Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman withdraw calling the Republicans silly on the other side of the aisle because it is against the House rules? Having said that, whatever it was that came over, did not the Republicans have a conference that excluded Democrats where you accepted it?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, now did not this silly rule that the silly Republicans have on the other side-- Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker. Sir, this stupid 10-year limitation was passed by the Republican Senate, came back here, and was passed by the House, the Republicans, and went to our President and he signed it. So I would tell the gentleman to be careful what he calls stupid when he voted for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Request for Motion to Adjourn

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a leader in this Congress.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), my distinguished friend and member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will yield further, what did they do?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask some questions of the gentleman, because he has made some pretty bold statements out here. Did not the Republican leadership promise that they would not invade the Social Security trust fund? Did they not put this in a lock box? What is the gentleman's response to that?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of smart people in this world that cannot even determine what the economy is going to look like next week, so it is really extraordinary that we have someone that can give us a forecast of what it looks like in the next 20 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, so our side will be able to respond to that question, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, who has provided an outstanding service to the Congress and the country. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, so I would just like to know where all this silliness came from and where it emanated and where it finally concluded. I thank the gentleman for his responses. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, did not the President of the United States sign the bill with this silly amendment that came from the Republican- controlled Senate?

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RANGEL. The answers are terrific. Did you not vote for a bill that included this silly amendment?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to my distinguished chairman, since it appears as though the dog has eaten his homework. This bill was signed into law by a Republican President after passing a Republican House of Representatives and passing a Republican Senate that had had a compromise that excluded all Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), an outstanding Member of Congress and of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I went before the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I asked my Republican colleagues to consider just a little fairness in presenting this extremely important piece of legislation to the floor. But they refused to allow Democrats to amend it; they refused to allow us time to debate it; they refused to allow us even the opportunity to send it back to committee with certain instructions. They do this because they know that our great Nation, our great Republic, even though we are at war today, is actually supporting the government not on regular tax dollars, but on the tax dollars that are being paid by people for their Social Security benefits. We are saying that maybe the President did not know at the time that he had the tax cuts that we would have war or the impact of the recession; but we as legislators, we cannot foresee what is going to happen in the far distant future. This bill before us will be cutting taxes for the next couple of decades at the very time that 40 million Americans will become eligible for their Social Security benefits. Do we want to take a gamble that we will not have the money there, that the Social Security trust funds just will not be there as they have been for us? Do we want to take a gamble that for those 40 million Americans that become eligible for Medicare and health care as they become older, that the money will not be there? What is the rush in doing this during the limited time that Mr. Bush is going to be President? Why can we not do this, yes, with the green shades on, and look after the American future the same way we look after our businesses, and being able to say that when the time comes, we will take a look at the economy? All we wanted to do is say, yes, make the tax cuts permanent, but make it contingent that it does not do violence to the Social Security trust fund. What are they so afraid of, that these things have to be rammed down America's throat, rammed down the Congress, and not even give us a chance to amend and express our views? If Members think it is so good, why is it that they do not give us time as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Members of the House of Representatives, to do this? We did not have time even to amend it in the committee of jurisdiction, the tax-writing committee. We are dealing with close to $5 trillion of revenue shortfalls. We are not dealing with just trying to spend the people's money, we are trying to make certain that the trust fund is there. These funds are entrusted to us. We are the board of trustees. We guarantee that the people are entitled to have their Social Security benefits, and they are taking away that right from the Congress, from the Democrats, and from the American people.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising before you today to speak out against an international problem-Domestic Violence. Domestic violence cuts across lines of race, nationality, language, culture, economics, sexual orientation, physical ability, and religion. It affects people from all walks of life. On October 28, 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 as Division B of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386). The original Violence Against Women Act, enacted as Title IV of the Violent Crime and Control and Law Enforcement Act (P.L. 103-322), became law in 1994. VAWA 2000 reauthorizes VAWA through FY2005, sets new funding levels, and adds new programs. VAWA established within the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services a number of discretionary grant programs for state, local and Indian tribal governments. Under HHS, grants include funds for battered women's shelters, rape prevention and education, programs to reduce the sexual abuse of runaways, homeless street youths, and community programs on domestic violence. In addition to grants administered by the states, the Act includes a number of changes in federal criminal law relating to interstate stalking, intrastate domestic abuse, federal sex offense cases, the rules of evidence regarding use of a victim's past sexual behavior, and HIV testing in rape cases. In FY2002, Congress appropriated $517.2 million for VAWA programs, $7 million more than the amount requested in the President's budget. As many of my colleagues know, I am a long time supporter of instituting laws to prevent violence against women. In the 107th Congress, I cosponsored H.R. 3752, the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim's Act. As long as the statistics show that approximately one half million women are stalked each year in the United States by an intimate partner, I will continue to support efforts to curtail this criminal act. