Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6867) to provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation, as amended.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this might be anti-climatic. The House, for weeks, and indeed days, in the past hours, have attempted to save the free world from a fiscal disaster. We have bailed out the banks and those who held mortgages. At the same time, we provided for energy extensions, we provided tax breaks for those people that tax provisions have expired. We provided for hurricane relief, for mental health. So over $1 trillion is out there for this House to ease the pain of millions of Americans.

While we were dealing with these gigantic powers, we overlooked the fact that over the last 12 months the number of unemployed workers has jumped by over 2 million, leaving 10 million Americans struggling for work. These are not ordinary Americans. These are hardworking people that raise their family with some degree of dignity that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

So the falling sky as relates to the fiscal situation we find today, so many forget that these people do not have the resources to put food on the table; to pay their rent and mortgages; to keep their kids in school; to meet their medical expenses, or even to pay for the increased price of gasoline.

One member of the committee and of this Congress, Dr. McDermott, has never let us forget, no matter how big the problem we are trying to do, in terms of looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, he has dedicated his life to make certain that these faceless people who have lost their jobs, that America and this Congress attempt to provide some compensation.

We can't return their dignity. In many cases, we can't return their homes. But we can help.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the remainder of my time to Dr. Congressman McDermott to see fit how he yields the remainder of time assigned to us for this purpose.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the September 12, 2008 article, ``Outraged by AIDS Epidemic'' by Virginia Fields, president and CEO of the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS. In this article Ms. Fields rightly expresses her frustration over the increased number of HIV/AIDS infections in African-American communities. The infection rate for African-Americans is seven times higher than Whites and is disproportionately higher than any other racial or ethnic group in the U.S.

With new information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that was released at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City, I ask my colleagues to stand with me to take a stronger stand against this epidemic in our own country. It is inexcusable that with the funding and resources that we have that the HIV/AIDS cases in the U.S. have risen over the past three decades. Through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, the U.S. has spent 19 billion dollars on the initiative to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. In addition to PEPFAR we need to establish a plan that would include adequate funding and resources to assist with prevention, education, and treatment to help combat this epidemic here at home.

Madam Speaker, it is time for us to openly address this issue that is affecting so many individuals and their families across our great country.

Outraged by AIDS Epidemic

(By C. Virginia Fields)

I was not shocked by facts I learned at the recent

International AIDS Conference, but I was outraged--outraged

that, three decades into this epidemic, we are still seeing

the kind of numbers we're seeing in terms of AIDS' impact on

the black community.

At the Conference, which was held Aug. 3-8 in Mexico City,

delegates learned that the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention is now estimating the number of AIDS cases to be

much higher than originally thought. Using more precise

methodology, the agency now says there were 56,300 new HIV

infections in the United States in 2006 rather than the

40,000 previously estimated.

With many problems, the black community is hit harder than

the population as a whole, and AIDS is no different--in fact,

this trend is greatly accentuated with AIDS. The CDC found

that the infection rate for African-Americans was seven times

higher than whites. Almost 25,000 new cases of HIV were

measured for blacks in the reporting period. The new numbers

``confirm that blacks are more heavily and disproportionately

affected by HIV than any other racial/ethnic group in the

U.S.,'' the CDC reported.

AIDS is the leading cause of death for black women between

the ages of 25 and 34.

New York is a leader in the country in many areas and this

is one of the unfortunate ones. The cumulative number of AIDS

cases in this state was more than 177,000 through 2006,

according to CDC statistics. That was more than 30,000 above

California, which was in second place.

Now one would think that, given these numbers, the federal

government would be doing all that it possibly can to fight

this disease, and to target the funds where they are most

needed. I wish that were true. In fact, when it comes to

dealing with AIDS, the government seems to think it's more of

a crisis overseas than at home.

The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

funnels resources to 15 countries with high rates of AIDS.

While that is needed, what about our own citizens? There is

no program to target resources with PEPFAR-like intensity at

home. This is despite the fact that, according to a recent

report by the Black AIDS Institute, black Americans, if they

were a separate country, would have higher rates of HIV/AIDS

than many of the third world countries the government targets

for help.

One of the priorities of the National Black Leadership

Commission on AIDS is bringing about a national AIDS

strategy. This

emerged from a conclave NBLCA facilitated last October that

was co-chaired by Rev. Calvin Butts, pastor of the Abyssinian

Baptist Church in New York, and Bishop T.D. Jakes, pastor of

the Potter's House in Dallas.

The strategy would set goals and timetables and identify

needed resources. It would make sure the 10 agencies that

administer AIDS programs coordinate and communicate with one

another. In short, it would be a road map about how we

respond to the AIDS epidemic in the United States.

The United States requires countries that receive help

under PEPFAR to have such a strategy yet the United States

itself does not have one. More than ironic, that's tragic.

The impact AIDS is having on our citizens, especially those

in the black community, is alarming--and it's getting worse.

If we don't mobilize now and make sure that we're attacking

this disease with as much energy, resources and intelligence

as we can muster, we will someday wonder how we let such a

disaster happen.

Despite all the bad news, there can be hope. I came away

from the International AIDS Conference encouraged that we are

determined as never before to fight the disease. I came away

from the conference--and I think many of my fellow delegates

from all over the world did, too--much more committed to this

cause.

Madam Speaker, this is a serious issue for those of us in government. I don't know where the advocates of reduced government really are today.

The marketplace should work as well, and now we're asking the government to come in with close to $1 trillion in order to bail out the private sector.

The administration has come up with a proposal that, to me, reminds me of roulette, and they're challenging us to just take the bullets. As Chairman Frank has said so often, this is a no-win proposition because, in support of this--and I will be supporting it--no one is going to thank us for what they don't know and how serious it is, but I do know one thing, that those who have caused the problem somehow have managed to get away without any blame, without any penalty, and the crisis now falls on the American people.

Well, for some people, it will be just an inconvenience. They'll sell a couple of houses; they'll get rid of some of their stocks, and they'll continue to game the system, but for the poor, they won't have these options since we live in a country and, indeed, in a world that is dependent on credit. So the poor will not be inconvenienced, but irreparable harm could be done to the dreams that it took so long for the middle income to achieve to be able to own a home, to be able to send their kids to college, to be able to put food on the table, to clothe them, and to have the respect that the middle class in America has stood for for so long.

We have seen in recent months that this class of people has had their dreams dampened by the increase in gasoline prices, in health costs, in education to such an extent that the government just gave them a handout with $1,000 here and there to try to restore their dignity. Obviously, that didn't work. How is it that we couldn't find money to give them jobs? to create a fair and equitable tax system? to increase education? to increase health? to make certain that our infrastructure was conducive of America's being competitive? No, it costs too much money.

Somehow, the conservatives in the other party can find an exposure to American taxpayers for close to $1 trillion, and not too long ago it was just another $300 billion. For war and for these types of things, we can always find the money, but to make certain that the underclass-- the poor folks--and the middle class are able to get an investment in America and into their lives so that they can become more prosperous and can enjoy the dreams of America, we can't seem to find it.

So now we have the Secretary of the Treasury. We don't know where he goes after December, and we will forever have to staple him to whatever excuses we give for being frightened to death that he just might be right. It is wrong to do this to a country. It is wrong to do this to the Congress, but it just seems to me that I can't afford to take the risk.

I support the work of Barney Frank and of all those who work diligently to try to make certain that we don't allow the sky to fall on American's middle class and poor folks.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1503, I call up the bill (H.R. 7060) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Madam Speaker, before I get into the substance of this important legislation, let me make it abundantly clear that in my opinion, there is nobody in this House that is not concerned with the direction in which this country has gone in the past in relying on fossil fuels.

In addition to that, we, all being patriots, do recognize that probably everyone in this Chamber agrees that many of the important tax provisions should not expire because business can lose confidence in the system and certainly in the Congress. People should be allowed to rely on what we say will be tax incentives, and probably most of us believe that these incentives should even be permanent, rather than 1 or 2 years, but at least they should not be allowed to expire.

Unfortunately, there is a cloud of politics that remains over our shoulders and the other body.

I just heard that the arrogance of the other body has said that notwithstanding what we do here today, that they would not even receive the legislation because they put a time on us. I don't care whether you are Republican or Democrat. It is shameful that the other House can hold us in such complete disregard that they can dictate what they are not going to look at.

On the other side, instead of referring to them as the majority and minority, or Republicans and Democrats, I am inclined to believe that they are the gang of 60 that determine what the law is going to be, notwithstanding the intent of the House where the people are supposed to govern. I do hope that somewhere along the line, no matter what our major policy differences might be, that our leadership can get together to let the other body know that it is a two-body Congress, and that this eagle has to work with two wings instead of one.

