Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the life, career and passion of Sandra Feldman, who history will record as being one of the greatest leaders of public education in the United States. Ms. Feldman is herself a testament of the public education system. She culminated a career in education by being elected to lead the largest teacher's union in the country, the American Federation of Teachers. Today this Congress recognizes Sandra Feldman for her tireless efforts to improve public education for all of our children. Ms. Feldman, began her life in Brooklyn, New York as a student in the New York City public school system. She recognized early that education was a way out of the poverty she grew up in. Ms. Feldman lived in a duplex building with four families--her family consisting of five members alone. She lived in the toughest imaginable situation, but she persevered. After graduating from James Madison High School she excelled at Brooklyn College and continued with her academic career at New York University. She definitely proved herself to be quite the student, and then challenged herself to meet the challenge of educating and shaping young lives through becoming a teacher. She taught at Public School 34 in Manhattan. In her early days as a young teacher, did she dream that she would one day achieve the presidency of the largest teacher's union in the nation? As Sandra began her lifelong career as an advocate for disadvantaged youth in education, she participated in the great civil rights movement of the 1960's, by partaking in the freedom rides and being arrested. As a teacher she became active in the union and tirelessly worked for the children of New York. She gained notice because she was clearly the best advocate for disadvantaged students. In 1966 she became involved as a field representative for the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). She was repeatedly promoted to become the Executive Director of the UFT. As executive director she oversaw all of the union's activities. She was elected president of the UFT in 1986. She served honorably as president for over a decade until she was elected as president of the American Federation of Teachers in 1997. Sandra Feldman now steps down from that post. She served as the 15th president of the union and the first woman since 1930. Her career as president was marked with innumerable successes. She is regarded as the preeminent authority on urban education and disadvantaged youth. Ms. Feldman has served on a plethora of committees and on the board of countless organizations. She has been recognized by magazines as one of the ``most influential women,'' in the country. She is certainly the most influential educator in the Nation. I regret Sandra's departure from the presidency of the American Federation of Teachers, although she deserves a rest from her endless labors. She has certainly left an indelible mark on public education in this Nation during her superb service to our youth. In addition to noting her successful career as a teacher, and unprecedented leadership of the American Federation of Teachers union I would like to extend my support and well wishes to this remarkable woman as she battles her illness. I wish her a speedy recovery. There are no words adequate to express the gratitude I have for Sandra Feldman for her service and my regard for the contributions she has made. I rise today and call on my colleagues to support House Resolution 714, to recognize Sandra Feldman for her tireless dedication to improving education for our children.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the loss and to pay tribute to one of America's outstanding surgeons who pioneered advanced operative techniques and implants for the treatment of ankle fractures, Dr. Marvin Lewis Shelton. His genius as a researcher and inventor in his field earned him the moniker, ``the George Washington Carver of Orthopedic Surgery.'' Dr. Shelton died at his home in Riverdale, New York, on July 7, 2004. He was 72. What a man he was and what a family he left behind. With all of his professional and academic successes, Dr. Shelton's first loves were his family and his beautiful and devoted wife of 48 years, Arden Shelton, a great talent and songstress in her own right. They were blessed with four accomplished children: Dr. Yvonne Shelton of Northboro, Mass; Le Ann Shelton, AIA, Esq., of New York; Marla L. Shelton, Ph.D., of New York and Marvin Lloyd Shelton of New York. To Arden and the entire Shelton family, I offer my deepest condolences. A surgeon's surgeon, Dr. Shelton was an innovator of techniques adapted in his field for 30 years. A social trailblazer at some of New York City's greatest medical institutions, he was the first African American board-certified orthopedic attending surgeon at Columbia University Medical Center, and the first of his race to gain admitting privileges to an Ivy League-affiliated hospital. As Director of Residency Training Program and Director of Orthopedic Surgery at Harlem Hospital, where he worked for twenty-five years, Dr. Shelton formalized the rotation of Columbia/New York Presbyterian residents at the Harlem institution. He also established an independent training program that facilitated the medical licenses for many minority and foreign-trained physicians to practice in New York and other cities. Born in Pittsburgh in 1931, Dr. Shelton was raised in Wilmington, North Carolina, and educated at Howard University, where he graduated with honors in earning his B.A., M.A. and medical degrees. After completing his internship, he completed his residency in Honolulu, then served as Chief of the Orthopedic Section at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. A