Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a voice that is respected on both sides of the aisle. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be trying to find out where this resolution came from. I will be asking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), I will be asking the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. I sit on this committee. I am proud to be a member of this committee. Mr. Speaker, this concerns tax policy. This bill should not be coming out of the Committee on Rules, and it should have had a hearing and we should have had input in it. That has not happened, and in these 40 minutes I am going to try to find out how this political resolution reached the floor. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our distinguished minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. I cannot believe this, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a leader in our party and a spokesperson.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to use himself, since he was courteous enough to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), but I will give him 30 seconds to see whether or not the gentleman would like to respond, to get a response to his question.

Mr. RANGEL. To yield to the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked the gentleman to yield for a question.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join with the gentlewoman from Washington in wishing President Reagan a happy birthday and in saying that, as most people should know, that this is a tax policy bill, but because it deals with more politics than policy, it did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means. True, we have a lot of Members here trying to protect our jurisdiction, but it went through the Committee on Rules. That means it is supposed to be noncontroversial. It means that what some of the people are projecting here is not only do we accelerate the tax cuts, which the Committee on Ways and Means has seen with their majority to enact and to pass into law, but they even are talking about making it permanent, which not only costs trillions of dollars, but at a time where we find that 40 or 50 million people will become eligible for Social Security. I think this is not noncontroversial. I think it is something that should go through the Committee on Ways and Means. And I kind of think that since all of this was enacted at a time when we did not have a recession and we did not have war, that we really are tying up the hands of the Congress to project what is going to happen in the future. There was a time before the State of the Union message that I thought Osama bin Laden was what was the threat to the United States. The President says there are 10,000 terrorists walking the streets throughout the United States of America. The President says it is not Osama bin Laden, because he never mentioned his name, but we have the three-country axis, where we have Iran, Iraq, even North Korea. But, who knows, Somalia; who knows, Libya; who knows, Cuba. So we do not know, really, the true extent of where this war may take us. And since we have the responsibility, I think, if we retained it, to declare the war, we should have the responsibility in determining how we pay for it. This is the only time, during a time of war, where we are saying let us accelerate tax cuts and make them permanent; when during a time of war, our great Republic always said, let there be sacrifices, let us protect the poor, let us protect our men and women, giving them what they need, let us protect Medicare, let us protect Social Security, and let us protect our country.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great leader, the past President of Senegal, Leopold Sedar Senghor who past away on December 20th, 2001. President Senghor was a educator, poet, statesman, and a friend of the United States of America. President Senghor was born in a small town of Joal, Senegal in 1906. He received a scholarship to attend school in France where in 1935 he became the first African to receive the ``Agrege'' (doctorate degree) in French language and literature. After teaching for a number of years, he served in the French army during World War II (1935-1945), was captured, and spent two years in German prison camps. It was as a prisoner of war that he managed to write some of his best poetry. After the war, Senghor was recruited by the French Socialist Party and was later elected to represent Senegal in the National Assembly in Paris in which capacity he served until the French territories became independent. In 1960, France granted independence to Senegal and Leopold Senghor was elected its first president. Few chief of states could match his political skill or his personal charisma. This was especially notable when President John F. Kennedy hosted President Senghor at a state visit in 1961 at the White House. As recorded in the memoirs of Ambassador of Senegal at that time--the Honorable Philip Kaiser--the two gentlemen developed a special bond. Ambassador Kaiser remarked ``they were both intellectuals, both highly cultivated, both Catholic in countries predominantly Protestant or Moslem, and not the least of all, both creative, pragmatic politicians.'' During the 1960s, President Senghor's friendship with the United States grew and was evident in his support for President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. Washington strategist realized that Moscow could evade the U.S. naval blockade around Cuba by flying Soviet planes, with atomic warheads aboard, to Havana if they were able to land and refuel in Dakar, Senegal's capital. President Senghor agreed to Washington's request to deny the Russians landing rights in Dakar and made it clear that his relationship with President Kennedy was a crucial factor in his decision. President Senghor was also the first African leader to receive Peace Corps volunteers--a program highly touted by President Kennedy. In 1978, President Senghor won Senegal's first multiparty election easily after successfully introducing amendments to the constitution to foster multiparty politics. He resigned in 1981, thus becoming the first leader of an independent African country to give up power voluntarily. He has been acclaimed as one of the most astute thinkers of our time. He was one of three to develop the concept of ``negritude'' which refers to the distinctive culture shared by Africans and people of African ancestry around the world. He won several awards for his poetry including the highly coveted PEN award and had been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature several times. He was admitted to Academie Francaise--the first black person to receive France's highest honor for enduring contribution to French life and letters. