Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that our substitute be made in order. Point of Order

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), my colleague and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in view of that protection that the majority gave itself, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House of Representatives. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, has the Chair ruled on the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford)?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Mary Ball Williams Middleton for her lifetime achievements and continued involvement in the community. Born in Charleston, South Carolina on March 26, 1901, Mrs. Middleton turned 102 this year. Since moving to Harlem at the age of 16, she has demonstrated her commitment to bettering society. Mrs. Middleton has been an active member of her church, the Cathedral of United Methodism in Harlem, NY for over 40 years. Over the years she served as a member of the Stewardess Board No. 4 and the United Methodist women, and as chairperson of Dignity Channel. Her community involvement is also demonstrated through her involvement at the A. Philip Randolph Senior Citizens' Center, the Harlem Council on the Aging, and the New York City Senior Citizen Volunteers. I commend Mrs. Middleton on her lifetime of community involvement and sincerely hope that she will continue to impart her wisdom and love on the community for the benefit of today's youth.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, like many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am moved to speak about the humanitarian and economic situation of the people of Haiti. It is no secret that the people there are suffering greatly. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere with roughly 70 percent of its 7 million population unemployed and 80 percent living in poverty. HIV/AIDS is devastating the country, with roughly 1 in 12 Haitians infected with HIV and the Center for Disease Control predicting 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year. Additionally, AIDS has orphaned over 200,000 children, and that number is expected to increase to 350,000 over the next ten years. While there are many explanations for the current situation in Haiti, it is clear that the Haitian government and international community disagree as to the cause and the solution. Regardless of who is to blame, the people of Haiti continue to suffer and I believe that it is time for their suffering to end. We must provide assistance to provide jobs and hope for the people of Haiti. It is for this reason that I, in conjunction with Congressman John Conyers, Jr., introduced the Haitian Economic Recovery (HERO) Act, which would help in moving Haiti towards economic stability by providing labor and trade opportunities through investment in the apparel and other assembly industries. For similar reasons, I cosponsored the Haiti Aid in Transition Initiative and Access to Capitol for Haiti bills offered by my colleagues Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters. Both of these bills urge that previously approved loans, totaling $146 million dollars in humanitarian assistance, be released to Haiti. I sincerely believe that the opportunity for change is ripe in Haiti and that an opportunity still exists to overcome the obstacles that have blocked the economic assistance so desperately needed by Haiti to relieve its humanitarian crisis. I know that this requires that the Haitian government resolve the alienation of the international community by further demonstrating that it is on the road to resolving its political and human rights concerns. I believe that it is still possible for both the U.S. and Haitian governments to work together to meet these goals. I will continue to do what I can to support the delivery of food, medicines, and other essentials to the people of Haiti that I know are desperately needed.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be joining my good friend, Philip Crane, in introducing the Job Protection Act of 2003. I am very pleased both with the substance of this bill and the bipartisan cooperation exhibited by everyone in its development. This bill is a model for how we should be addressing national issues in this Congress. The bill responds to the recent World Trade Organization ruling that held that our export-related tax benefit, the FSC/ETI provision, violates our trade agreements. I believe that it is necessary for this country to comply with its international agreements. But I believe that the response to the ruling must be designed in a way that preserves jobs in the United States. The FSC/ETI provisions currently benefit companies manufacturing and producing goods in the United States. One company executive described the beneficiaries of FSC/ETI as companies ``doing business the old- fashioned way,'' producing goods in the United States and selling them overseas. Merely repealing FSC/ETI without returning the revenues to companies producing in the United States could result in further job losses in the United States. This would be unacceptable, particularly now when there has been a steady erosion in U.S. manufacturing jobs. Our bill will comply with the WTO ruling by repealing the FSC/ETI benefit, but it also will provide a permanent effective rate reduction for U.S. manufacturers that is consistent with our trade agreements. It will create positive incentives for companies to expand their operations in the United States, not overseas. It will preserve, not threaten U.S. jobs. Mr. Speaker, we have had similar challenges to our export-related benefits in the past. We always have responded in a bipartisan, bicameral basis. Such a response is appropriate because that type of challenge is not a partisan issue. It is a legal dispute between our country and our foreign competitors. In that dispute we all represent the same client, the United States. We should proceed just like a group of lawyers representing the same client, perhaps disagreeing in private, but never sharing those