doctor, teacher and family man, Dr. Shelton was also an avid sportsman who was actively involved in golf and skiing. He shared his wife's interest in the arts, and for a time owned the Shelton Gallery on E. 62nd Street in Manhattan. I will remember his love for Harlem, for Harlem Hospital, and his willingness to forego so many opportunities so that he could remain there to train and inspire many young doctors. Dr. Shelton published widely and presented numerous papers at national meetings. He was a Diplomat of the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery since 1964 and was a member of the American Orthopedic Association, Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society, Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, American College of Surgeons, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, American Trauma Society, New York Academy of Medicine, National Medical Association, Orthopedic Trauma Association and Orthopedic Association, among others. His discoveries and advances made Dr. Shelton a highly sought-after speaker who delivered more than two dozen lectures around the world. He also held visiting professorships at Yale University, University of Minnesota and the University of Oregon. A part of Marvin will always be with me. I was his patient in 1971 when, applying one of his inventions, he restored and healed my badly fractured ankle. I haven't taken a bad step since.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an editorial in the July 6, 2004 issue of the Carib News, which discusses the issue of improving the national security of Caribbean nations. Our own security depends on how well protected the borders of our closest neighbors are. However, the purchasing and installation of new technology is extremely costly for many of these small islands. Not only is it important that these nations are secure because of their proximity to us, but also because of the many Americans who visit these countries each year. I believe that by helping the Caribbean with appropriate funding we can help them guard against terrorism without worsening the economic conditions of these nations. I urge my colleagues to support funding for Caribbean countries to assist in protecting against the terrorist threat. [From the Carib News, July 6, 2004] The Price of 9/11--Developing Nations Forced To Pay Up Who can blame Caribbean nations and their sea and airport executives if the last thing on their minds immediately after 9/11 was how much they would have to spend as a result of the tragedy, the abhorrent act by religious zealots turned terrorists. When New York's twin towers of the World Trade Center were turned to rubble, crushing nearly 3,000 unsuspecting and innocent people, the immediate and appropriate concern was for the lost of life. After all, with thousands taken to untimely deaths our first worry had to be about human pain and suffering. From New York, Washington, Georgetown, Santo Domingo, Philadelphia and Chicago to Kingston. Port of Spain and Bridgetown, to mention a handful of cities, the reaction was the same as the dimensions of the nightmare sank in. Later it was determined, that the Caribbean had paid a heavy price in the form of more than 100 lives lost. Now, there is another price, one the countries are being forced to meet and its traceable directly to those and subsequent events and to the decisions being taken in Washington, London, Geneva and elsewhere in the developed world. How high is that price? Prof. Ivelaw Griffith, one of the leading security scholars in the Caribbean and Latin America, put the figure at hundreds of millions of dollars, money the Caribbean can't afford. In the end though, the region can't afford to spend the unbelievably hefty sum. Everton Walters, President of the Caribbean Port Managers Association, didn't dispute that figure but said the total would very much depend on the level of sophistication each country may eventually decide it needs. All of this is very important because on Thursday, the deadline set by the International Maritime Organization for countries around the world, Caribbean states included, would kick in. That's when the basic security and other requirements contained in the IMO's International Ship and Port Facility Security, ISPS, code, which was approved 18 months ago, must be met. Failure to meet the deadline may result in sanctions. Walters told this paper that based on conversations, e- mails and other forms of communication from various port managers, most, if not all of the ports would meet the cut- off date. Still, there is considerable anxiety throughout the Caribbean as port executives work right to the last minute to ensure that they are ship-shape. That means we may have to wait until July 1 to know for sure which countries are in compliance and which have failed to meet their obligation. The code is a comprehensive set of requirements which developing countries are finding to be onerous to say the least. As a matter of fact, Erthimios Mitropolous, IMO Secretary- General, recently voiced the agency's concern about the pace of effort towards international readiness when he complained that the ``status of compliance by port facilities has not yet reached satisfactory level despite repeated calls to governments to intensify their efforts.'' Just the other day, Brazil made it clear that its major port, perhaps the largest in Latin America and the Caribbean, wouldn't be able to meet the deadline. To live up to the code, for instance, Trinidad and Tobago must acquire sophisticated and costly equipment, boost its security staff and incur considerable recurring expenditure that's running into millions of dollars. Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Grenada, Barbados, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Bahamas, Guyana, Antigua, you name, are in the same boat, if you will, and must meet horrifying expenses. But the maritime code isn't the only set of requirements Caribbean states must satisfy. Their airports must have extensive security fencing, computers, scanners and the like to pass international muster. That's where the sum of hundreds of millions of dollars would come in. For by the time the process is completed, Caribbean, Latin American and African states would have spent at least $50-100 billion to upgrade security at its various ports of entry, both air and sea, and they must do so without much international help, Although necessary, the security measures imposed by the United Nations, the IMO, the U.S., Britain and various rich countries are major financial and technical burden which must be met if the world's poorer nations are to remain as part of the international trading community. They must have access to shipping lanes and air space if they are to feed their people, satisfy tourism and manufacturing industries and otherwise participate in the economic world. What's troubling about all of this is that these mandates imposed on developing countries aren't being financed by any international development agency or by many donor nations. In other words these are ``unfunded mandates,'' which were laid down by an uncaring developed world, regardless of a nation's ability to pay for them. The international community, quite rightly, was worried about terrorism and its consequences but little attention was paid to how these mandates would be funded. The upshot: if Antigua, Haiti, Suriname, Ghana, Costa Rica, Algeria, Jamaica or any of a host of nations in every corner of the world are to meet international security standards, then they must shift resources from education, health, services for the youth and the elderly in order to satisfy international regulations imposed elsewhere. That, by any measure, is unfair and counter-productive. The U.S., Britain and the G-8 industrialized nations must put this matter on their agenda and agree to fund some of the equipment acquisition programs and the training necessary to keep Third World states in the international arena.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. William Raspberry on his column in the Washington Post on July 5, 2004. Mr. Raspberry described well the importance of the life and music of Mr. Ray Charles. The way Ray Charles embraced the wonderful qualities of the United States is extremely important for many African-Americans who grew up in segregated America. As Mr. Raspberry stated, many African-Americans feel like outsiders in this country, but Mr. Charles was able to embrace and celebrate the presence of brotherhood and justice as fundamental American values. The music of Ray Charles transcended barriers between black and white. His life and music will never be forgotten. I applaud Mr. Raspberry for reminding his readers of the impact this great man had on so many. I hope that my colleagues join me in honoring Ray Charles by supporting the bill I introduced, H.R. 4633, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to create a gold medal honoring this great American performer. [From the Washington Post, July 5, 2004] America, Ray Charles Style (By William Raspberry) I'll know that today is the ``Fourth of July'' (no matter what the calendar insists) when I hear my friend's stereo pulsing out ``America the Beautiful.'' The Ray Charles version, of course. Charles's recent death, at 73, brings it to mind, but I've been aware for some years now how his prayerful exaltation of America has become the virtual theme song of the Fourth of July. What did Americans have for a theme song before that? Was it all Sousa marches, with hot dogs and applause-line oratory? Charles transformed the holiday for me--from the Norman Rockwell tableaux that never seemed to include anyone who looked like me--to a holiday for all Americans. And how did he manage that? Maybe I should start with what may be my one important insight: that in most controversies, thoughtful people secretly believe both sides, espousing the one and suppressing the other depending on the company it puts them in. That is why it is so hard to find white Southerners of my approximate age who will admit to having been racists back in the days of Jim Crow. What they recall, I believe, is that they harbored misgivings about the way things were, and now they find it more comfortable to recall the misgivings than their toleration of the way things were. I always believed that segregation was wrong. . . . And they did. I have harbored similar misgivings about the willingness of black Americans to think of this country as someone else's house--and to view it as complaining outsiders looking in. Of course there has always been ample basis for black people to feel like outsiders, at the very least to internalize W.E.B. DuBois's sense of the ``twoness'' of being black in America. But didn't we, perhaps, overdo the outsider-ness? You see, I always cherished America--even if I acknowledged it only as the too-seldom played B-side of my consciousness. Charles's ``America'' invited me to turn the record over. Charles could do that. He had a way of cutting through the confusions and mixed emotions and preconceptions, and reaching us at our core. The genius that made it possible for him to universalize the blues and spirituals and country-- anything he touched--made it possible for him to universalize patriotism, too. But if Ray Charles changed the Fourth of July with his ``America the Beautiful,'' he also changed the song. ``God done shed His grace on