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues join me in celebrating the life and the political accomplishments of a friend of the United States of America, the late President Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the press reports about how many of the employees of Enron lost virtually all of their retirement savings because of the Enron collapse. While the retirement savings of the rank and file Enron employees were disappearing, the corporate insiders sold millions of dollars worth of their Enron stock. The corporate insiders were able to sell their stock even though those insiders continued to promote Enron stock as a sound investment to the rank and file employees. In addition, Enron placed substantial restrictions on the ability of the rank and file employees to sell the Enron stock held in their retirement plan. The Republican leadership has made it clear that it is willing to act promptly, without hearings, when providing large benefits to corporations. This Congress enacted an airline bailout bill promptly without hearings while making promises to help airline workers later. The House of Representatives passed legislation last year, without hearings, that would have provided a cash payment to Enron of over $250 million. The House passed legislation protecting the insurance companies from claims in future terrorist attacks, again without hearings and also with further promises to provide worker benefits later. Now, I ask the Republican leadership to permit prompt consideration of legislation to protect workers from another Enron-like incident. Workers should be entitled to the same consideration as large corporations. The bill that I am introducing today along with Minority Leader Gephardt and others contains two provisions that I believe can and should be enacted immediately. The bill does not pretend to be the final answer to the issues raised by the Enron collapse. However, it will provide interim protection for workers. It ensures that the employees of a company will have the same ability to sell stock in company that the corporate insiders have. It also will help ensure that companies provide workers and shareholders with accurate information about the true liabilities of the company so that they can make informed decisions as to whether to hold or sell that company's stock. Mr. Speaker, I fully support investigations and hearings on the Enron situation. We need to fully understand what Enron did and how it was permitted to do it, in order to formulate a comprehensive legislative response. However the investigations, hearings, studies, and task forces should not be an excuse to delay immediate action designed to protect millions of employees as well as shareholders. I believe there is some risk that Enron and its accounting firm may have been successful in destroying documents necessary for the investigations. I would note that there is one set of documents that Enron and its accountants did not destroy, namely Enron's tax returns. The executives from Enron have stated that the destruction of documents was contrary to their express instructions. If those executives are serious in desiring a full investigation, laying out all facts available, then they should release immediately Enron's tax returns for public examination. Those could be the only documents remaining that would fully disclose what happened to Enron and who is responsible. Mr. Speaker, this is not the last bill that I will introduce as a result of the issues arising from the Enron case. As we learn more about specific problems that should be addressed, I will urge my colleagues to consider additional proposals. For example, recently there have been press reports that Enron enhanced its guaranteed retirement benefits for its executive officers while it was reducing or eliminating guaranteed pension benefits for rank and file workers. There may be need for legislation to prevent such an abuse in the future. In addition, it is clear that certain areas in our pension system need to be addressed to provide a greater level of retirement security to workers. Following is a brief description of the bill I am introducing today. Short-term worker protections Eron employees suffered large losses on their investments in Enron stock because Enron placed restrictions on sales of its stock held by employees in section 401(k) plans. Indeed, during the critical period within which Enron collapsed, it prohibited all sales of stock in its 401(k) plans. During the early 1980s Congress enacted legislation to respond to certain corporate transactions where insiders received large payments, called ``golden parachutes.'' They were called golden parachutes because they enabled the insiders to bail out with extraordinary sums of dollars, often leaving a weak or bankrupt company behind. The legislation imposed a 20 percent excise tax on those payments. My bill would extend the golden parachute excise tax to sales of corporate stock by corporate insiders during periods when rank and file employees of the company are not able to freely sell the company stock held their 401(k) accounts. This portion of the bill would be temporary (in effect for 6 months). It is designed to force a comprehensive legislative solution that protects workers. Currently, congressional