Another political issue is this: I was shocked and amazed yesterday that when the rule came up, most all of the debate from the minority was the protection and support of our rural schools. We should not have been arguing or debating each other, because education of our young people, whether they come from urban, inner cities or rural areas, is not just important to that community, but really is important to the United States of America, who must compete with the rest of the world.

If we don't have the ability to give access to a decent education for our young people, no matter what great part of our country they come from, then we lose our competitive edge. None of our competitors care whether or not our workforce is black or white, Jew or gentile, rural or in the city. We have to come together as a Nation and recognize that our failure to produce educated people is not a local and State issue, but our support for it is to protect our national security. There is a way that we could do that and not have it divert attention from the important issues that are in this bill.

Where is this rural support bill? Is it in our bill? Did we initiate it in the House? Has anyone in the minority ever asked that it be included in an energy bill or tax extension? No. Why? Because we've got rules over there.

But they don't have rules on the other side, so they put it in the bill. I have told my colleagues on the Ways

and Means Committee, I got their support, the Democratic Caucus, and even made an appeal yesterday. If you are really serious about it, we can't put it in our bill here today, but it's in their bill, and we are willing to accept it. What is it about accepting the rural area bill that you guys and gals don't understand?

But how can we accept it? The only way we can is that if they take the Senate-passed bill and send it over here. So you can talk all you want about your dedication to education, albeit rural or urban. But if you really are sincere about it, the only vehicle that you have for it is to get that bill over here, and my leaders and my committee have given assurance, bring the bill over, and we will accept it.

Why won't they send it over? Because of lack of respect of the House of Representatives. They are holding it at the desk thinking, in the middle of the night, when we have to go home, it's their way or the highway. I do hope we have some pride in our legislative initiatives that we find out our differences. But at the end of the day when the House speaks, they don't have to accept it, but they shouldn't have the arrogance of saying that they are not even going to look at it.

Having said that, here we go again, with the whole Nation looking at us, wondering do we have any concern about the energy crisis that we find ourselves in. The gasoline price at the pump causes everyone to consider what is it going to be for rent, what is it going to be for mortgages, what is it going to be for food, what is it going to be to put clothes on the kids, because we find ourselves in this energy crunch, and God knows how long it's going to take.

The only thing that we can do, as representatives of the American people, is to say how long, how long, and we're doing something about it. It even affects our national security to believe that we are so dependent on countries that we don't even believe in their form of government, but yet we send them money each and every day, each and every year, to consume the oil that they have.

We have put together the bill that just makes a lot of common sense. No one has challenged our bill on the merits. Sure you can talk about drill, drill, drill. Do what you have to do politically. But let's get back to what we can do realistically.

It may take some time. It's not going to bring changes tomorrow, but we will be able to tell our kids and our grandkids that we looked for alternatives, wind, solar, water, anything that's possible. We provide these incentives. We can create a whole new industry in search of some answers to the crisis. We are talking about creating jobs, creating ideas, creating thoughts.

We can't do it as Democrats or Republicans. We have to do it as a Congress. They have accepted all of these things on the other side. We can get together and save the future of our country if we ever got together as one Congress instead of two bodies.

We also have in our bill a commitment that we have made to provide incentives for research and development; for States that don't have income taxes, but we can have them to be able to deduct their local and State taxes for Federal tax purposes; for teachers who dedicate themselves each and every day to help the kids to give them a little help in doing it.

The business sector, the social sector, are depending on us that when we have a law, that we just don't leave it saying it expired because we have differences of politics on the other side. We have done everything that we could to take anything controversial out of this bill, whether it's helping the people that have suffered as a result of a terrorist attack against New York, whether it's providing some protection for people that may work in energy to make certain that they get a decent wage, whether we give lawyers an opportunity to operate their accounting system the same way other professionals do. If it was controversial, we said, We'll drop it. Let's see how we can meet across the aisle.

But if the whole debate is going to be about rural schools, we can take care of that in the Speaker's corridor and not waste the people's time in debate. If the whole thing is going to be whether or not we are going to be fiscally responsible and pay for 2 years of the extension of these things, we will let the people and the business people decide which side is right, whether we are going to increase the indebtedness to our children or grandchildren, or whether at a time when the Federal Government is asking us to provide $700 billion of tax exposure, can we say that where we could control, we did try to control.

That's the major difference between the other side and us. Do we pay for 1 year of the extensions, or do we really just lock horns and not do anything? This is the option. This is the last time this year. I hope we can jump over the hurdles of politics and get something done.

For more specifics to the bill, our distinguished chairman of the committee that has studied this, the one that has done the taxes, the one that has done the taxes for energy, is going to take over.

But you know as well as I do, people on the committee and people not, that what we are saying and advocating makes sense. The only difference between passing a bill and getting the President to sign it is politics. I truly believe, or at least I want to believe, that we can get over that too.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Richard Neal, a distinguished Member from Massachusetts, an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, a great American and a great Member of Congress.

We don't have a lot of speakers. That's why I asked the gentleman to yield.

Madam Speaker, assuming that the majority was persuaded by the eloquence of the gentleman from Michigan and we wanted to embrace the bill that 60 Members in the other House had, and assuming further that we wanted to help the rural schools which is in that bill, the gentleman knows that we can't react on bills that they have passed over there until they send it over here.

So we shouldn't allow the other House to interfere with the process that we have. We don't need a whole lot of harmony. We have different constituents and different policies. It is okay to say their way or the highway, and the minority may say that is the

way they want to go. But even if we yield to that, if we said that 60 votes over there are far more important than 435 votes over here, how could we possibly do anything until they send it over here?

Will the gentleman yield?

I don't think there is anything that you have said in support of rural schools that I do not believe in and that I am not willing to support.

I just want to make it abundantly clear that the issue that has caused this logjam with the Senate has nothing to do with the causes that you advocate and I support. There is only one issue that has not brought us here, and that is the issue of whether or not we pay for the extenders or don't pay for the extenders.

It seems like an issue, when we are asked to come up with $700 billion, that should not really concern us that much. But the truth of the matter is, they have sent the bill over here.

The only real big issue is that they have sent over a 2- year extension, but it's paid for only 1 year. The position that has been taken by the majority in the House is that instead of 2 years, we are prepared to accept the extender package, as is, except that we will reduce it to 1 year so there would be no years unpaid for, or, in the alternative, and I spoke just yesterday with Senator Grassley, we are prepared to pay for the 2 years.

There is a difference, they claim over there, and I have no reason to disagree with them, that if we do anything on the House side, exercise any prerogative in the payment of this, they cannot hold on to their 60 votes.

I want the gentleman to know that I only wish that rural schools would be the only issue, because it could be resolved. It is not the issue. It is only the issue that I stated with you, and I have shared this with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and have shared it with our Speaker.

That is the issue that is holding up the passage. So we will send another bill back over there.

Yes, I will.

I am telling you that the issues that we have and concerns with the credibility of funding tax decreases is one that exists, but probably between our parties, and we have division in the House. But we would like to believe that in the House of Representatives that we initiate taxes and just sometimes, just sometimes the other body has to yield to our requests.

Four times we sent it over, four times we tried to negotiate. Even yesterday I was talking and trying to see whether we could work out something.

There are times when the integrity of the House is important in order to recognize that we have to get things done, but we have to also maintain some principles. We are at that point now.

I don't know how long it's going to take, but I just came to the floor, when I heard your eloquent argument, which hardly anyone can dispute, to make it clear that if you are a Republican or a Democrat, and you want to help, if you are in business, and you are concerned about the extension of benefits that workers and companies need, if you are concerned about the energy crisis, and you want to do something, that we are going to keep sending packages. If we had someone as eloquent as you on the other side saying let's get something done this year, we wouldn't have this problem.

So when it gets down to it, who is going to yield? Well, we have, again and again and again and again.

As proud as I am of being a Member of Congress and chairman of this committee, it has to stop somewhere where the other body knows that they are just one body of the Congress. They just can't say that they can't get anything done.

But once they do come together, then it means that we don't have anything to say about anything as to what gets in their package.

I yield.

I appreciate the time that you have given me.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me try to clear up some things. It's insulting to believe that because I come from the City of New York that I don't understand the problems of education in rural areas. In

this great country it's so important that all of our kids have----

Thank you so much, a distinguished member of our committee, and I've heard your eloquent plea on behalf of education for our rural children. And whether they're in inner cities or rural areas, in order for this country to be productive, in order for this country to make certain that we can compete, we've got to improve the quality of education.

Now, people are talking about the other body's bill as though we have it. They're holding up that bill at the desk. They won't bring that bill over here. All we're trying to do is to say, don't hold back the incentives that we have for businesses to continue what they're doing in order to get energy.

Now, I can give some assurances too. We have to think, not as Democrats and Republicans, but we have to think about having the House of Representatives respected, and to believe that in the House of Representatives, the people govern.