disagreements or competing legal briefs with our opponent. Attached is a summary of the provisions of the bill. The proposal would repeal the FSC/ETI benefit effective on date of enactment. The proposal would include binding contract transition relief and general transition relief. The general transition relief would be based on the company's FSC/ETI benefit for 2001. The company would receive a deduction of 100% of its base period amount for 2004 and 2005, 75% for 2006 and 2007 and 50% for 2008, with no general transition relief thereafter. As the general transition relief phases out, a new permanent benefit for U.S. manufacturers would be phased in. The new benefit would reduce the effective corporate tax rate on income attributable to U.S. production activities. Purely domestic companies would receive an effective rate reduction of 3.5 points (reducing the 35% rate to 31.5%). Companies with operations offshore would receive a smaller rate reduction based on the value of their U.S. and world-wide production. That adjustment would create positive incentives for companies to keep operations in the United States.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I rise to remember the life and sacrifices of Private First Class, Lori Ann Piestewa of the United States Army. Lori was a member of the 507th Maintenance Division working near Nasiriya, when her convoy made a wrong turn and was ambushed. Lori lost her life along with eight other American soldiers in the same incident. Lori became the first Native American woman to die in combat. Lori was a dedicated mother of two young children, and leaves behind a closely knit group of family and friends in the Hopi Indian community in Tuba City, Arizona. Lori was a source of enormous pride for her family and the larger Hopi community. Native Americans have a long and proud history in the United States military, with 12,000 currently serving. Hopi leadership has reported that approximately 56 tribe members are in the military, with an astonishing 48 now on active duty in the gulf region. Hopi/Arizona Tewa enrolled tribe members face many hardships: unemployment hovers near 27% and of the employed less than 40% have full-time jobs. Moreover, nearly 57% of Hopi tribe members live below the poverty line, with only small percentages of the Hopi population in need receiving public assistance or welfare resources. Lori's children and family should know that in sacrificing her life for our nation in this war, she has become a great source of pride for all Americans, but particularly those of us who have served or who have family members who have served in this nation's armed forces. Lori will also stand as a symbol and poignant reminder of the many hardships and tremendous sacrifices that Native Americans in this nation continue to make for our country.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, no matter which way we voted on the war resolution, I think we all come together hoping that we have a package for those heroic people that fought the war in the Middle East, and that when they come home that we will be able to treat them as heroes and have a veterans package for them. One would think, however, since we have not the slightest clue of how long the occupation is going to take, where we will have to go next in the region, what the total price is going to be to have democracy installed in Iraq, that before we even think about borrowing money and having a tax cut, that we would wait and see in a rational way what would be the cost to the United States of America. It is true we have no friends to go to to help pay for the cost of the war, and we do not even know how long this is going to continue, notwithstanding the fact that we call a victory; but I think that in the short run what we are talking about is that the majority in this House really does not want to see this great Republic provide any public service. They have advocated eliminating corporate taxes altogether. They have advocated letting Medicare just turn softly, slowly in the wind. They have advocated privatizing Social Security; and at the end of the day, they will tell you that these would be the responsibilities of the State and local government. But ask the Governors and ask those in the States how they treated them in this budget. Ask the local community, the firemen and the policemen how are they treated. They will do anything and say anything in order to say at the end of the day nobody pays taxes except the working people. They fight our wars, they pay our taxes; but the wealthy at the end of the day are the recipients. Is this what we call shared sacrifice? I think not.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and all of the Members of the House that worked on this legislation, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and our past Member, Tony Hall, for the interest and support that he has given. I would like to thank the nongovernment organizations for the work that they have done to make the Kimberly Process available to us, and the certificates, so we can move forward with better trade with those who produce raw diamonds. Like other Members, I was motivated to get involved in this issue after seeing the horrific evidence of violence wrought by rebel groups financing their civil war activities and human rights abuses through the illegal diamond trade. Addressing this issue, it seemed to me, was part and parcel of our responsibility to assist the nations of sub- Saharan African countries by bringing peace to the continent. In addition, I understood if we did not curtail trade in illegal diamonds, our failure to act would have a chilling effect on the legitimate diamond trade for countries such as Botswana where legitimately mined diamonds provide a significant source of her income. The stain of conflict diamonds threatens to have a tremendous adverse impact on her. I would like to say a few words about the process by which this legislation is being considered. Normally, I have been a strong advocate that all legislation go through the committee process and be fully debated; but this