delay protects corporate interests while leaving rank and file workers at risk. I wish to reverse that dynamic. I believe that it is a matter of simple fairness that corporate insiders should not have greater freedom to sell their stock than the freedom that those insiders decide to grant to their employees. Eliminate Tax Subsides for Inaccurate Accounting The Wall Street Journal in an article on Monday, January 14, noted that ``some of the world's leading banks and brokerage firms'' provided Enron with crucial help in creating the intricate--and, in crucial ways, misleading--financial structure that fueled the energy trader's impressive rise but ultimately led to its spectacular downfall.'' The article failed to note that tax lawyers also provided crucial assistance by their creation of hybrid instruments that are treated as equity for shareholder reporting but are treated as debt for tax purposes. Those instruments permit companies, in effect, to borrow money with tax deductible interest while excluding the borrowing from total liabilities when reporting to shareholders. Companies use these hybrid instruments, rather than traditional borrowing, only because the hybrid instruments permit the company to understate its liabilities when reporting to shareholders. The hybrid instruments typically have greater underwriting costs and interest rates than those that would have occurred on a traditional borrowing. Enron used these instruments to a fairly large extent. The footnotes to the balance sheet in Enron's last financial statement disclosed that it had somewhere between $700 million and $2 billion of these instruments. In addition, press reports indicate that Enron also had at least an additional $1.2 billion of these transactions that were not disclosed in the financial statement. In 1996 and 1997 the Clinton administration proposed eliminating tax deductions for interest on debt instruments when the corporation showed the instruments as equity on its books. If the congressional Republicans had permitted action on that budget proposal, we might not have seen the spectacular rise and collapse of Enron. My bill would deny the deduction for interest on instruments that the company treats as debt for tax purposes but does not include in its liabilities when it reports to shareholders. The bill would apply only when the proceeds of the borrowing are included in the assets of the corporation for shareholder reporting purposes. Therefore, it does not apply to borrowings by off-balance sheet entities where both the liability and the proceeds of the liability are not shown on the company's balance sheet. The bill only applies to corporations that file certified financial statements with the SEC, and it is prospective. Providing workers with the right to freely transfer employer stock is not sufficient if the employer's financial statements do not accurately reflect the company's financial position. I do not understand why the tax laws should subsidize companies attempting to hide liabilities when reporting to shareholders. I am open to other ideas and solutions. I welcome additional suggestions and promise to work with any Member of Congress who want to protect workers and shareholders. I urge that we move quickly to provide some protections now while we study additional measures we may wish to undertake in the future.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the Congress's attention to a recent article in the Carib News entitled ``Immigrants and the National Insecurity'' by Dr. Basil Wilson. His opinion editorial cogently details our Nation's current struggle with ensuring our personal security while continuing to uphold the founding principles of this country. The article highlights some of our past reactions to times of strife and their dramatic impact on our immigrant community. Most notably, the passage of the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act and the 1996 Immigration and Responsibilities Act, spurred in part by the World Trade Center attack in 1993 and the Oklahoma City federal building bombing in 1995, have conveyed the anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States and have sought to reduce the rights and benefits available to immigrants. Since 1996, many of us have worked to undo the damage done to this community. But our overreaction to September 11th's attack stand to prevent us from advancing our efforts. As Americans we pride ourselves in our historical knowledge in looking at the past and learning from our successes and failures. Immediately following the attacks we strove to respond in an unconventional manner, both here and abroad. Yet, just four months later, we sit by and allow the Attorney General to indefinitely detain aliens, the use of military tribunals to try those suspected of terrorism, and interviews by law enforcement agencies based on ethnic and religious identities. The echoes of Japanese internment camps and McCarthyism are ringing in the halls of Congress and I know I am not the only one who hears them. Dr. Wilson cautions, ``in a global society, there is a danger that America will project to the world that it only values the life of its own citizens. The constitution and life will be preserved for Americans but different standards will be used to measure those who are not citizens of Rome.'' More critically than the projection to the world, we will tell our fellow countrymen and teach our children that the immigrant life should be valued less than the citizen's life that the immigrants who have been the building blocks of our pluralistic society generation after generation should stay at the bottom. Dr. Wilson warns that this treatment is a ``slippery slope that can readily lead to the dehumanization of others.'' More than ``can lead'', it does lead, perpetuating an environment of inequality. If we sacrifice the constitutional liberties that we are asking our armed services to defend, then I ask what are we fighting for? Each time we give up one of our precious freedoms, we open the door to surrender more. It does