Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to further allocate that time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those days that we will never forget as legislators. This is one of those days that I think as legislators we will never forget. And even though we have some people who have not studied the bill that are so anxious to believe that they are going to get prescription drug relief, I think at the end of the day that they might be able to see that this is the first step that has been specifically designed not to reform the Medicare system as we know it but to dissolve it. There are some people who are honest enough, at least outside of this hallway, to admit that that is exactly what they would want to do, to dissolve the Medicare. Many of the people on the other side of the aisle, and perhaps a handful on our side, believe that health care should not be an entitlement, Social Security should not be an entitlement; that the free marketplace should be able to work its will; that government should not be involved in providing these type of services. Ultimately, I do believe that when the bill is studied and they see that the transfer of the ability to determine how much prescription drugs will cost, which prescriptions would be filled, what is the recipient entitled to, when does the bill lock into place, and at the year 2010 what do they do with the voucher if we do not have Medicare, all of these things, I think, will be answered at some time, but I really hope that they are answered today. We have many people that have worked hard on this bill; certainly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has been a champion for health care for decades; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will be handling the remainder of this bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and so many others. But as I have said so many times publicly, at some point in time people will be asking, when they were moving to dissolve Medicare, where were you and what were you doing? I think, as so many votes in the past, that people will remember this vote. And those of us who oppose this piece of legislation will be giving our colleagues an opportunity on voting for legislation that provides all of the coverage that the letter requested from AARP, and while parts of the letter was read, I think it is safe to say that the objections that were raised to the bill or the questions that they had hoped that would be changed, that that is handled in the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allocate the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), with the understanding that he be permitted to allocate the rest of the remaining time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means connected this bill with senior citizens' inability to plan for their future. Well, I am glad he is sending them a signal, because after what they intend to do with seniors with the Medicare bill, somebody might have planned for their futures. I remember in the good old days when Republicans used to say that they were going to travel around the country and pull the Tax Code up by the roots. That meant they were going to close loopholes, get rid of shelters, and to have a system that people did not have to hire accountants and lawyers in order to know what their tax liability would be. I even volunteered to drive around with them on these buses to see just how they intended to put back a Code that was more equitable and fair and one could understand. But while the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) still thinks that some of them are on the level as relates to health, I asked for the opportunity to at least open up this debate just so that people who are not on the floor would understand that this has nothing to do with health. It has a heck of a lot to do with wealth and more to do with shelter. They have to find ways to make certain that the deficit gets larger and that there is no money in the Treasury to take care of the problems that we used to say was a Federal responsibility. How do you do it? Just being creative. Why, they do not even need a chairman of a Committee on the Budget because there are no budget restrictions. Last night, this bill was supposed to be going over to the Committee on Rules at a cost of $71 billion over 10 years. What imagination. What creativity, when just overnight they found out that the bill really costs $171 billion. How can Republicans be so smart that just overnight, without hearings, without checking with Treasury, without talking with OMB they can find $100 billion? Now, what is the cost of $171 billion? It is simple: It means that people who make up to $150,000 and are well do not have to pay taxes on storing away $4,000 in a tax shelter. So if you are working for someone and you make up to $150,000, you never have to pay taxes on the money, whether you are sick or whether or not you retire with the money. This is really just a tax-free grant to some of the people who are friendly to people on the other side. But what about the people that do not have the $4,000? Now, that is the problem, because you are not eligible for this unless you do not have expenses that will be paid for for $1,000. So if an employer really cares for you and wants to have you eligible for this tax shelter, the best favor he can do for you is to take away your health insurance. And, of course, you make the killing on your savings by not paying taxes. And so once he does you this favor, he has to do it for the lesser-income people, and lo and behold, we will find that those who cannot afford to stash away this money, because they do not have disposable income, end up with no insurance and no savings account. Oh, one might say this is cruel, but sensitivity never bothered the majority party, because at the end of the game they want to know how much of the people's money did you leave with them. Or to put it another way, how much did you take away from the Federal Government so that we cannot provide basic services. So the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) need not worry. This savings account has nothing to do with health. It has everything to do with shelter. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be turned over to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and that he be given the authority to allocate time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, as we consider a resolution recognizing the work of our late colleague in the alleviation of hunger, I would like to honor George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland for his contributions to this country and the world. He may have been the greatest advocate for the hungry that the House of Representatives has ever known. Mickey was born on November 27, 1944, in Lubbock, Texas. From 1972, when he was first elected into public office, until his death in 1989, Mickey Leland fought on behalf of the hungry, poor and less fortunate around the world. Neither partisanship nor race nor political boundaries prevented Mickey from reaching those who needed him. Republicans and Democrats alike respected Mickey for his determination and moral rectitude. I urge my friends and colleagues in this chamber to honor Mickey's memory by rededicating ourselves to eradicating world hunger and the poverty which is its cause. In 1984, Leland co-authored legislation creating the House Select Committee on Hunger. It was the Committee's responsibility to focus solely on the widespread problems of hunger and malnutrition. Mickey chaired the Committee from its inception until his death. The Committee's efficacy stemmed from his unwavering moral leadership. He legislated on infant mortality, fresh food for at-risk women and children, and comprehensive services for the homeless. Mickey Leland refused to narrow the scope of his energy and dedication to his own country. Following reports of famine in sub-Saharan Africa, Speaker ``Tip'' O'Neil appointed Leland to lead a bipartisan Congressional delegation created to assess the magnitude of Africa's needs. The findings of that delegation resulted in $800 million in humanitarian relief. In his pursuit to help the needy, Mickey traveled around the world. He met with Fidel Castro to reunite Cuban families and traveled to Moscow as part of joint U.S.-Soviet food initiative to Mozambique following the Cold War. He met privately with Pope John Paul II in 1987 and 1989 to garner support for his efforts in Africa. Mickey did everything he could. Those of us who were privileged to serve with him in this Congress were always inspired and challenged by Mickey to do more to alleviate the suffering of the people whom Jesus called ``the least of these.'' Mickey died just as he lived, trying to help. He never passed leadership to others when he could infuse a project with his warmth and energy. Mickey was leading a mission to a refugee camp in Ethiopia when his plane crashed, killing him and 15 others. Mickey died on August 7, 1989, near Gambela, Ethiopia.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to provide tax incentives to encourage greater diversity of ownership in telecommunications businesses. My bill is a response to the increasing ownership of television and radio properties by large media companies. I strongly believe that promoting a diversity of views on the airwaves is an important public policy goal. The only way to accomplish that goal is to broaden the ownership of broadcast stations. The television and radio spectrum is a limited resource. The trend in recent years has been a greater concentration of ownership of that resource by the large media companies. We need to reverse that trend. Mr. Speaker, small businesses that wish to enter telecommunications businesses face significant barriers. To enter a broadcast business, a small business must purchase an existing property. Owners of those properties find it much easier to sell to large businesses than to small businesses. Therefore, small businesses quite often do not have a seat at the table when there are negotiations over the sale of broadcast properties. My bill would attempt to reduce those barriers by providing limited deferral of capital gain taxation when a telecommunications property is sold to a small business. It would provide the sellers of those properties a positive incentive to consider a small business purchaser. Large segments of our society historically have been underrepresented in the ownership of radio and television properties. I believe that it is vital that those groups have access to the television and radio spectrum so that their views may be represented on our airwaves. Therefore, my bill would provide a larger deferral of capital gain taxation when the sale is to a small business owned and controlled by individuals from these historically underrepresented groups. Mr. Speaker, I understand that some may attack my bill as being the re-enactment of a flawed prior program. The provisions in my bill are quite similar to the tax certificate program that was repealed by the Congress in 1995. I do not quarrel with those who assert that there were abuses in that program. However, it is unfortunate that the Congress chose repeal and not reform because that program had been effective in accomplishing its goal of expanding ownership of radio and television businesses. In 1978, before the implementation of that program, only .05 percent of all broadcast stations in this country were owned by minority groups. By 1994, the year before the program was repealed, the program had succeeded in increasing minority ownership sixty-fold to 3 percent. Since that program was repealed, the number of minority-owned broadcast properties has declined. The bill that I am introducing today contains provisions specifically designed to address the abuses in the prior program. It is limited to small business purchasers, it contains restrictions on the number of purchases that can be made by any