And I can assure you, if we can break down that gridlock as relates to who's going to be responsible and pay for these incentives, I have no problems, even though that bill does not have jurisdiction in my committee, as the chairman in accepting that, because I know how important it is.

But if you weaken us, they come over here, and you believe that they're right because they have 90 votes? Well, God knows that we can work out something with Republicans and have our way on everything as long as we say you're going to get what you want. That's not the way we think that we should legislate.

You have a good issue. We accept the issue. We can work with the issue. And we can do it in the other body's bill. That other body's bill has not been sent over here, for political purposes, in order to believe that at the last minute there's going to be a cave-in.

We can do it in this bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to give you as much assurance as to what can be done and what can't be done. It may sound good to say that you can add it to the bill. Just because it has no germaneness in the Senate does not prevent me, in conference, from accepting it. But I can't help to make your amendment germane on a bill that has nothing to do with rural education, no matter how deep the commitment.

All I can promise you, if we showed the solidarity in sending our bill over there as they clearly have in sending their bill over here, I can assure you in conference, if it's in their bill I will be able to support it. But the question of having an amendment when it's not germane is something that we can't win on.

We have never, never, never, been able to go into conference. We've ended conferences with the other body. They make up their mind what they want to do and they come and tell me, and then around the edges we get some agreement.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7006) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide disaster assistance relief.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 7006, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008, provide tax relief for victims of disasters. I, along with Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member James McCrery, have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill, JCX-73-08. The technical explanation expresses the committee understanding and the legislative intent

behind this important piece of legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site www.jct.gov. Madam Speaker, the United States as a Nation has experienced a terrible number of natural disasters. We started early this year with tornadoes in Georgia and Tennessee. We saw wildfires consume parts of these great United States, millions of acres in California. We saw the mighty rivers of the Midwest overflow their banks and damage the homes and businesses of so many Americans. And most recently, we saw the tremendous power of hurricanes Ike and Gustav devastate parts of Texas and the gulf coast.

I don't think anyone in this Chamber would disagree with me when I say unfortunately, we probably haven't seen the end of these horrible events this year. The hurricane season does not end until November 30.

The individuals hit by these natural disasters all shared one thing in common: they are victims of Mother Nature's strength, and they are looking for assistance from their Federal Government.

The bill before us today, H.R. 7006, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008, provides a framework for the Congress to be able to provide all Americans that they be able to count on us in the unfortunate event that they get hit by a natural disaster. The Congress for years has been forced to negotiate between individual Representatives and Senators to decide which victims deserve Federal relief and which ones do not. It is a process that not one single one of us enjoys being a part of.

My bill today makes certain that every victim of a natural disaster gets the relief they need when they are trying to rebuild their homes and businesses, and trying to rebuild their lives. It does not pick winners and losers. It does not leave the recovery of these victims to a handful involved in political control.

My bill offers a variety of relief to victims of natural disasters, and the bill would first waive the income limitations on personal loss deductions. It would allow businesses to write off certain qualified disaster cleanup expenses. It would permit a 5-year carryback for certain losses. It waives certain mortgage revenue bond requirements to allow bond proceeds to be used for this rebuilding. It provides for additional low-income housing tax credits for communities with housing losses to build $2 billion in affordable housing. It adds a new set of disaster private activity bonds for business reconstruction, and it waives certain limitations on charitable contributions for disaster relief.

The bill would also increase the standard mileage rate for the charitable use of a vehicle whether they are involved in the disaster or not. And most importantly, the relief will be in place for disasters that may occur for years to come. The provisions are in place through 2011.

That means that when hurricanes like Ike and Gustav come back next year, albeit with different names, the Federal Government will have relief in place for the victims of these terrible storms.

I urge my colleagues to work to protect their constituents and hope and pray that they are never hit. But if they are suffering, that we will be able to swiftly pass this legislation so that we can provide some security for these victims.

I hope that you will listen to two of my fellow Democrats, Representative Lampson and Representative Cazayoux, who know all too well the pain which these disasters have done to their constituents. And I hope you appreciate, those who have yet to be hit, that this Congress has provided the need and support for their constituents.

At this time I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ron Kind, who has drafted the outlines of this not for his district, not for his region, but so that this great country of ours would have the type of relief that all of us wish we had done before, but we are now doing it today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the illustrious congressional career of a friend--a fellow New Yorker, Democrat, and member of Ways and Means--Representative Michael McNulty, who for nearly 40 years has served his constituents in the Empire State superbly well. That four-decade-long resume boasts posts as mayor of Green Island, New York, as a State assemblyman, and since 1988, a widely respected and beloved U.S. Congressman. He leaves us at the end of this year the same as he was when he first entered these Halls-- unblemished in record and integrity, full of vigor and focus, impassioned about and preeminently concerned with the uplift of those he served.

As chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, he maintained his unrelenting commitment to the program and the senior citizens whose livelihoods depend on it. Having worked with Mike closely on the committee, I can vouch for his incredible work ethic and delicate parsing of the issues. The vivacity he brought to the job interwoven with his serious, reflective intellect has served the committee well-- has served the country well. He is a fervent champion of working families, a man of impeccable credentials and record on those matters of import to the middle class.

On this day, his birthday, it is with honor that I join the chorus of colleagues, friends, and family who today laud his very many accomplishments. It is with cheer and celebration in our hearts that we wish Mike well in retirement. His presence will still be felt in the next Congress: in the hearts of those he touched, on those issues he left an indelible mark, on the legacy he leaves behind for us all to emulate.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege under rule IX.

Not to worry, my friend and colleagues. I have no intentions of keeping you for 1 hour, especially at this time of the day. But a couple of weeks ago the leadership of the minority had asked that I be thrown out of the House and censured based on a newspaper story, and I just want to thank those people who were thoughtful enough to think that even Members of Congress at some times should not rely on newspaper stories, but rather the Ethics Committee, which is bipartisan. More recently, however, my dear friend John Boehner has asked the Speaker to ask me to step aside as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Now I say ``my dear friend John Boehner,'' not as this word is tossed around in the House and Senate casually. I say it because John Boehner has, for many, many years, been my friend. We have worked so closely together in bipartisan areas that just a couple of weeks ago he allowed me to strengthen my relationship with Jim McCrery on the Ways and Means Committee to get unemployment compensation passed, and lauded our efforts, as I lauded his.

I look around and I see George Miller, who more than once said what a straight shooter he has been on Education. Steny Hoyer has reminded me

that, you know, he may disagree with John Boehner, but one thing is clear, that when you speak to him, that he says what he means and he means what he says.

Well, I don't really think he means that I am incompetent and should step down. I don't think he really means or thinks that the Speaker is going to remove me from the House of Representatives. I don't think that he thinks I am a threat to this honorable House, which I am so proud to be a Member of. And for those people who say hey, let the Ethics Committee make the decision, I thank you for myself, for my name, for my friends and for my supporters.

But believe it or not, I want to do this for the House of Representatives. I don't want any Member, Republican or Democrat, that is less politically secure than me to go through what I have had to go through for the last several weeks, because for them they never could survive. They would lose the election. And it won't be of anything that the voters knew. It would be what this Congress has done to each other.

You know, the Ways and Means Committee, we made a special effort to be civil, even when we disagreed. We are so proud, with the support of Speaker Pelosi, of Steny Hoyer, and, yes, John Boehner, working with us and trying to see what we can get done.

At the end of this election, this Congress is going to have serious things to take care of. And we won't have Democratic solutions to taxes and health and Social Security and the variety of things with peace and war. We are going to have to resolve these issues as a United States Congress in a bipartisan way. There is not going to be any Democratic way to do it.

And we are going to have to work together, not because we like each other, but we have a special responsibility to the people of the United States to make certain that our reputations may be low in terms of production, but if someone doesn't get health care, doesn't get that Social Security check, or for any reason finds himself without a house, they are not going to say the Democrats did it or the Republicans did it. They are going to say that this Congress let them down. It is going to be difficult, no matter who is the President or who is in the leadership.

But it does not help to polarize this body and take wild shots at each other, whether they are chairmen or whether they are freshmen, knowing that at the end of the day you are not going to accomplish anything substantive, but you are going to make it more difficult for us to get a law.

Do I say that John Boehner knows this? I tell you this: To show you the depth of my friendship, I am embarrassed that he feels he has to do this. There is no way in the world, based on his knowledge of my love for this House, that he would believe that I would do anything to dishonor it. And there is no question in my mind that at the end of the day, when the dust settles, that this issue is going to be moot. But I just don't know what the relationship between people is going to be. So I don't know the next move, but I would suggest that this is not the way to go.