particular bill did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on International Relations, but I do believe in view of the time pressure to pass this very important legislation that this should be an exception to the rule and there should not be any controversy. I am pleased to be working with the gentleman from California and on the other side of the aisle with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) to give this support in connection with the urgency that it deserves. I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation without any hesitation. Most all Americans, and certainly those in this House, are strong advocates for democracy all over the world, and we had hoped that the seeds of democracy would have grown in Cuba. Many of us have taken different approaches how we would want to do this, but one thing is abundantly clear: It has taken too long for Castro to recognize the importance of open elections and, certainly, no Americans can find any justification of the wanton and massive arrests of people, many of whom who were advocates of normalization, all of whom were advocates of democracy, to have been arrested with closed and secret trials and without any evidence that their conduct was a threat to the security of the people in Cuba. While we also are reminded that some of us are old enough to have supported the July 26 resolution against Batista and recognize that we do not want those days ever to return, still we are not satisfied with the progress that has been made in terms of moving toward democracy, and it is hard for us to believe that the Cuban Government wants us to believe that these people were arrested because they were involved in a conspiracy with the United States of America to overthrow their government. If they truly believe that the United States intended to overthrow their government, they should have exercised their right to have kicked out the chief of the U.S. Interests Section there, and then not to hold their people hostage and subject to the painful sentences that have been imposed upon them. I join in urging the Cuban Government to release these people, to open up these courthouses, and to whatever complaints they have about the conduct of any Americans that are in Cuba, to let the whole world see it. But I am glad to stand with my colleagues and ask for an immediate response to the call of this House, and that is to release the prisoners forthwith. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution introduced by my colleague, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart condemning the actions of the government of Cuba in violation of the rights of its citizens. It is not the resolution that I would have drafted, but it comes close enough in reflecting my objections to these actions. Representatives of the Cuban government want us to believe that their actions in arresting and prosecuting Cuban citizens were based on evidence of their involvement in a conspiracy with the United States to overthrow their government. The Cuban citizens being prosecuted--many of them journalists and advocates of open elections and supporters of normalization of relations with the United States--allegedly consorted with the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana in this conspiracy at private meetings, including visits to each others' homes. The so-called evidence is that the United States government provided the Cuban activists with millions of dollars with which to carry out the conspiracy and that these Cuban citizens, therefore, were in violation of Cuban law. It is hard to believe that the Cuban government feels so insecure that these mass arrests had to be carried out, that the trials had to be held in secret, without any evidence exposed to the Cuban people or to the international community, or that the God-given right of Cuban citizens would be so violated. It is even harder to believe that if this conspiracy theory held water, the person who was at the center of the conspiracy--the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana-- would be allowed to remain in Cuba. Hardly anyone could disagree that Castro-led revolution of 1959 had improved the lives of the great majority of Cuban citizens. But we've waited too long for the revolution to take the next step in offering true democracy to all Cubans. Some Americans believe that the best way to bring democracy to Cuba is a policy of embargo, cutting off all food, medicines, travel, trade and social and family contacts. Some of us believe that--as with other communist countries, such as China and North Vietnam--a better way is to tear down barriers and allow the Cuban people to see the benefits of democracy. In my view, such a policy of engagement is far better than the use of propaganda and the distribution of radios and pamphlets. U.S. citizens are the most effective ambassadors of democracy. Despite the ability of supporters the embargo to sustain that failed policy for over 40 years, there has been a great deal of progress in the movement toward normalization of relations between our countries. Just as in February 1996, when the Cuban government shot down two unarmed private aircraft piloted by Cuban-Americans based in Miami, this time there was no threat to the security of the Cuban government. Just as the shooting incident set back the development of our relationship for several years, that unwarranted violation of the rights of ordinary Cubans, in my humble opinion, has further set back the efforts of the Cuban and American people to move toward democracy and free trade. For 30 years, I have been part of a sometimes unpopular effort to improve relations between our countries. I would be less than honest if I did not say now that the response of the Cuban government to concerns raised from many quarters has been less than adequate. I will continue to support any effort by our two countries to improve that relationship, but I cannot support this action taken by the Cuban government. Indeed, I am forced to condemn it. I know that this view is shared by many of my colleagues, and I hope that the Cuban government will seek ways to undo this unfortunate setback to relations between our countries. I hope that they will reconsider this action against people who were seeking to demonstrate their political differences with their government. I hope that the government will take the most drastic action for any government to take, to reverse itself and release the prisoners.