one business, it contains recapture provisions to prevent the use of the small business as a front for another party, and it contains provisions designed to prevent avoidance of the ownership requirements through options or other sophisticated transactions. I am hopeful that we can avoid the emotionally charged rhetoric that occurred in 1995 when this issue was last considered. All small businesses, regardless of their ownership, would be eligible for the benefits of my bill. It is true that the bill provides a slightly larger incentive when the small business purchaser is owned and controlled by individuals who are from segments in our society historically underrepresented in ownership of broadcast businesses. I believe this incentive is appropriate so that the views of those groups are heard on our Nation's airwaves. The bill simply attempts to ensure that small businesses, including minority owned small businesses, have a seat at the table when a broadcast property is being sold. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will be able to deal with this issue on a bipartisan basis. We should all support the goal of expanding diversity in ownership of broadcast properties. I am pleased that in the past Senator McCain introduced a similar proposal in the Senate. I am hopeful that we can find bipartisan support in the House. Following is a brief description of the provisions of the bill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two of the Nation's most outstanding civil rights leaders, Medgar Evers and Mrylie Evers- Williams, on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Medger Evers. During the 1950s and 1960s, at the height of the civil rights movement, Evers battled racial injustice in his home state of Mississippi by becoming a prominent member of the NACCP in Jackson, Mississippi. He inspired others to utilize peaceful methods of protest to speak out against racial inequality through boycotts, sit-ins, and demonstrations. Myrlie Evers-Williams stood by her husband in the fight for civil rights by serving as his partner in organizing public demonstrations and his secretary when he became Mississippi's first field secretary for the NAACP. After his assassination, she emerged as a prominent figure in the realm of public service by serving on the Los Angeles Board of Public Works and eventually becoming the chairwoman of the NACCP. It is for these reasons, that I wish to acknowledge these two accomplished individuals. As I provide a short biographical sketch of Medgar Evers and Myrlie Evers-Williams, I encourage you to read Myrlie Evers-Williams' published memoirs to better understand the amazing accomplishments of these two individuals. Medgar Wiley Evers, the son of James and Jessie, was born in Decatur, Mississippi on July 2, 1925. Evers put his high school education on hold to serve his country in the Battle of Normandy during World War II. Once he returned the completed high school and then earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College where he met Myrlie Beasley from Vicksburg, Mississippi who he later married on December 24, 1951. He gained recognition in Who's Who in American Colleges for his active participation in his college's choir, debate team, football and track teams and his service to the college's newspaper and student government offices. While he worked as an insurance salesman in Mound Bayou, Mississippi he began to establish small chapters of the NAACP in the Mississippi Delta region. During that time he also began coordinating boycotts of gas stations that prohibited African-Americans from using their bathrooms. When segregation in public schools was ruled unconstitutional with the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision, Evers decided to apply to the University of Mississippi Law School being the first African-American to do so. He was denied admission thus his desire to fight racial injustice was further ignited. His rejection from the law school grabbed the attention of the NAACP's national office. Later that year, he was named the NACCP's first field secretary for Mississippi. He and his wife then moved to Jackson, Mississippi to establish the Jackson office of the NAACP. Because he was denied admission to the University's law school, he played an instrumental role in the admission of another African-American man James Meredith. In addition to encouraging and organizing African-American communities in Mississippi to participate in public demonstrations, he also urged them to take advantage of their voting rights because of his own voting experience in which he tried to vote in Decatur in 1946, but was turned away by white supremacists. Disregarding the numerous threats he received, Evers continued to publicly speak out against racial inequality, boycott discriminatory merchants, and encourage African- American communities in Mississippi to do the same until he was assassinated in his driveway on June 12, 1963. His brother Charles carried on his work with the NAACP after his death. In 1970, a senior college, part of the City University of New York, was named in his honor. Medgar Evers College is located in Crown Heights in Brooklyn, New York. The tragic death of her husband led Myrlie Evers-Williams to move her family to California where she attended Pomona College. After earning her bachelor's degree in sociology, she began her career in public service as assistant director of planning and development for the Claremont College system. She later moved to Los Angeles to begin a job as the consumer affairs director for the Atlantic Richfield Company and in 1975 she married Walter Williams. In 1988, she became the first African-American woman to serve on the Los Angeles Board of Public Works when she was appointed by mayor Tom Bradley. During the early 1990s she pressured Mississippi prosecutors to reopen the case on her first husband's assassination. She eventually succeeded and finally in 1994, Medgar Evers's killer was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. One year later, she was appointed the first female chair of the NAACP. Sadly, she also lost her second husband to prostate cancer that year. In 1999, her autobiography entitled, Watch Me Fly: What I Learned on the Way To Becoming the Woman I Was Meant To Be, was published. Her autobiography focuses on her life as the wife of a civil rights activist and a community leader. Medgar Evers and Myrlie Evers-Williams have both made their mark in American history and will always be known for their pioneering efforts in American society.