John Boehner, John Boehner, John Boehner. On the Tim Russert show, what they did to my friend there in saying that he was passing out illegal checks on the floor. A mistake? We all make them, and we all have to say we are sorry. But we all don't have to attack each other, because at the end of the day, that is all we may have to do to each other and get nothing done.

I am suggesting to you this: Mistakes may have been made by me, and I briefly want to let you know the issues that are before the Ethics Committee as relates to three subjects. And I will be brief.

Some 20 years ago, I was in the Dominican Republic. I got a call from a long and dear friend of mine to visit this place called Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, where he had some dream of making this a resort. I didn't want to go. My wife said friendship dictated it.

I got there and he was telling me about the dream. And I was impressed with his dream, but I said, what the heck has that got to do with me?

Well, he says, they want to start, they want to build some beach houses here, and there is the sand and there is the beach, and I think it's a good deal.

I said, it may be a good deal for you, but I really don't need a beach house and I can't afford it. And, besides, there is no house here.

He says, no, we haven't built them yet.

So I said, look, Ted, I don't have the time.

By the time they showed me the renderings, and they told me that it would cost $82,000, I said I wish I had the $82,000. Good-bye.

He says, no, if you have got $28,000, then all they have to do is take the rentals from it and reduce the mortgages, and you can only use it for 9 months, but ultimately it would be yours.

I said, we can talk.

I refinanced my house. We had no savings, no nothing, and, quite frankly, I relied on the reputation, as I did then and will now, of a guy whose reputation is untouched.

Gradually the mortgage was coming down. I had received no financial statement. I could not break the culture in terms of Dominican and Spanish. I received no money, no check. Never did. But let's face it, I should have known. And after this hit the fan, I had my lawyer to go. He broke the balance and found out the fact that they didn't give out statements. Some years there was no statement. There was a half a dozen statements that we have accumulated. And then we took the balance, added to the mortgage of about $50,000, another $20,000 for another room.

All of the reports would indicate that Rangel had a cash cow. Rangel got some money. No. What happened was anybody who had a villa, whatever money they got, the hotel first would take their cut. Then they would take out taxes, they would take out renovations, they would take out hurricane expenses, they would take out interest, they would take out everything. At the end of the thing, whether your place was used or not used, they would equally distribute the money. Some years it was $5,000. Some years it was nothing.

How many times did I use it in the nine weeks? I wish I had used it for nine weeks. I never spent nine days down there. I have never spent more than four days in any one year, and in several years I never was able to get there at all.

What has this got to do with the charges and the allegations? The charges and the allegation is how did he get rid of the mortgage? And the mortgage is that if I had done what I was supposed to have done, I would have found some way to find our how the allocation was there. Because legally and theoretically, the reduction of the mortgage meant income was coming somewhere, even if I didn't receive it.

And I should have found that out because, at the end of the day, my accountant tells me after 20 years of research there would be no tax liability because of the deduction of the foreign tax, which was higher, because I was an American and because of depreciation. They changed it and said that because I sold the house that I was raised in that it did not allow me to take full credit that I could have done for that year. It means, at the end of the day, my accountant believes that I would be liable for $5,000. Do I take that lightly? No.

As a Member of Congress, as a public servant, I should have a higher standard than most people. Whether I owed $5,000 or $5 million, it was wrong, but it certainly doesn't mean that I should be kicked out of the House and say that I caused disservice to this august body. I just hope none of you have ever made mistakes on your income taxes, because what I have done is I've gone back 20 years and I've waived all statutes, and I'm prepared to pay whatever price there is, and I hope that at the end of the day that will take care of that. That's the roughest one.

The second thing is that one would have you to believe that I received some type of a gift in housing, because the headline is that Rangel had four subsidized apartments in New York. The fact that there is no law in having four subsidized apartments in New York, of course, is no account to anybody. I don't have four apartments.

Briefly, what happened is that, 20 years ago, the kids were grown. We got tired of paying the bills on our house and getting into oil and doing all those

things. My wife said let's move to an apartment. I'd spent all of my life on 32nd Street and Lenox Avenue. She finds a place on 35th and Lenox Avenue. I refused to leave Harlem then as I do now, and there was a place called Lenox Terrace, where we now live, that had so many vacancies.

At that time 20 years ago, there weren't a whole lot of people who could afford not to live in Harlem, who were rushing to get into Harlem. Crime was really high. There were a lot of vacancies there, but they did have a doorman, and I felt since I was away from home so much that it might provide some security to my wife. In that house, people knowing that Alma would want to leave, there was a popular reverend, a pastor, and he, too, was leaving Harlem and was leaving an apartment that he had. I did not know and did not care that the apartment that he managed to get for us actually had been two apartments. He had it as one apartment. I got a lease for one apartment. I paid rent for one apartment. There's no way in the world I can imagine what it looked like when it was two apartments, and I don't care what the architect says. Under the law, that is one apartment.

Ten years after I was in the apartment, my wife was notified by the landlord--incidentally, he was the one who was supposed to give me the gift. I wouldn't know what he looks like. I've never met him in my life or his agent, but he was saying that there was a studio apartment next to mine, and did I have any interest in it. They were really pushing apartments then. My wife says she didn't see any need for it.

I said, ``Well, let's talk about this, Alma. You don't want my political friends to come here and talk in the living room. You get so tired of me doing my work, you know, while you're doing something else. You don't want any smoke in here. I can't have a card game here. Let's take a look at this one room apartment.''

I took it, and I can tell you that it saved my marriage. There's not a day when I'm home that I don't spend some time just sitting there. Sometimes it's reading. Sometimes it's studying. Sometimes the gang comes. Sometimes we raise a lot of devil. I pay the maximum rent for what cannot be described physically as any more than two apartments, but we can get two--the so-called fourth and third apartments.

It's hard for me to admit to those of you who have a lot of political problems that, for most all of my political life in Congress, I've never picked up the phone to ask anybody to give me any money because I'd never really had any problems. I did have a guy in Washington that would give a fund-raiser--one in Washington and one in New York--but it's kind of hard, when you're not challenged, to ask for money, but I guess it was my personality or my seniority on the Ways and Means Committee, one or the other. Somehow funds were coming in, so I hired somebody. We worked down at the political club. The money was coming in. He said he needed a little help. He thought that I should open up a headquarters. Well, I don't agree in spending a lot of money, but he said he'd heard that the Lenox Terrace, where I lived, had people living in apartments that were converted but that were not commercial for running McDonald's and other business.

I said, ``Do what you want. We can afford to do it.''

They got this apartment. A staff of two became a staff of three, four and five, and I guess the Republican campaign committee can tell you how successful I've been.

It reached the point where they said, ``Look, Congressman. We've got too many people. There's no air conditioning here. We need more space. Things are going well. You're sending out a lot of checks. We will not renew the lease.'' This is before what happened in the paper.

I said, ``Do what you have to do.''

They spoke with the landlord and negotiated: an apartment with him for a larger staff, office accommodations in a place that was double the rent, much larger, right there in the Lenox Terrace, which means that everyone knew what they were doing and what other people were doing. We decided it would be best just to leave the Lenox Terrace in lieu of what happened because it was just too awkward.

That ends, once and for all, the whole idea of a gift. I paid the maximum rent. If I'd decided that because I wanted to please somebody that I should look for a marketplace rent, I would not know where to go, but I sure am not going to give the landlord what I think is a higher rent because I want to please somebody as to what is market rent, but if I'd left the apartment because of some foolish, stupid reason, the landlord would've come in, slapped some paint on it and doubled the rent. So, therefore, it would not be of any assistance to somebody of a lesser income.

Whatever doubts you may have, which I don't see how--I told somebody show me the gift, and I'll walk away. Leave it to the bipartisan Ethics Committee to decide. It's not only the right and fair thing do. It's the only thing to do.

The last point gives me a little more difficulty. They are saying that I may have used my stationery to solicit funds for the City College of New York for an institution that the board of trustees has named the Charles Rangel Public School for Public Service.

I have to let you know that, on November 30, 1950, I was shot and left for dead in Korea, and I came home in '52. I had more medals, more self-esteem than any guy 22 years old should have. The only time it was shattered is when I went for a job and found out that nobody wanted heroes, that nobody wanted infantry men and that nobody wanted the expertise that I enjoyed in directing fire on the enemy to 18 155- millimeter Howitzers at 75 shell bombs on the enemy. So, it was clear that I not only was unemployed but that I was unemployable. It was clear in one day when I had my truck full of stuff on the street in the Garment Center that I joined the Army to avoid. The rain came; the boxes were scattered all over, and the policeman was cursing me out for blocking traffic. Sergeant Rangel was being cursed out on a public street.

I dropped everything. I went to the VA, and I said, ``I need some help.'' They told me that because I had to go back to high school that I couldn't go to college. I raised so much hell. Finally, because of the GI Bill--I was a high school dropout--I got the training to become a Member of Congress, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and become its chairman.

