few taxpayers and increased the complexity of the Tax Code. The President indicated he wanted to simplify the Code. We know the only major Republican bill we have in the House is the national retail sales tax. So maybe, once again, I can say that since the Members of the House have not had the opportunity to review this five-pound bill, that people can go to WaysandMeans.House.gov and find out whatever else Santa Claus has brought in bringing us this gift package on the eve of an election. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader who has been a credit to our country and to this Congress.