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we begin an unjust invasion of Iraq, I think that it is appropriate that this chamber hears from citizens and leaders on the local level, and not just the representatives of the Administration. Last week, on March 12, 2003, the New York City Council courageously passed resolution 549-A, condemning current plans for an invasion of Iraq. They did so representing their constituents, who have made it abundantly clear through letters, faxes, emails and public protests, that the costs are too great and the evidence too suspect to support an invasion. The resolution represents the voice of the people of our great city. I applaud the majority of the members of the Council for their principled fight for peace and diplomacy. I commend them for resisting the tempting safety of silence and risk being unfairly labeled and misunderstood as ``unpatriotic.'' We live in a time where no one wants to challenge our foreign policy decisions for fear of being perceived not supportive of freedom or of our brave men and women who poised for the invasion of Iraq. However, when history records where elected leaders were at the time that this fateful decision between war and international cooperation was made, it will be clear that it was the City Council of New York who stood strongly as voices for peace. I invite you to read excerpts of their resolution, so that it can be clear why the elected representatives of the citizens of the City of New York, still recovering from the attack of September 11, believe that real peace and democracy should be secured by law, not force. New York City Council Resolution Urging Military Restraint in Iraq Resolution calling on the government of the United States to make all efforts to work through the United Nations Security Council in a manner that would reaffirm our Nation's commitment to the rule of law and the primacy of human rights in our international relationships, and to take all appropriate steps toward securing the participation of other nations and international bodies in the effort to ensure that Iraq does not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and toward promoting human rights for all the people of Iraq; and further calling on the government of the United States to work through the United Nations Security Council and with other nations to ensure the unimpeded access of United Nations weapons inspectors to all areas of and facilities in Iraq and to ensure that the inspectors be given a full and fair opportunity to conduct their efforts in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions; and further calling upon the Council of the City of New York to oppose a pre-emptive military attack on Iraq unless it is demonstrated that Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States or its allies or unless other options for achieving compliance with United Nations resolutions calling for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the means for their development have failed. By Council Members Perkins, Baez, Barron, Boyland, Brewer, Clarke, Comrie, Davis, DeBlasio, Dilan, Espada, Foster, Gerson, Gioia, Gonzalez, Jackson, Koppell, Liu, Lopez, Martinez, the Speaker (Council Member Miller), Monserrate, Moskowitz, Quinn, Reed, Reyna, Sanders, Seabrook, Serrano, Stewart, Vann and Yassky. Whereas, The manner in which the United States government is responding to the crisis involving Iraq has caused great concern among many New Yorkers, resulting in one of the largest public demonstrations in the history of the City of New York on February 15, 2003; and Whereas, The Council of the City of New York is the locally elected voice of the people of the City of New York; and Whereas, Saddam Hussein has violated United Nations resolutions requiring his government to destroy biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, cease the development of such weapons and permit international inspection of all areas and facilities to ensure compliance with such resolutions; and Whereas, Although international weapons inspections barred by Iraq in 1998 have been reinstituted in response to international pressure, particularly from the United States, there is evidence that despite some cooperation, Iraq is not fully complying with United Nations resolutions; and Whereas, It is imperative that Iraq not be allowed to possess, use or export biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, or weapons of terror, and that Iraq fully comply with United Nations resolutions; and Whereas, Since taking power in 1979, Saddam Hussein's regime has committed human rights violations against the Iraqi people on a massive scale--documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others--and we condemn these crimes and the ongoing oppression of the Iraqi people, including the Kurdish, Shiite and the other minority groups; and Whereas, It is in the interest of all nations, including the United States, that threats to world peace and violations of human rights be dealt with in accordance with international law and, whenever possible, on a multilateral basis; and Whereas, A pre-emptive United States military attack on Iraq, absent a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States or its allies and absent the support of the international community would violate our commitments to the United Nations charter; and Whereas, War has grave repercussions in terms of loss of life; and Whereas, While it is difficult to project the financial costs of war, a thorough analysis published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that the total cost of invasion, occupation, peace-keeping, reconstruction, nation- building and necessary humanitarian assistance