Am I overzealous about education? You bet your life. Do I go everywhere and tell businesspeople that you owe it to this country to assist us in making certain that Americans can produce, that we shouldn't be embarrassed of having to import people here who have knowledge in science and all of that? I want America to be as strong as it can be, and I'm going to do everything legally, morally and ethically possible to make certain that we support our young people and expose them to education.

This CCNY, this City College of New York, has excelled. Colin Powell and so many people had dreams and have succeeded. All I was saying is that we have thousands of Barack Obamas in the Black community. We have so few who are willing to get involved in public service. They go to Wall Street. They make their money and they're bright. What I want to do is to encourage minorities and be able to say, ``Hey, you don't have to run for public office, but please understand the importance of public service.'' They said, ``There should be a school for you to do that.'' I said, ``Well, let's get a school. Let's do it.'' They said, ``Let's do it.''

Two, three days ago, I heard Secretary Rice talking to some group, and she was saying that she goes to so many countries and that she doesn't see people in the Foreign Service who look like her. Those who look like the gorgeous mosaic of America is not abroad. But she said, ``Thanks to Congressman Rangel, we have worked out a program where we go to the historically Black colleges where we train these people there. When they graduate, they not only have degrees, but they are members of the Foreign Service, and they learn to understand the great contribution they can make to this country.'' That was what I wanted to do.

I made certain that, in this letter, I did not ask for any public funds or for any kind of funds at all, but they said, because they knew that the reason I wanted these not-for-profit people,

these private people, to take a look and see whether they could support this not-for-profit public college, there may have been some stretch in the line because it was on stationery. Had I not had the seal that had the Capitol, it would have been all right.

I'm glad this happened because I'm going to find some way to do what I do, and I'm going to do it the way the Ethics Committee says to do it, but I hope I can get some of you to encourage the private sector to do what our government is not doing. Education is too important to leave to the local and State schools. Corporations have an obligations to help us to educate our people. Condoleezza Rice said it, and I truly know that you believe a failure to educate our young people is a threat to our national security. If for whatever reason the Federal Government is not doing it, everyone ought to do their bit. So, whatever the Ethics Committee says to do, we have to do.

Finally, I've changed my mind in bringing to your attention how they beat up on Mr. Boehner on the Tim Russert show: where he's been, how he got there and what he violated. At the end of the day, I think I'm trying to make certain that my presentation ends up on as positive a note as I can because of my longtime respect for my friend. Mr. Boehner said it was a big mistake and I regret it. I shouldn't have done it. It was an old practice in the House that had gone on for a long time. Well, I think he knows what I'm talking about.

If you made a mistake, I may have made a mistake.

I'll tell you one thing. The judgment of our mistakes should not be to attack each other. It should not be to defame us in front of our family and friends. Whatever difference that we had with each other, that's why we have the Ethics Committee. So, at the end of the day, that's how it's going to be resolved. We don't have that many issues that we've got to work with, perhaps, in a bipartisan way. Whatever we have to do because of the election we have to do, and I don't expect this short talk is going to change anything, but I do hope there is one thing that we keep in mind: that for those of us who are going to be here next year with a new administration, the last thing we have to do is to threaten each other politically and destroy the friendships and the camaraderie that we have worked so hard to try to restore.

I conclude by letting you know that some of you old-timers may know a guy named Guy Vander Jagt. Guy Vander Jagt was chairperson of the Republican Campaign Committee. Could he speak? Could he raise money? Was he partisan? Guy Vander Jagt was my friend. Guy Vander Jagt would come to my fund-raisers. I would stop over to his. His wife and my wife are the best of friends. Even though Guy Vander Jagt is gone, they asked me to speak in the Congress to say how he was loved by both sides. Was he a good Republican? Was he fierce? Was he eloquent? Was he liked? Yes.

I don't think I'll live long enough to see the days when we'll have that type of relationship. The little we do have let's not destroy. We have a big responsibility to our Nation and to this Congress. I know in my heart that my friend John Boehner does not mean truly what he has said, and whoever has put him in the position where he felt that he had to say it, hey, it's campaign time. I understand it. It has to stop somewhere before we leave here. I hope it can stop now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will you yield just on that one point?

Rent-subsidized. If you lived a million years you could not tell where one subsidy came from. Stabilization and subsidies are entirely two different things. There is no subsidy involved. It's a cap.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of our own; my friend and colleague, the Honorable Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones who represented the 11th congressional district of Ohio for five terms. Sadly she passed away at the young age of 59 on August 20, 2008 from an aneurysm in her brain. She is survived by her son, Mervyn L. Jones II, and her sister Barbara Walker.

Congresswoman Tubbs Jones truly was a pioneer. She became the first African-American woman to chair the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 110th Congress and the first African-American woman to serve on the Committee on Ways and Means in the 108th Congress where she played an important role on the health subcommittee. She fought tirelessly for wealth building and economic development, access and delivery of health care, and quality education for all. The Congresswoman had the ability to remain grounded and always continued to work and include the interests of her constituents when dealing with issues.

It was an honor and a privilege to have worked directly with her on the Committee on Ways and Means. On the Health Subcommittee she focused on End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), disparities and she played an important role in the SCHIP debate. She was a strong supporter of tax provisions designed to encourage the rehabilitation of historic, and other real property, and to encourage community development. Despite her constituency that is mainly unionized, she supported the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and other free-trade agreements as long as they met the International Labor Organizations Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Right to Work.

She will be missed by members on both sides of the aisle and by staff on the hill who admired and enjoyed working with her as well. We who knew and worked with her will surely be among many who will miss her smile, her tenacity, and her infectious love of life. She leaves us an inspirational legacy, a memorable record of public service and a charge to keep fighting for what is right and just. She will forever be in our hearts.

Thank you so much, Chairwoman Kaptur, for giving me this courtesy and this opportunity.

I was a very long and dear friend of Louis Stokes. I loved him, I worked with him, and when he decided that he was going to retire, I did everything that I could to share with him how much he would be missed by his country and by this Congress. But when he had me to meet in Cleveland with Stephanie, I was convinced that--some of you may have met people that you know that it really wouldn't make any difference what they decided to do. Their intellect, their drive, their personality would make them successful, and especially for a woman and an African American woman in Ohio or any other part of the United States, to be a prosecutor, to be a judge and then to come to the Congress, it had to be extraordinary, the same way Harriet Beecher Stowe, Fannie Lou Hamer, people of extreme resilience.

And so from then, she said that she wanted to get on the Ways and Means Committee, and boy, the Ways and Means Committee has never been the same since she's joined with us. She would come to the meeting where we would be fighting and arguing and, with a smile, light it up. But that didn't prevent her from getting involved in the argument and many times on a different side of the Chair. But at the end of the day, I knew that once she was convinced that was the way the committee was going, you couldn't stop Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

I say in conclusion, one of the reasons that so many of you must like her, love her is because I don't remember that many complaints that she had about the Chair not responding to the needs of her constituents, especially when the housing market fell in Cleveland.

But so many of you that she brought to the chairman of this committee, that was not on the committee, because you had convinced her that it was important to your community, and she, as a person on that committee, thought we should look into it, and there was never but never a frivolous request. Every time she came she had done so much homework that I just know that the gap that she leaves in my heart and our committee will never be filled by anyone else.

I thank you for this opportunity of sharing.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Committee, CPSC, Reform Act, introduced by Representative Bobby L. Rush on November 1, 2007.

The passage and enactment of the CPSC Reform Act is necessary to ensure our children's safety from unsafe products that threaten their health and well-being. Unfortunately, the year of 2007 is known as a Year of Recall, with one million toys recalled from the American market. The danger that these recalled toys posed to our children is frightening. Children suffered the threat of unnecessary deaths and injuries from contact with contaminated and poisoned toys and products. Lead, phthalate and other dangerous chemicals are widely used in products, creating a health threat for our young children and their parents.

This threat can be and must be prevented. By demanding that toy manufacturers stop using deadly chemicals and ensuring safety with legislative and governmental assistance, we can save our kids. The American government has the ability to protect our children and prevent future tragedies. The CPSC Reform Act proposes a strengthening of the authority of the Government to act to ensure safety of American citizens.

I strongly support the Reform Act. The enactment of this important bill shall not be delayed. With the holiday season coming soon, a new flow of toys and products will arrive and we need to have greater assurance of their safety. The legislation can prevent the risk, protecting our vulnerable children. We must act now, refusing any hazardous chemicals in products of our children.

Summary as of March 6, 2008--Passed Senate Amended

CPSC Reform Act--(Sec. 3) Amends the Consumer Product

Safety Act to authorize appropriations: (1) to carry out the

Act and any other provision of law the Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC) is authorized or directed to carry

out; (2) for the office of Inspector General; (3) to make

capital improvements to the research, development, and

testing facility of the CPSC; and (4) for research into

safety issues related to the use of nanotechnology in

consumer products.