thee! He crowned thy good, yes he did, in a brotherhood.'' The shift isn't merely from Katharine Lee Bates's elegant lyric to the black vernacular; it is a shift in meaning. As Kenneth Moynihan noted in a recent commentary in the Worcester (Mass.) Telegram & Gazette, Bates penned a prayer: ``[May] God shed his grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood.'' Ray made it a fait accompli. As Moynihan put it, ``A fervent hope for the future has been turned into a happy fact of the present.'' It is not, Moynihan argues, an improvement. ``People much prefer to believe in their own righteousness and that of the nation than to think about their failings,'' he wrote. ``No doubt the passionate affirmation of American brotherhood as a divine dispensation already granted accounts for a healthy share of the popularity of Mr. Charles's rather radical modification of the song.'' He's right, of course. And maybe he'd be right to remind those white Southerners I talk to that they really did used to be racists. Sometimes, though, I think it's not a bad idea to let people believe that their nobler instinct represents their ``true'' self--that it is their greed, their envy and their bigotry that are the aberration. You know: ``As a man believeth in his heart, so he is.'' At least for this day, can't we imagine that we are brothers (and sisters) ``from sea to shining sea''? And be grateful for that? Ray Charles says it's all right.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding performer, actress, and entertainer Rita Moreno for receiving the ``nation's highest civilian award recognizing exceptional meritorious service,'' the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Rita Moreno has been an inspiration to many throughout her remarkable career as an actress on screen and stage. Her performances have been recognized with Grammy, Tony, and Emmy Awards, and she received an Oscar in 1961 for her performance as Anita in West Side Story. She has, in fact, been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for her achievements and being the only female performer to have won all four of the most prestigious performing arts awards. Today, June 23, 2004 she will be honored at a White House ceremony with the presentation of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. A dramatic actress, singer, dancer, comedienne, Ms. Moreno has portrayed a variety of different roles going beyond traditional limitations and proving that Latino performers are not limited to ``ethnic'' roles. Her versatility has led to decades of success on stage, screen, and television. Ms. Moreno was born Rosa Delores Alverio in Humacao, a small town in Puerto Rico. At the age of five years old, she joined her mother in New York and the following year she started her dancing lessons. Rosita's immense talent became evident at a young age. By the age of thirteen, Rita Moreno had made her Broadway debut in ``Skydrift''. She signed her first movie contract at the age of seventeen. Ms. Moreno made some thirty films early in her career, and was often typecast as a Mexican spitfire or an Indian maiden. After a decade of these stereotypical roles she was cast as the strong-willed and independent Anita in the movie version of West Side Story. It was only after Rita Moreno won an Oscar for her outstanding performance as ``Anita'', which gained international acclaim, that she was finally recognized as a major talent. Indeed, the film's depiction of ethnic division and urban violence can be seen as a foreshadowing of the civil rights struggles and general social turbulence of subsequent years. Rita Moreno's depiction of a young woman believing in and pursuing the American dream was vivid and memorable. In the early 1970s Ms. Moreno appeared in children's television programs providing inspiration to Hispanic children, with the intent to assure them of their value as citizens of society. Rita Moreno has also been the guest star on a wide variety of television productions, both here and abroad, including highly regarded educational television programs as well as starring in her own TV series. Becoming engaged in so many facets of entertainment, Rita Moreno, early in 1978, turned her attention for the first time to live performances, creating an act that has attracted outstanding critical acclaim. All things considered, Rita Moreno's success goes far beyond her ability to act and sing or win awards. She has strived throughout her career to push past the boundaries that have marginalized actors who did not seem to represent mainstream America and cast Latinos and other minorities in menial roles. She continues to keep busy performing concerts across the country as a guest artist with symphony orchestras. In addition to her film, stage, television and concert careers, Ms. Moreno fills her spare time by lecturing to various organizations as well as to university audiences. She is also involved with a number of civic and charitable organizations and events. Rita Moreno is a member of the Board of Directors of Third World Cinema, a company which is interested in creating opportunities in the film industry for minority groups, and has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Foundation for the Arts, the Alvin Alley Dance Company, the Joffrey Ballet and the Los Angeles Theatre Center, as well as many other worthwhile organizations. Ms. Moreno is currently a member of the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities and a commissioner of the very prestigious Presidential Fellowship Committee. It is a special honor for me to recognize Rita Moreno and her great work in performing arts and to salute her leadership and achievements.