might range from $150 to $750 billion; Whereas, Such cost would place an enormous strain on our nation's ability to maintain the infrastructure, human services and social programs necessary for our nation's security, general welfare and progress; and Whereas, It has not been substantiated that all other means of disarming Saddam Hussein in accordance with United Nations resolutions have been attempted and have failed; and Whereas, The United States government has not articulated how a military attack would result in the formation of an Iraqi government that rejects the development of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and promotes freedom and democracy; and Whereas, In the event that our armed forces are called into combat in Iraq, we recognize, honor and appreciate the commitment, service and valor of our military personnel, and together with their families, we fervently hope for their safe return; and Whereas, This resolution speaks of the United States' response to the current crisis involving Iraq and does not address any action the United States might take in response to any future humanitarian crisis; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the government of the United States should make all efforts to work through the United Nations Security Council in a manner that would reaffirm our nation's commitment to the rule of law and the primacy of human rights in our international relationships, and should take all appropriate steps toward securing the participation of other nations and international bodies in the effort to ensure that Iraq does not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and toward promoting human rights for all the people of Iraq; and be it further Resolved, That the government of the United States should work through the United Nations Security Council and with other nations to ensure the unimpeded access of United Nations weapons inspectors to all areas of and facilities in Iraq and to ensure that the inspectors be given a full and fair opportunity to conduct their efforts in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions; and be it further Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York opposes a preemptive military attack on Iraq unless it is demonstrated that Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States or its allies or unless all other options for achieving compliance with United Nations resolutions calling for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the means for their development have failed.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what a great opportunity we had tonight for all of us to unequivocally endorse and praise those brave young men and women who are prepared at any time to put their lives on the line and put themselves in harm's way for the interests of the United States of America. My training in the military dictated to me that when that flag goes up, we salute it. When you are in the military, you do not have the options of determining which is a right war, which is a moral war, and which is any other type of war that one likes or dislike. You do what you are told, and you fight for this great country. As Members of Congress, however, we had an opportunity to forge a resolution that would not have any doubt about our unequivocal support for our men and women not just tonight but as long as we are able to serve in this great body for this great country. But somehow we sought not to do this. Somehow, as the majority leader said on different occasions, we wanted to mix policy with praise. Our fighting men and women do not have an opportunity to deal with policy; and yet this is what we are asked to do, as the majority leader said, that we must congratulate and express the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation for a President who brought us where we are today. I do not like where we are today. I did not vote or support how we got where we are today. I am prepared to salute the Commander in Chief because he is in charge today, but why do you put me in the position that it even looks as though I am not supporting our men and women? Because I reserve the right as a Member of this body to disagree with this President or any other President as long as I am elected to serve my constituents. I am happy that I will have other occasions to show in a more vocal way my unequivocal support for our brave fighting men and women.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from Connecticut who has so graciously yielded time for us to express ourselves in this august Chamber, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and of course the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owns), the architect that put it all together. When Governor Bush was running for President, one would think that he picked up a Democratic National Committee Campaign piece of literature. He was for education, Leave No Child Behind, prescription drugs; and when he was appointed to office by the United States Supreme Court and he got there, he had a substantial surplus in the budget, the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund. It looked like it was on its way to full recovery. But the programs that he had promised, instead of getting that, what we did get was a $1.3 trillion tax cut, most all of which went to the wealthiest Americans in our country. As a result, as we stand here today, the surplus is gone. We have no prescription drugs. We expect devastating cuts in the Republican budget. And one thing that we did not know was that we would be in war. Of course we do not like talking about that because Republicans say if one talks about money and how much the war cost that one is preempting the President from declaring the war; but now that the bombs are dropping, I assume somewhere before this debate is over, somebody would be slipping some papers to us saying what the estimated cost of the war is. Our budget says that this is the patriotic budget. This is the antiterrorist budget. This is a budget that protects our young people on the field by saying the President did not