(Sec. 4) Requires the CPSC, subject to the availability of

appropriations, to increase by at least 500 the number of its

full-time employees and by at least 50 the number of its

port-of-entry and overseas production facility inspectors.

Requires the CPSC to develop and implement a professional

career development program. Requires the CPSC to develop

standards for training product safety inspectors and

technical staff employed by the CPSC.

(Sec. 5) Urges the President to nominate members to fill

any vacancy in CPSC membership as expeditiously as

practicable. Removes a provision limiting the funding for the

number of CPSC Commissioners to no more than three.

(Sec. 6) Adds CPSC annual, semiannual, and other regular

periodic reports to the list of reports required to be

submitted indefinitely under the Federal Reports Elimination

and Sunset Act of 1995.

(Sec. 7) Modifies provisions concerning the public

disclosure of information regarding a consumer product where

disclosure will permit the public to ascertain readily the

identity of the manufacturer or private labeler, including

decreasing some waiting periods before the CPSC may disclose

information and providing for expedited court actions.

Requires the CPSC to maintain on its website a publicly

available, searchable database that includes any reports

received by the CPSC of injuries, illness, death, or risk of

such injury, illness, or death related to the use of consumer

products received by the CPSC from consumers, government

agencies, and nongovernmental sources other than information

provided to the CPSC by manufacturers, private labelers, or

retailers. Allows inclusion in the database of comments by

manufacturers, labelers, or retailers.

(Sec. 8) Modifies procedures for promulgating consumer

product safety rules under the Consumer Product Safety Act or

the Flammable Fabrics Act or regulations under the Federal

Hazardous Substances Act. Allows, under the Consumer Product

Safety Act, submission of an existing standard or portion of

a standard as a proposed consumer product safety standard.

Removes provisions providing that an action for judicial

review of a flammability standard or regulation survives any

change in the persons occupying the office of CPSC

commissioner or any vacancy in such office.

(Sec. 9) Expands the authority of the CPSC to prohibit the

stockpiling of a product (for the purpose of circumventing a

consumer product safety rule) to which a consumer product

safety rule applies.

(Sec. 10) Requires third party laboratory testing (and

related certification) of certain products for use by, or

care of, a child seven or younger that are subject to a

consumer product safety standard or a rule.

Requires, if an advertisement, label, or package contains a

reference to a consumer product safety standard, that there

be a statement regarding whether the product meets all

requirements of that standard.

Requires the CPSC, with regard to consumer products in

general and children's products in particular, to: (1)

establish protocols and standards regarding certification or

continuing guarantees of compliance; and (2) provide for

accreditation of the third party laboratories. Prohibits

importation of children's products lacking certification.

Authorizes the CPSC, by rule, to extend to other consumer

products (or to classes or categories of consumer products) a

requirement that a product's manufacturer subject to a

consumer product safety standard certify that the product

conforms to the standard or is not a banned hazardous

product.

Allows the CPSC, in establishing standards for such third

party laboratories, to consider standards and protocols by

independent standard-setting organizations. Requires that the

final standard for certification incorporate the most current

scientific and technological standards and techniques.

(Sec. 11) Amends the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to

require, when a product's packaging or retail display must

include a choking warning (as with balloons, small balls, or

marbles), that associated advertising that provides a direct

means of purchase (including on Internet sites or in catalogs

or other distributed materials) also bear the warning. Treats

that requirement as a consumer product safety standard.

Requires the manufacturer of a children's product or other

consumer product to place distinguishing marks on the product

or its packaging that will enable the ultimate purchaser to

ascertain the manufacturer, production time period, and

cohort of production.

(Sec. 12) Requires each manufacturer of a consumer product

or other product or substance over which the CPSC has

jurisdiction under any Act (except for motor vehicle

equipment) to notify the CPSC of certain substantial product

hazards. (Current law requires such notification only

regarding a consumer product, but makes no reference to other

products or substances over which the CPSC has jurisdiction.)

(Sec. 13) Modifies requirements regarding action plans of

manufacturers, distributors, or retailers to deal with

products that present a substantial hazard.

(Sec. 14) Requires manufacturers and their subcontractors,

importers, retailers, or distributors of a product or

substance to identify each other upon CPSC request.

(Sec. 15) Makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale,

manufacture, distribute, or import any product or substance

regulated under any Act enforced by the CPSC that is not in

conformity with an applicable consumer product safety

standard, is subject to voluntary corrective action, is

subject to an order issued under provisions relating to

imminent hazards or substantial product standards, or has

been designated a banned hazardous substance under the

Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

Authorizes the CPSC, notwithstanding any other provision of

law, to prohibit the export of a product or substance that

is: (1) not in conformity with applicable CPSC requirements

and does not violate applicable safety standards established

by the importing country; (2) subject to an order issued

under provisions relating to imminent hazards or substantial

product standards, or has been designated a banned hazardous

substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act; or (3)

subject to voluntary corrective action taken by the

manufacturer, subject to exception.

Prohibits selling, offering for sale, distributing, or

importing any consumer product bearing a registered safety

certification mark owned by an accredited conformity

assessment body if use of the mark is (or should have been)

known to be unauthorized.

Prohibits exercising or attempting to exercise undue

influence on a third party laboratory.

(Sec. 16) Increases the maximum civil penalties under the

Consumer Product Safety Act, the Federal Hazardous Substances

Act, and the Flammable Fabrics Act. Requires a finding of

aggravated circumstances in order to impose a civil penalty

over $10 million. Modifies criminal penalties under those

Acts. Adds mitigation of undue adverse economic impacts on

small businesses to the factors to be considered in

determining the amount of civil penalties.

(Sec. 17) Prohibits changing, by rule or regulation (or by

reference in any preamble, statement of policy, executive

branch statements, or other matter associated with the

publication of any such rule or regulation), provisions of

the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Federal Hazardous

Substances Act, the Flammable Fabrics Act, and the Poison

Packaging Prevention Act of 1970 that establish the extent to

which those Acts preempt or otherwise affect any other

federal, state, or local law, any rule or regulation, or any

state cause of action.

(Sec. 18) Authorizes the CPSC to make certain information

obtained by the CPSC available to any federal, state, local,

or foreign government agency, provided there is an agreement

that the information will be maintained in confidence and

used only for law enforcement or consumer protection.

(Sec. 19) Authorizes the CPSC, by rule, to require the

posting of an escrow, proof of insurance, or security by

manufacturers, distributors, or persons who have committed

multiple significant violations of any CPSC-enforced Act in

an amount sufficient to cover recall or holding and

destruction costs.

(Sec. 20) Allows states to bring actions to enforce any Act

enforced by the CPSC, except during the pendency of an action

brought by the CPSC. Regulates the use of information by

private counsel retained to assist a state.

(Sec. 21) Creates protections for public and private sector

whistle-blowers. Allows a court to grant all relief necessary

to make the employee whole, including injunctive relief,

compensatory damages, reinstatement, back pay (with

interest), compensation for any special damages, litigation

costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.

(Sec. 22) Treats any children's product designed or

intended for use by, or care of, a child seven or younger

that contains lead over a specified level as a banned

hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances

Act. Excludes components that are not accessible to a child

and will not become physically exposed through normal and

reasonably foreseeable product use and abuse. Prohibits

considering paint, coatings, or electroplating to be a

barrier that would render lead in the substrate inaccessible

to a child. Allows the CPSC to exclude lead crystal.

Requires the CPSC, if it determines it is not feasible for

electronic devices, including batteries, to comply with that

requirement, to issue standards and establish a schedule for

full compliance. Allows the CPSC to establish more stringent

levels than those specified in this Act.

Lowers the lead threshold at which paint becomes a banned

hazardous product.

(Sec. 23) Requires the CPSC to study the feasibility of

establishing a measurement standard based on a units-of-mass-

per-area standard that is statistically comparable to the

parts-per-million measurement standard now used in laboratory

analysis.

(Sec. 24) Requires the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) to study disparities in the risks and incidence of

preventable injuries and deaths among minority children

related to products intended for use by children. Requires a

report to the Committee on

Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the

Senate. Authorizes appropriations.

(Sec. 25) Amends the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of

1970 to prohibit construing provisions relating to household

substance special packaging to protect children to require a

cost-benefit analysis in connection with the establishment of

a standard.

(Sec. 26) Requires the CPSC's Inspector General to conduct

reviews and audits of implementation of the Consumer Product

Safety Act by the CPSC and report annually to the CPSC, the

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and

Commerce.

Requires the Inspector General to review CPSC employee

complaints about failures of other employees to properly

enforce rules or regulations of any Act enforced by the CPSC

and the process by which corrective action plans are

negotiated with such employees and report to the CPSC and

such committees.