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I find it not only my duty, but my responsibility to speak out against domestic violence against women during International Women's Week. I hope my colleagues join me in paying a special tribute to the millions of victims of domestic violence.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for purposes of control.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the distinguished chairman for that eloquent essay against communism. It is refreshing to know that this bill is trying to minimize the class differences that we have in this Nation between the captains of industry and employees, that this gap is being closed. Most of us thought this was a question about the Enron scandal. Most of us thought, like the President, that we ought to repair the damages that have been made to see that it does not happen to employees in the future. Most of us thought that this was a tax issue since the 401(k)s, that so many employees, rank and file employees, got hurt by with Enron, that we on the Committee on Ways and Means would be providing the leadership for the House in order to repair the code so that these things would not happen again. Instead, the debate is led off by the Committee on Education and the Workforce by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner). It is good to know that things are getting better and the gap is getting closed, but to say that we do not know what is in this bill is similar to a statement we heard yesterday, nobody knew what was in the taxpayer bill. When the day is over, the vote is going to be which side were Members on. Were Members with the executives that managed to protect their pensions and not pay taxes on it; or were Members with employees that, as the President said, as the sailors of this ship, they should have the same rights as the captains do? Here we find that the captains of the Enron ship jumped ship and took the lifeboats with them, took the lifesavers with them, and employees sunk and lost their life savings. We want to know what we do about it today. Of course the Member says modest adjustments. That is code words for we do nothing about it today. Some of us on the committee voted for it because we were under the impression that we could work out our differences and really put some teeth in this, and to try in some way to bring to the floor a bipartisan bill so the American people would believe as it relates to pension, there was some equity, some parity between how we treat executives and how we treat the rank and file. We see here that the issue is not communism versus capitalism, it is campaign contributions versus doing the right thing. I hope as the question was put to us yesterday, whether or not we should maintain loopholes for people to make campaign contributions that we thought we had closed, or whether or not people want to do the right thing, that we do not have people walking in lockstep to party leaders, but we have Members doing the right thing because that is what is expected of us. The closer we get to election, the more honestly we will be seeing our votes. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to listen not to the virtues of capitalism that we all really treasure, support, adore and want to maintain, and not in attacking communism because I think we have won that argument, but which side are Members on: the highly paid executives or protecting the rank-and-file employees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, when the Enron scandal started, so many reporters were trying to associate this with the administration and they did all they could to distance themselves from this conduct that was just repugnant to everything that fairness and equity would want us to do. So one would think that the Republican leadership in the House would want to do the same thing, especially as related to protecting the 401(k) employee contributions to their pension plans. This being a tax issue, one would logically believe that it would be the leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means that would be showing our concern about protecting these pension plans. But the silence has been deafening from my committee, and the leadership, what little there was, actually came from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who heads the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I thank him at least for raising the subject. But the President still was not convinced that we had fully appreciated that captains were getting a better shake than employees; that is, the executives in these firms. And so he continues to say that that there should be more equity. The bill that comes to the floor really puts the employees going upstream in a canoe without a paddle, because it actually gives protection, even after bankruptcy, to the executives while the employees continue to suffer. One might ask a question, well, why would the Republicans do this to themselves in an election year? The answer is, ``It's campaign contributions, stupid.'' They tried yesterday to really disrupt campaign finance reform by putting a little thing in there to disrupt it. But the Republicans are no longer walking lockstep. They have to decide whether they are going to follow the corporations or follow their constituents back home. So for those who really want to see what is going on in this House, do not listen to the debate but watch the votes today, because while you do not find too much bipartisanship on the floor, you are going to find Republicans and Democrats trying to protect their employees by voting against the Republican bill that is on the floor today, and voting for the Democratic substitute that is going to allow us to go home feeling that we have protected the employee and we are not going to allow the executives just to get away with whatever they want to do just because they are the captains of the ship. If this ship is going down, the integrity of America goes down with it. Equity and fair play should be a part of every pension bill. What happened to Enron, this is the last chance we will get to tell the American people how much we believe in protecting their pension funds.