know, I do not think he knew, that he was going onto declare war before his budget, before his 1.5 trillion tax cuts. So, therefore, what we are saying from a tax policy is let us freeze everything. Let us just put a stop to the tax cuts, a stop to the flooding of our deficit, and just take a look at what America should be all about and adopt this budget as one that is the budget of patriotism, a budget that tells the terrorists that we believe that as the President is concerned with liberating and bringing democracy to Iraq, as the President has a concern about bringing democracy to the region, as the President has a concern to capture the oil fields, increase the production, and get the revenue to improve the education and health care of the people in Iraq, that the antiterrorist patriotic budget says that we have the same commitment and a stronger commitment to the people in the United States of America to provide the health care, the affordable housing, the education to make us more productive so that we can protect this democracy. We want to give our men and women that are fighting in the Middle East all the protection that they have today; and when they come home, we will be there to say that we fought against cutting their budgets for veterans benefits, for health benefits, and for education benefits. Vote for the patriotic budget. That is the one that is on the floor now.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for giving me this opportunity to address the House in probably the saddest day that I have had in my career, to be a Member of Congress and to not be able to respond to my constituents, and indeed, to so many people in our great Nation, as to how we find ourselves in the situation we do today. What is even more remarkable is how we can debate putting together a budget and say that we have to wait until the war gets started good or the war is over, and then we will be able to come back and fit it into the budget. It is almost like saying that we would like to give prescription drugs and hospital assistance, but we do not know how many people are going to be sick. We would like to give prisons and cops and security, but we really do not know how many people are going to commit crimes, so wait until it is all over and then trust us, we will come back. Another problem that I have today is that so many of my colleagues find it very, very difficult to understand that we come together in our hearts, and wanting to make certain that no young person that is in our military today will ever have any reason to challenge that this United States Congress appreciates them for their dedication, their loyalty, and that we are prepared to do anything and everything that we can for them to have the security in knowing that we are all Americans together and nothing, not Republicans and not Democrats, not liberals and not conservatives, is going to breach this bond that we have a constitutional and moral right to have. I have been involved in a lot of debates as to when American troops should be introduced into harm's way. I was not here when they went into the Dominican Republic. God knows I was not here when they went into Korea. I was not even here when they had a vote on the Tonkin Gulf resolution. I was here and I heard debate on Kosovo. I was here and heard debate on Haiti and the Persian Gulf. We had Democrat and Republican Presidents, and we had serious differences of opinion. Most of the time, at the conclusion of these debates, we praised each other and expressed support that it was intellectually and politically the right thing for the Republic and a great Nation like ours to do. Nobody accused someone of being unpatriotic because they differed with the President, whether he was Republican or Democrat. Today I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are not going to challenge each other as to who loves our country and who respects our flag the most; but we concentrate on the fact that those that are placed in harm's way, they do not have the opportunity to debate which war they support or which war they are against. They do not have the opportunity to make the decisions. When the decision is made, they have to go; and we have to be there for them. I suspect if the gauge of patriotism was gauged not on how many flags we had stuck on your automobiles but, rather, how patriotic we were in wanting to help the troops, that we would be here and we would be coming here saying how many members of our family have we encouraged to join up and to volunteer and to get involved in this thing, not only to bring democracy to Iraq but to bring democracy to the region. I would suspect that if we were all as patriotic as sometimes I hear the words said, that we would reflect this not only in the budget, but we would be talking about expanded services for our veterans, for our warriors, for those people who would want to expand and join the Reserves and join the National Guard. I would suspect that if we did not have this attitude that ``we will hold your coat, you go ahead and fight,'' but we were really saying, we appreciate what you are doing, that we would say, ``and when you come home we are not going to treat you just as disabled veterans or sick veterans or veterans without homes, we are going to treat you as the heroes that you are for what you have done for us.'' I would find it awkward when my veterans come home from Iraq to tell them that what I was really debating on the floor was how much money could we really take out; that I would be saying what we were trying to do on your behalf would be to have a $1.5 trillion tax cut because we want to stimulate the economy; that what we were doing was trying to cut back a budget, to cut back health care, to cut back housing. I would find it difficult to explain how the thought of terrorism would have this Congress so petrified that instead of doing the things that we have been sent down here to do, we are cutting back in spending, we are cutting back in taxes, and we are cutting back in being those things that we are asking people to fight for, that is, a country where everyone has an opportunity to decent health care, a decent education. I am going to be just as critical of this President as I can; but more than that, I am going to be just as supportive as this Congress allows me to be supporting those programs that allow them to get back home healthy and safe and to be able to be discharged and knowing that we are going to protect those rights. I hope when that flag goes up we recognize one thing, that no one has a right to say that someone is less patriotic because they did not support every intrusion that a Congress has made or a President has decided of our men and women into a foreign country.