Requires the Inspector General to review whether, and to

what extent, there have been unauthorized and unlawful

disclosures of information by CPSC Members, officers, or

employees to CPSC-regulated persons that are not authorized

to receive such information and report to the CPSC and such

committees.

(Sec. 27) Requires the CPSC to establish and maintain: (1)

on its home page a direct link to the CPSC's Office of

Inspector General; and (2) on the home page of its Inspector

General website a mechanism by which individuals may

anonymously report cases of waste, fraud, or abuse regarding

the CPSC.

(Sec. 28) Establishes, as a consumer product safety rule, a

requirement that each portable gasoline container conform to

the child-resistance requirements in a specified standard

issued by ASTM International.

(Sec. 29) Considers a specified ASTM-International standard

on toy safety to be a consumer product safety rule.

(Sec. 30) Requires the CPSC, notwithstanding any other

provision of law, to establish as a mandatory consumer

product safety standard a specified American National

Standard for four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles developed by

the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America. Makes it unlawful

for any manufacturer or distributor to import or distribute

any new all-terrain vehicle unless: (1) the vehicle complies

with the standard, is subject to an all-terrain vehicle

action plan, and bears a label certifying such compliance and

certain other information; and (2) the manufacturer or

distributor is in compliance with the action plan.

Prohibits the importation of new three-wheeled all-terrain

vehicles until a mandatory consumer product safety rule

applicable to three-wheeled all-terrain vehicles is in

effect.

Requires the Comptroller General to study the utility,

recreational, and other benefits of certain all-terrain

vehicles and the costs associated with accidents and injuries

involving all-terrain vehicles.

(Sec. 31) Requires, notwithstanding specified provisions of

the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 or any

amendment by the American National Standards Institute and

Underwriters Laboratories of specified standards, that all

automatic residential garage door operators that directly

drive the door in the closing direction include an external

secondary entrapment protection device that does not require

contact with a person or object for the garage door to

reverse. Provides for an exception, requires the CPSC to

review and if necessary revise its standard, and eliminates

the exception if the revised standard adopts the requirement

of the first sentence of this paragraph.

(Sec. 32) Sets a deadline for the CPSC to issue a final

rule in a specified proceeding relating to portable

generators.

Requires the CPSC to report to the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding charcoal

briquettes.

(Sec. 33) Sets a deadline for the CPSC to issue a final

rule mandating general safety standards for cigarette

lighters in specified proceedings.

(Sec. 34) Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification

Act--Requires the CPSC to assess the effectiveness of any

voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable

products for children under five years of age and promulgate

consumer product safety rules that are the same or more

stringent than the voluntary standards. Makes it unlawful

for any commercial user (including, but not limited to

hotels, motels, or similar transient lodging facilities

and day care centers) to manufacture, sell, lease, or

otherwise place in the stream of commerce any new or used

crib, including a portable crib and a crib-pen, that is

not in compliance with the mandatory rule.

Requires the CPSC to promulgate final consumer product

safety rules that require manufacturers of durable products

for children under five years to: (1) provide consumers with

postage-paid consumer registration forms with each such

product and maintain the submitted information in order to

improve recall effectiveness; and (2) permanently label the

product with information about the manufacturer and product.

Requires the CPSC to study, and report to Congress on, the

effectiveness of such rules in facilitating product recalls.

Allows a manufacturer of such durable products to use a

recall notification technology in lieu of such registration

forms if the CPSC finds that the technology is at least as

effective as the forms. Requires the CPSC to review recall

notification technology and report to Congress.

(Sec. 35) Repeals provisions allowing the CPSC to regulate

a product under the Consumer Product Safety Act (if the

product has a risk of injury which could be reduced to a

sufficient extent by action under the under the Federal

Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act

of 1970, or the Flammable Fabrics Act) only if the CPSC by

rule finds that it is in the public interest to do so.

(Sec. 36) Requires the CPSC to enter into a memorandum of

understanding with the Secretary of Homeland Security for the

assignment by the Commission of at least one full-time

equivalent personnel to work at the National Targeting Center

of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to identify

products intended for importation that pose a high risk to

consumer safety. Allows the CPSC to waive that requirement if

it determines that the assignment would not improve

effectiveness in identifying such products before

importation.

(Sec. 37) Requires the CPSC to develop a risk assessment

methodology for identification of shipments of consumer

products that are intended for import and would be refused

admission under specified provisions of the Consumer Product

Safety Act, including, as far as practicable, using the

International Trade Data System (ITDS) to evaluate and assess

information before shipments enter U.S. customs territory.

Authorizes appropriations.

(Sec. 38) Requires the CPSC to publish a list of product

defects that constitute a substantial product hazard.

Replaces provisions requiring the exportation (or, on

application, destruction) of imports refused admission with

provisions requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to

destroy any product refused admission unless the product is

exported within a specified period after refusal.

Requires (currently, allows) the CPSC, by rule, to

condition importation of a consumer product on the

manufacturer's compliance with certain inspection and record

keeping requirements.

Requires (currently, allows) the CPSC to provide

information to other federal agencies with which it is

cooperating under an existing permanent surveillance program

to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products.

Prohibits construing this section to prevent the Secretary

of Homeland Security from prohibiting entry or directing the

destruction or export of a consumer product under any other

provision of law.

Replaces all references to the Secretary of the Treasury in

provisions relating to imported products with references to

the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(Sec. 39) Requires the CPSC to: (1) establish and maintain

a database with information about violations of consumer

product safety rules, including related statements by

manufacturers or suppliers; and (2) make the database

available on a real-time basis to the Commissioner

responsible for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the

Department of Homeland Security to be used to determine

whether a container being imported contains consumer products

that are in violation of a consumer product safety standard

and whether action should be taken under imported products

provisions. Prohibits other disclosure of the information,

except for law enforcement or national security. Prohibits

the CPSC and the Commissioner responsible for the U.S.

Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland

Security from imposing a civil or criminal penalty solely on

the basis of information from the database. Authorizes

appropriations.

(Sec. 40) Treats any children's toy or child care article

that contains any combination of specified phthalates as a

banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous

Substances Act. Prohibits certain alternatives to those

phthalates. Allows certain related state or local laws.

(Sec. 41) Requires the CPSC to establish a standard for

equestrian helmets.

(Sec. 42) Authorizes the CPSC, if it finds that a product

presents a substantial hazard, and that certain actions under

existing provisions are in the public interest, to order a

manufacturer, distributor, or retailer to distribute notice

of the actions to the public. Specifies the required contents

of the notice. Allows the CPSC to require that a notice be

distributed in a language other than English if the CPSC

determines that doing so is necessary to adequately protect

the public.

Requires the CPSC to make certain information available to

the public as the information becomes available to the CPSC,

including progress reports and incident updates, statistics

regarding injuries and deaths, and certain communications

from consumers to the CPSC.

(Sec. 43) Requires the Comptroller General to: (1) assess

the effectiveness of the authorities and provisions of the

Consumer Product Safety Act in preventing unsafe consumer

products from entering U.S. customs territory; (2) develop a

plan to improve effectiveness; and (3) report to Congress

regarding inspection of foreign manufacturing plants by the

CPSC and requiring foreign manufacturers to consent to the

jurisdiction of U.S. courts regarding CPSC enforcement

actions.

(Sec. 44) Bans importation of toys manufactured by

companies that have shown a

persistent pattern substantial product hazards or that

present a risk of injury to the public of such a magnitude

that the CPSC has determined that a permanent ban on all toys

manufactured by such company is equitably justified. Requires

a related annual report to Congress.

(Sec. 45) Requires the CPSC to conduct a study on the use

of formaldehyde in the manufacture of textile and apparel

articles, or in any component of such articles, to identify

any risks to consumers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today because every so often, an everyday person of not-so-everyday valor risks personal injury and livelihood--to little fanfare--for the good of humanity. Today, we provide that deserved fanfare to one of those unsung heroes, Irena Sendler, a woman of such rock-steady courage that she fearlessly saved lives in the face of Nazi opposition. The protection of even one life is immeasurably valuable, but Ms. Sendler rescued over 2,500 of them, mostly Jewish children languishing in Poland's Warsaw ghetto during the Holocaust. Ms. Sendler died this past May at 98, but that giving spirit remains a shining exemplar of what humanity can accomplish, of what we all aspire to emulate.

Such selflessness is not easy. She was arrested, tortured, and sentenced to death by the Gestapo for her heroic acts, ferrying children from run-down ghettos that had left them vulnerable to disease, execution, and deportation to concentration camps. She escaped from prison and continued to do her good--and remarkably dangerous-- works. These are the glowing stories that, buried in the overwhelmingly horrific and dark period in history that was the Holocaust, remind us that although there can be unspeakable evil, we are always capable of combating it with good.