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the McCollough Invaders, a gospel missionary brass band who this week will be celebrating their 38th Anniversary. These men are only a few of the many unsung heroes of our community, who have given of their time and have never asked for anything in return. This group of men began their careers as early as 9 years of age. During the 1960s, these boys were encouraged by the late Bishop Walter McCollough to make a positive contribution to the community while simultaneously improving the quality of their own lives. Many came from broken homes where there was no father figure. Their grandparents, aunts, uncles, older brothers, sisters, other relatives or friends would step in when a parent was not around. In order to make ends meet, many of their families depended on public assistance. In some cases, these boys were left to themselves to survive on their own. Despite these personal obstacles, these young boys devoted their lives to ministering music to many in need of relief from the day-to- day frustrations and anxieties of life. Throughout the 1960s, they performed around the country. Their dedication to the peace movement and to playing Gospel music helped shaped the America we know today. Today the McCollough Invaders are still making history. Some of these young men no longer live in New York. However, they continue to influence and help others cope with life's frustrations by making burdens just a little bit lighter. Some have used what they have learned many years ago by working with young Gospel bands and marching bands in other inner cities in Washington, DC, and Charlotte, N.C. Their travels have taken them as west as California and as south as Florida. Others have become business leaders or entrepreneurs in the fields of finance, healthcare, energy, and technology. Many continue to work with youngsters who are mirrored images of themselves almost two scores ago. It is certain that these young men have been and will continue to be role models for others who will also make significant contributions to our communities. Though the McCollough Invaders can be heard on any given Sunday at the same venue in Harlem, New York at 125th Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard, we join the City of New York on Saturday, June 14, 2003 as The McCollough Invaders celebrate 38 priceless years of providing service to the Harlem community and the world.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, just a minute. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) needs 30 seconds in order to get a response to his question, notwithstanding the fact that the majority is not using their time, I will be glad to do it.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means knows that we will not allow parliamentary obstacles to move this bill that the Senate has passed in a bipartisan way and that the President has supported it. Now, I know a lot of time and money has gone into building up this $82 billion, but since the distinguished chairman has said that he wants to move this bill swiftly and the initial bill only cost $3.5 billion, if we knock off the $72 billion put on the Senate bill, it would seem to me, even with a little help from the Parliamentarian, that we could expedite this bill by not instructing the conferees to do anything which the chairman already has indicated he does not intend to do but, rather, to just have it pass as is. I do not know why we cannot do this. But I will get the Parliamentarian and get together with the chairman and see what we can do to expedite this. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the sovereign State of California (Mr. Matsui), the distinguished senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, could I ask unanimous consent that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means be given an opportunity to instruct the Speaker that he has no objection to accepting the Senate bill as passed?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) does not say anything, Mr. Speaker, then there is no objection. So, I have unanimous consent until such time as he objects.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if I ask for unanimous consent and no one objects, would the Parliamentarian tell me why I cannot be recognized?

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

Mr. RANGEL. I am correct? I can do it? What is it?

Mr. RANGEL. Not for unanimous consent, without objection from the chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means? He does not object.

Mr. RANGEL. I am sorry. I cannot hear what the Speaker is saying.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of saving time, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1308 and H.R. 1307, both passed by the Senate, be considered and accepted by the House, and that way we can send the bill immediately to the President and we can get out of here early, without amendment, of course.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. RANGEL. No, I made a parliamentary inquiry. I was not objecting to the previous question. I asked whether or not what the gentleman said meant that he did not intend to debate.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentarian or the Speaker tell me, does the eloquent statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means mean that he did not intend to use the hour of debate that he has?