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for giving us an opportunity to define who we are as a Congress. There are some who truly believe that we are going through a political period of polarization and disdain for each other and that this is corrupting the system. That may be so, but I think we might look at it in a more optimistic way is that we are making it abundantly clear to the American people, especially those who decide not to participate politically, that they will never, never be able to say this year that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and I think that this is so important. We do not need lectures on Economics 101. All we want to know is are you working, do you have health care and do you think you are getting a fair shake from the government, and not as a Democrat, but also as an American, I would also add, and do you think our kids in the Armed Forces and our Reservists and the National Guard are getting a fair shake? Are we doing all that we can to protect them? I do not really think people are going to be looking at our label, Democrats and Republicans; but they want to know what we stand for. If some of you believe that it is more important to excite the economy by finding the wealthiest people in America, that God has already blessed and given them large incomes, that by exciting them that you are helping the guy looking for a job, do not explain it to us. And do not get annoyed with us if we do not understand it. Explain it to the people out there listening to us each and every day. Ask them whether or not the Republican majority has made their life any easier. Ask them why over half of the budget is appropriated for things that do not concern education and health care and improving the quality of life. Ask them whether or not they are prepared, given the opportunity, to pay for it. I really, truly believe, from the bottom of my political heart, that most Americans are willing to say, if you can make this great country of ours better educated, if you can make them healthier, if you can make them more productive, then this is what I do not mind spending my dollars for. If you believe that obligation is not a national obligation, but should be one that should be picked up by local and State governments and charitable organizations, even as the IRS steps up the investigations of not-for-profit organizations, then, for God's sake, between now and November do not change your minds. Stick to your guns. Provide the tax cuts for the rich, and let those people who are not as fortunate fend for themselves. If they cannot do it, let the mayors do it. If they cannot do it, let the government do it. And if they cannot do it, vote with your feet and forget about them. We have to vote for the bottom line, as you say, and that is profits. So stick with your guns, and we will be here to publicize your position every chance we get. And that is why we appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He is not saying tax and spend, he is saying invest and give Americans an opportunity to have the revenues to do it. For those of us who have grandchildren, we wonder what we can say, if we live long enough and they ask us, well, granddad, what were you doing when they sold away our country? What were you doing when this debt increased to such an extent that you knew that they were leaving it for me to pay? Well, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has given us a chance to say what we would do is to vote against those injustices. It is wrong. It borders on being corrupt. And the people understand what this body is all about. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Obey.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment about the rejection of several amendments offered to the Interior Appropriations Bill, which aimed at protecting the flora and fauna of our country. These amendments would at least have undone some of the harm the current administration has done to our environment since it has taken office. It has always been the priority of this administration to serve special industrial interests and not to preserve the natural beauties of our country. Clean rivers and oceans, healthy forests, fresh air and a diverse wildlife have not been of any concern to this executive and the Bush Presidency has thereby rightly been called the most anti- environmental one in the modern era by several grassroots organizations. The New York Times, in an editorial published two days ago, called upon the House of Representatives ``to partly redeem itself'' from its failures to hinder the anti-environmental policies of the President and to endorse stricter environmental policies by passing several amendments to the Interior Appropriations Bill. Unfortunately, the House missed this opportunity for redemption. A majority of 224 members rejected Representative Rush Holt's amendment prohibiting the use of funds to permit recreational snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park. Visitors go to our national parks to experience the miracles of nature and to find quietness and relaxation. Snowmobiles not only pollute the environment, but they also disturb humans and wildlife alike. I do not understand why so many Members of the House decided to vote against this amendment, which benefits for our environment and our citizens so heavily outweigh the sacrifice of not being able to ride a snowmobile in these particular parks. I was also dismayed that a majority of my colleagues decided to vote against an amendment offered by Representative Maurice Hinchey to stop the killing of buffalos in Yellowstone National Park. The slaughter of these gracious animals is not only cruel but also expensive for American taxpayers. The National Park Service