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am disappointed that we do not have an explanation as to why the fishing tackle boxes and the removal of taxes of bows and arrows and benefits for livestock and an explanation of why those are on this bill, but I guess silence is probably the best explanation that we can possibly come up with, and that is they feel very awkward and embarrassed and ashamed that they would have to resort to a mechanism like this in putting this on the Columbia Shuttle victims' bill. That being what it is, I am not prepared to go home and explain why I voted for these bows and arrows and fishing boxes and livestock. It suffices to say that all of us in our hearts know that the same way the men and women have been heroes for all of us in the Armed Forces, we cannot do enough to pay tribute to the heroes that served the United States and the world by meeting the challenges of outer space, and that forever in our hearts we will remember the families of the Columbia Shuttle, and whatever we can ever do in the Congress or anywhere, for that matter, to ease their pain and to show our support, we want the families to know that even if sometimes it means swallowing hard, they can depend on us being there for them as they were there for us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I guess I rise in support of the bill. The reason I reluctantly say ``I guess'' is because the Republicans once again have shrewdly put us into a political box by bringing to the floor a provision that provides tax relief for the families of the Columbia Shuttle astronauts out of compassion for these families. There is no one in the country, no one in the House, that would not want to support this very, very sensitive provision. But, once again, the Republican leadership has to make things difficult. I am really amazed and surprised that as we ask for support for this bill, that we have to put tax provisions on this bill to provide relief for those people who make bows and arrows. It is totally unbelievable. If that is not enough, then we have to find out why would we repeal the tax on fishing tackle boxes and provide benefits for livestock sold on account of drought or other weather-related issues? Why, in God's name, can we not hold sacred just taking care of the families of the shuttle astronauts, and not clobber this bill with stuff that is just nothing more than provisions that people want to provide for their people back home? I have no problem with providing relief for pet projects back home. That is part of our responsibility. But why in the world would we put it on a bill like this? I will tell you why; so we do not have to debate these things on their merit. There is no one, in my opinion, prepared to explain why they voted against the families of Columbia Shuttle astronauts from receiving benefits. I may have missed something. Thank God they have taken out eliminating taxes on foreign bettors on horse racing. They have taken out repeal of consumer health protection. But if the Republicans have anything else to say about this bill, and I do hope that they do, please explain to this Member why on this bill they sought to attach unrelated tax benefits for fishing tackle boxes, for removing taxes on bows and arrows, and providing benefits for livestock sold on account of drought or other weather-related conditions. It would seem to me that if this relief is important enough for the House of Representatives to consider, then out of respect, it should never, never, never have been put on the Suspension Calendar with the Columbian shuttle astronaut bill which puts the Members of the House in the position of having to support stuff that they never would be able to explain because they support the families of the shuttle victims. Well, I do hope to hear from the other side soon on these other issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to say that we should feel very proud that we are making this minor adjustment to improve the quality of life by reducing tax liability on men and women in uniform. It is hard for me to believe that as we talk, it is suggested that we are reducing the money for education for those people who are in uniform around the country, those that are dependent on Federal funds to support the localities where the men and women are stationed here in the United States. In addition to that, we are cutting back on aid for our veterans. I would hope that in the spirit in which we pass this very modest bill, that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, make some spirited effort to not have patriotism just be a flag on the bumper of a car, but to make some special effort to give priorities to those men and women in uniform by making certain that their kids are not denied an opportunity to get an education, and making certain that those who go in and serve, that their benefits are not being reduced. Having said that, I would like to close on this and indicate that I think it is worthwhile that we get a record vote on this legislation not so much for political reasons, but so that our men and women would know that they would have a unanimous vote by the House of Representatives not only on this bill, but many bills that I hope will come before us where we can differ with the policy, but we will make it unequivocal support for those who volunteer to salute our great flag and our great country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.