Her death is a loss of a compassionate and awe-inspiring human being for this world, but her story is immortal. May it continue to warm our hearts and edify our lives.

Pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I promise you, this will not take anywhere near 1 hour.

I was advised last night and assured this morning that the minority intended to bring up a resolution recommending that I be censured or that my conduct as reported in The New York Times would be declared that I was a discredit to this House.

There is no one in this House that is more thick-skinned than I am in terms of playing politics, but playing with someone's reputation, especially someone that has felt so honored to serve in this House, I really think goes a step beyond that.

In reading the allegations as to where my campaign headquarters was located or what the rent should have been, I have never felt more secure that I violated no law and no spirit of the law. But in order to make certain, to make certain that there is no cloud over my conduct in New York, I asked the Ethics Committee to look into it, to investigate, to do whatever is necessary to bring this to the House and to bring it to my family and friends.

In addition to that, the same newspaper reported that I was overly aggressive in trying to raise funds in order to encourage moneys to go to a local college that encouraged minorities and others to get involved in public service. And even though there was no request for money, the mere fact that there was a cloud involved in the accusation by the newspapers, even though there have been more newspaper articles correcting it than anything else, I referred that to the Ethics Committee.

Showing that I do want this to be sincerely investigated, I am asking the minority to allow me to join in with them in this resolution to say this matter should be cleared up. But there is no need, even for mean- spirited people in the minority, to say that I am a discredit to the United States Congress, based on a newspaper story, and, worse than that, there is no reason why Republicans or Democrats should do this to each other based on any newspaper story.

So, I don't know the parliamentary inquiry, and, as most of you suspected, most of my friends say, Rangel, the less you say the better, get out of the headlines, and do all of these things. And this is normally what I recommend to newer Members: just leave it alone, it will go away. But my reputation won't, and I could not really appreciate if this body was to resolve that I bring dishonor to this wonderful House and this wonderful country, or that I be censured.

So I make an appeal to the minority; let me join in with you with the request. Let me say if there is any doubt about anything, I would feel better if it went to the Ethics Committee. I have requested that it go to the Ethics Committee. Let us join in. But with not one scintilla of any evidence, other than a newspaper story, I think fairness would say, for God's sake, don't make politics out of a person's reputation. Strike out ``discredit,'' strike out ``censure,'' and put in there whatever the heck the Ethics Committee recommends. I join with them. I ask you to consider that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record a July 15, 2008 New York Carib News Op-Ed entitled: ``CARICOM Summit on Economic Integration.''

One issue that was made very clear as a result of the CARICOM Conference in New York is that there is a call for economic and political unity among the CARICOM states. With dozens of small economies that are similar in makeup and have many of the same goals, it is clear that the need for the Caribbean to form a Single Market Economy would eliminate many barriers to growth in the region.

The Op-Ed speaks to the benefits that this Single Market Economy would have for the growth of the Caribbean and that ``the sooner the roadblocks are removed the better it would be for the region as a whole.'' The Caribbean can possibly experience the growth that Europe continues to experience since their unification. But unity will not be easy as we are dealing with issues of sovereignty and especially fear of an influx of unemployed migrants and the free movement of criminal networks.

CARICOM Summit on Economic Integration

When Caribbean leaders met recently in New York and

Antigua, the effects which democracy and the free and fair

expression of the will of the electorate in various Caricom

countries in recent months were quite evident.

Several new faces were around the tables since the advent

of the year 2007, with new leaders making their presence felt

in one way or another in the council of the Caribbean

Community. St. Lucia, the Bahamas, Jamaica and Belize have

all changed governments while Trinidad and Tobago and its

ruling People's National Movement bucked what appeared to be

a trend in the wind of change that swept out governments,

some with good records in office.

That change was bound to affect the pace of movement

towards the establishment of the Single Economy, a vital step

in the process towards regional economic integration. After

all, new leaders could be expected to get up to speed on such

a vital step.

By any measure, the road to the Caribbean Single Market and

Economy is being traveled with less enthusiasm and fanfare

than two to three years ago. Part of that hard and

regrettable fact of life can be attributed to the departure

of two enthusiastic advocates of regional togetherness, P.J.

Patterson of Jamaica and Owen Seymour Arthur of Barbados.

They served the region well but couldn't be expected to

continue forever.

That situation may explain the recent criticism level by

Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent & the

Grenadines who complained that the implementation of the CSME

was taking a back seat to other things.

So that's why it made sense for the leaders at their

meeting in Antigua last week to decide to meet before the end

of the year to take stock of the CSME.

``The meeting will review the status of the preparation for

the Strategic Plan for Regional Development, Member-States'

readiness for the implementation of the Single Economy, as

well as the role of stakeholders in the implementation of

various elements of the CSME,'' was the way the leaders put

it in their joint communique issue after the summit. Although

lacking in specifics, that statement spoke volumes about

where the region stands when it comes to the CSME. It tells

us that quite a lot of unfinished business remains to be

resolved and it suggests that some countries may be stalling

on going forward with the Single Economy. But the sooner the

roadblocks are removed the better it would be for the region

as a whole.

One thing is clear: Caricom has fostered a sense of

togetherness within the region. But the countries must be

prepared to give up some of the things they hold dear for the

good of the region. One of them is sovereignty. That's how

Europe has achieved such progress. The problem is that far

too many leaders and countries want to have their cake and

eat it too. Without compromises and concessions we aren't

going to move forward. Perhaps, the members of the

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States should examine their

own attitude to the CSME.

Nevertheless, there were some crucial decisions made at the

Antigua summit. One of them was the crucial support given to

the creation of the Caribbean Public Health Agency that would

help bring the various regional health institutions under a

single set of operating procedures. It would boost oversight

of the management of regional health programs.

Another was the word on the Caricom passport and the

movement of people throughout the region. Both Jamaica and

Belize have now decided to begin issuing the Caricom passport

by the end of the year. That step should reduce many of the

hassles people encounter in moving from one territory to

another and that's why it is vital for the member-states to

put the machinery in place to ensure that the system is well-

oiled so that ease of travel would become a reality and not

the exception.

A disappointing note was struck however when Caricom

devoted only two lines to the question of the free movement

of people within the community. The leaders sidestepped the

question when they decided to ``review the implementation of

the free movement of Caricom skilled nationals with a view to

determining its ratification or mediation.'' That's a sure

indication of further delay.

There is an understandable level of apprehension about the

impact of free movement on individual economies at a time of

worries about the global economic picture, the food crisis,

skyrocketing oil prices. There is also major worry about the

increasing high level of crime.

With the economies of the United States and Britain slowing

down and the negative impact that it could have on the vital

tourism industry in the Caribbean, countries fear they would

be hurt by a declining tourism industry and a steady influx

of job seekers from their neighbors. They are also deeply

worried about the machinations of regional criminal networks

that are far more sophisticated than the police and other

security forces.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of one of my district's most important leaders, Dr. Barbara Ann Teer, who left this world on July 21, 2008.

Dr. Teer was born on June 18, 1937 in East St. Louis, Illinois to a family of teachers and leaders dedicated to community development. After graduating from the University of Illinois with a degree in dance, she moved to New York City to pursue a career as a dancer, actress, and director. As a performer in New York City, she found work in such shows as 1961's Where's Daddy? and 1966's Kwamina.

Dissatisfied with the options available to her as a black performer in a predominately hegemonic artistic field, she founded the National Black Theatre, NBT, so that African Americans could meet, share and discuss their creative ideas. She immersed herself in what became a forty year venture that would change the cultural landscape of the performing arts world.

As a cultural visionary she believed in the fundamentals of self- love and spirituality. In 1983, her commitment to and vision of free expression led her to expand the NBT and to purchase a 64,000 square foot building on 125th Street and Fifth Avenue. The new building not only allowed her to house one of the largest New Sacred Yoruba Arts Collection in the Western Hemisphere, but through the artwork she was able to continue the objective of the NBT to provide a place of inspiration and self-expression through spirituality.

With the National Black Theatre, Dr. Teer created an exceptional institution that to this day continues to inspire cultural appreciation and transformation, social change, freedom of expression, historic relevance, self-empowerment, and futuristic innovation.

Dr. Teer dedicated her life to creating a platform that would allow people to experiment through trial and error so that they could achieve a spiritual aura that would allow them to fully express themselves through the performing arts. Through all her tremendous efforts and achievements, Dr. Teer has been duly honored, receiving countless awards and numerous Honorary Doctorate Degrees.

Although Dr. Barabara Ann Teer has passed, her life's work will continue to affect those who are searching for a way to break free from a world that sometimes limits their ability to express their minds and souls. Dr. Barabara Ann Teer was a visionary, a cultural icon. She will be greatly missed, but not forgotten.