currently spends $1.2 million a year to kill buffalos only because they do exactly as their instinct tells them: They migrate. They get killed because they do not observe state borders and dare to cross from Wyoming to Montana during the winter. They get killed under the premise that they transmit diseases to cattle--a thesis that has never been confirmed and for some reason is a concern to farmers in Montana, but not to farmers in Wyoming. Another amendment benefiting the health of our environment was offered by Representative Tom Udall and again defeated. It would have prohibited the use of funds for the implementation of the Forest's Service new planning regulations. These regulations, which have been proposed by the administration in 2002, will substantially weaken the protection of our nation's wildlife and natural resources and reduce public participation in the environmental decision-making process. Representative Nick Rahall made an effort to present the interests of Native Americans in this country by offering an amendment protecting their sacred sites located on federal lands from energy development and other exploitation. The Native Americans in this country have undergone and are still suffering from discrimination and poverty. Representative Rahall's amendment would at least have ensured that the holiest sites of the tribes are not further destroyed by capitalist interests. Nick Rahall asked us, the Members of the House, how we would feel if open- pit mining was allowed in Arlington Cemetery or bulldozers leveled down the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem to build a highway. Only imagining these scenarios give me feelings of grief and anger. But just these things have happened to sacred sites of the Native Americans and it is a disgrace that so many members voted against Representative Rahall's amendment to stop this evil. But I am happy that at least one strong environmental amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill was passed by the House of Representatives. This was Representative Steve Chabot's amendment to prohibit the use of funds to plan or construct forest development roads in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Last year, the Bush administration announced to completely eliminate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule's protection for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska and to severely weaken the rule everywhere else in the National Forest System. The Tongass National Forest is a national heritage. It is the largest forest our nation has and the biggest intact temperate rainforest worldwide. The exemption of ``America's Rainforest'' from the roadless protection rule was another present of the Bush administration to big industrial interests, in this case timber logging companies and was paid for by the American taxpayers. Representative Chabot's amendment will only restrict the construction of roads that are subsidized by American taxpayers and not those paid for by the timber industry. I do not think that this amendment goes far enough to sufficiently protect this pristine forest, but I think it is a step into the right direction. I sincerely hope, that those Members of the House of Representatives who have voted against the aforementioned amendments will wake up and recognize that an environment once destroyed will not be easy and mostly impossible to restore. I hope that they will remember that there will be future generations who need clean air and water, healthy oceans and forests and a diverse wildlife not only for their enjoyment, but for their survival.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not hear the Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit, we have a restricted amount of time, because the majority denied us the opportunity to have a substitute. If the underlying bill is so good, why not allow in the democratic process, with a small ``d,'' the opportunity for someone to say, I have a better idea; and since they are the majority, why do they not believe that they have enough votes and must have confidence in what they are doing, at least to get the majority to vote for it? So my motion to recommit, what we would have done if we had had the chance, is that we do not provide tax incentives for manufacturers and other people to move their jobs overseas. What we do is grab the essence of the agreement that we had with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) when we put together a bipartisan bill to create jobs, not for those overseas, but for those in the United States of America. We also do not include all of the addition of tax incentives for things that are not related to resolving the problem before us. We have what is indeed called a jobs bill, and that is what we had hoped that we would be able to do. As was pointed out by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), we believe that States who do not have income taxes and rely on sales taxes should get relief, but why the majority would restrict this relief to 2 years is far beyond my expectation; and that is why we thought we had a better idea to make it permanent. When kids look under the Christmas tree, there is going to be a gift for them too. They will be inheriting one of the biggest debts that we have ever seen, because this bill that started out with a plus of $50 billion, they have now provided a $34 billion deficit. And indeed, if you take all of the phasing-outs and take the sunsettings out of it, it is estimated that it would add $300 million to the deficit. One thing that we do not do, and that is to provide safe harbor for churches, allowing them entry into partisan politics, because we were so pleased to see that they