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I intend to close the debate on this issue, hoping that perhaps the conferees would have an opportunity to review what has been done by the Senate and what has been done by the House, and to recognize this all started with us trying to help 6.5 million families and 12 million kids. Why this was dropped by the majority, this provision that was in the Senate bill, I do not know. Why it was so vigorously resisted by the Republican leadership I do not know. Why they continuously referred to giving assistance to hardworking people throughout the United States and our military people as being welfare, I do not know. Why they do not understand that a stronger America, a productive America, an increase in the purchasing power not just for those who clip coupons but for those who work every day, that have to buy clothes for their kids and pay for prescription drugs and pay rent, these are the things that really spur the economy. It would just seem to me that somewhere we could find some type of compassion, to say we made a mistake, we left it out. And even for political reasons to be able to say, since the Senate has reached some type of bipartisan agreement, we looked it over, the President wants us to get relief out there as fast as we can; it is $6.5 billion more than we expected, but we will accept it. What went into the thinking when people said, this is not going to happen? There are a lot of other things that are more important than that. The President can suggest, but he cannot vote. Then all of a sudden someone said, oh, no, we have to find some way politically that we can vote for it but make certain that it never sees the light of day. What can we possibly do to get a positive vote on this but to make certain that the Senate cannot accept it? I was not privy to what happened, but one thing is clear: That other body knocked down the President's request from a tax cut for $726 billion. When they got finished with that, they knocked down the House tax cut from $550 billion to $350 billion. So it appears as though the Senate is very, very concerned about the size of the deficit. Now, I know that that does not concern us in the House. I am glad to see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget that is here, because God knows he picked the wrong time to head the Committee on the Budget. They just threw that away. But things change, and maybe we will see better days. But if they really wanted to find out what is it that they could do to politically irritate the Senate and to have them reverse themselves on the child credit, some demon could have whispered in their ear, Why don't you increase the deficit more? And they would say, yes, why not double it? So we would come out in the House with a $20 billion, go to conference and adjust it, and it will be $15 billion. But then they said, but if you do that, you still would have a child credit bill. We want to make certain that when the majority leader says that it is not going to happen, it is not going to happen. So then they said, Why not increase it to $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion, $80 billion? Bingo. The House will accede to the President's request and consider the legislation for giving child tax credits to working people by increasing the deficit by $82 billion. See how they like that. See how the bleeding hearts like that? You really want to help the working families? Well, this is what the deal is: We will give the working families a break today, but when it comes time to pay down the deficit, those kids are going to pay and they are going to pay big time. That is the decision that you are leaving to the Senate. It is shameful because I do not doubt the dedication of members of the other party. You just have a different way of looking at government. You really believe that government should be so small that we will reduce the revenue so low that we will starve each and every program that we believe in. Some of those programs will not go away by legislation. You cannot kill Social Security by privatization. You cannot kill Medicare by vouchers. You cannot kill Medicaid by block grant. But there is one thing, whether you are a bleeding heart, a liberal, a Democrat or a moderate Republican, if the money is not there, then the leader is right, it is not going to happen. And let me tell you, every bit of taxes that we reduce here, that tax comes up somewhere. It comes up when Governors try to say, well, maybe we can fill up the gap, but politically they cannot. They have a limit on how much taxes they can raise, how much money they can borrow. And then it gets down to the cities, and, God knows, I know it. We got a good mayor, trying to do all of the things that the Congress has said in terms of homeland security, but we are closing fire departments, we are closing clinics, we are closing libraries. And while you are cutting taxes here, guess what we are doing in the great city of New York with the working people? They are not getting welfare. They are working every day. They have got kids, but they are paying more for buses, for subways, for buying food and clothing, for day care, everything. They are paying more, including paying for Social Security and Medicare expenses. So I know a lot of you think that these working people that we are trying to protect are welfare recipients. You do not pay taxes, you do not get tax relief. Well, they deserve some relief. They are entitled when we are giving the people back, those who pay taxes, God knows who makes America great, except those people who work every day, hoping that life will get better for them and a lot better for their kids. And so if you want to say that that is not the Congress' responsibility, leave it to the United Jewish Appeal, leave it to Catholic Charities, leave it to the Protestants Council, but leave us out as the Federal Government. Let local and State government do it. If you believe that, then what you do is starve the great reserves of this country. And if you cannot kill the programs legislatively, you kill them by not having the money there. So what you are saying is that one day when you accomplish your purpose, we will be paying more in interest on the trillions of dollars that we have borrowed than we will be able to pay for the programs that America has been so proud of. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.