knew that they really had overburdened the purposes of this bill and finally excluded that. It would seem to me that those people who really are interested in the jobs of the United States will have an opportunity to vote on this motion to recommit, and those people who believe that there is a gift for them under the tree and that that is the only reason that they are voting for a bill that most people who get a chance to read this bill, since it was not made available today to most of the members of the subcommittees in this House, would realize that this bill is bad for American job seekers, it is bad for America, and it is bad for our economy. So I do hope that perhaps sometime in the future when Republicans think that they have a great idea, that they also should remember in a democracy and in this Congress they should not just attempt continuously to stifle the opposition but to have enough confidence in what they are doing to give us a chance to say, we want a substitute, we want to be heard, we want our bill on the floor for people to evaluate and to be able to vote for. But each time we do it, they said that if we did not take their tobacco, it was out of the jurisdiction. We have been hampered in the committee, we have been hampered by the Committee on Rules, and we are hampered now by the rules of the House. I think we should stop talking about what happened in the days of Rostenkowski and think what is happening to the American people today and what can we do in a bipartisan way, working together to resolve problems that we have. It should be embarrassing to everyone in this House that when a foreign group like the World Trade Organization provides sanctions against United States exporters that we believe that we come up with a Republican solution. It should be an American solution, congressional solution, and not an attempt of a partisan solution for partisan purposes.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am suggesting if this bill was as good as some of you are saying that it is, you would not have to come on this side of the aisle and offer promises that you know you cannot fulfill in conference and you know you cannot fulfill because you do not have jurisdiction. There will come a time that we are going to say when you call it a jobs bill, at least it should mean jobs for United States citizens and not jobs for foreigners.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how does one find out whether or not the former speaker did not tell the truth as it relates to what is in the motion to recommit? How would one be able to find out, when he said that the tobacco proposals are in the motion to recommit, that he did not tell the truth? What procedure does one follow in order to adjust the record and to make certain that truth will prevail over this partisan effort?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is abundantly clear that the majority will succeed in passing this bill not because the bill is good but because they have succeeded in reaching out to other people and giving them gifts to be putting on the tree under this Christmas tree bill. In other words, we call it buying votes. But I would ask the seller to beware and the buyer to beware because when some of these gifts are opened, they will find the boxes empty. Our beleaguered tobacco farmers will find that there will be a sign there: We do not have the money we promised, go to Appropriations; we do not have the regulations, go to Commerce; we do not have the jurisdiction, go to Agriculture. They will find that when they take a look at this bill and they are looking for jobs, there is going to be a sign there: Take a flight overseas. That is where the jobs are going to be. So I am suggesting that even though they may be successful in winning this, they are not winning the minds and the hearts of the American people, who know that they have denied the minority an opportunity to say that we have a better idea in order to do these things. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished minority whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the biggest fraud on farmers, and especially tobacco farmers, that I have seen in my 34 years in Congress. Here we have some help allegedly for the tobacco farmers, and those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means could not even discuss it because it is not in our jurisdiction, yet it is in our bill. A person does not have to be a politician or Member of Congress to know if we are talking about farming and tobacco, we should be talking about the Committee on Agriculture and not the tax-writing committee. This bill has nothing to do with taxes, nothing to do with international sanctions against us. It has everything to do with trying to pick up votes for those people who know that they are facing economic distress in this area. The right thing to have done was to have it in the Committee on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction and who understands this issue even better than some of the smartest Members on the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to make it clear that if the Democrats had a chance to have an alternative this provision would have not lasted just for 2 years, as Republicans would have it, but would have been made permanent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a hardworking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why he is so proud of giving these people a break just for 2 years when the Democratic alternative would have made it permanent so they would not have to worry about paying it back in 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a strong, hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.