not matter if we give up these rights for our citizens versus our immigrants because one day these immigrants will be citizens. They will not forget that from the inception they were told they were less then the people their children will attend school with. Our enemy is not the immigrant. Do we honestly believe that if we harshly punish the immigrant community we are now secure, that we are now safe? By condoning a society that devalues the immigrants' contributions and vital role in our community, we degrade ourselves and our history and we condone the inequity that is present in the United States and in the world. If there is one history lesson we should all remember it is our treatment of the most vulnerable of our citizens that defines our national character. We are only as strong as our weakest link and if we truly want a country where all are equal and prosper, we must empower each part of it to succeed. Immigrants and the National Insecurity [Carib News, Week Ending Dec. 11, 2001] (By Dr. Basil Wilson) The planning and executing of the bombing of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the implosion of the twin towers led us to believe that the United States was confronted with a formidable foe. The henchmen of Osama bin Laden had demonstrated their zealotry in 1993 in the initial attempt to take down the symbol of world capitalism. They struck again in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in Tanzania and Kenya before the devastating blow on the mainland of the United States. Al Qaeda had managed to pull together jihad warriors from Muslim countries in Bosnia, Algeria, Egypt and Pakistan. This fierce band of warriors with the capacity to kill civilians along with the Taliban in Afghanistan have manifested to the world an incapacity to fight against the United States military. The Al Qaeda and Taliban warriors have shown an inability to wage modern warfare. That prompts the question, what is left of the Al Qaeda international network? As bin Laden forces disintegrate in Afghanistan, does Al Qaeda remain a formidable terrorist network capable of threatening American national security? The extra-constitutional measures that Attorney General Ashcroft claims that is necessary to save American lives is based on the assumption that the remnants of bin Laden are still capable of additional savagery. The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the destruction of the Federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, prompted the Clinton Administration and Congress to pass the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act. That Act and the Immigration and Responsibilities Act reduced measurably the rights of permanent residents and foreigners living in the United States. Even the Acts passed since September 11, 2001 respects the constitutional rights of citizens but run roughshod over those who are domiciled in the United States and are not citizens. The Patriot Act is similar to the Walter/McCarran Act passed in 1952. Then the fear was communist organizations and the law allowed the Immigration and Naturalization Service to bar those who sought to enter the United States who were members of communist or organizations sympathetic to communism. With the Patriot Act, the attempt is to interdict or deport non-citizens who are members of a terrorist organization or who seek to raise or to give funds to any terrorist organization. The Attorney General does not need to bring the defendants to trial and the non-citizen can be immediately deported. The Attorney General has now assumed powers to indefinitely detain aliens. This amounts to a suspension of habeas corpus and the Attorney General now has the power to supersede the rights of INS judges to release a detainee providing that detainee is suspected to be linked to terrorist activity. No evidence has to be presented in court. Such powers exercised by the state are troubling to constitutional scholars. The rationale given is national security but there are no checks or balances to ensure that the rights of the defendants are duly protected. Officials at the Justice Department are insisting that the investigation must cast an extensive net. Thus far the Attorney General has indicated after prodding from Congress that 93 persons have been charged with minor visa or criminal violations unconnected to events of September 11, 2001. The files of 11 have been sealed and 22 Middle Eastern men who were engaged in obtaining licenses to transport hazardous materials across state lines, all but one, have been released. Approximately 548 are in custody, mostly comprised of Middle Eastern males. To extend the dragnet, the Justice Department is asking state and city policy to cooperate with them to interview 5,000 Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 33 who entered the United States from January 2000. They are not necessarily suspected of any crime but the Justice Department wants to conduct voluntary interviews with the expectation it might produce leads to determine the state of the Al Qaeda network in the United States. This amounts to a vulgar form of racial profiling. Racial profiling as it was aimed at African Americans on the New Jersey Turnpike or the unconstitutional search and seizures conducted in Black and Latino neighborhoods in New York City are examples of the might of state power being used against the powerless to maximize domestic security. Events of September 11, 2001 necessitate additional vigilance on the part of law enforcement but it is dangerous to pass legislation oblivious to the rights of non-citizens since such legislation jeopardizes the rights of all American citizens. President Bush announced on November 13, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces that the government would reserve the right of trying foreigners during the course of the war in military tribunals. Military tribunals were used during the American Civil War and in World War II. Military tribunals do not require the preponderance of evidence necessary for conviction in a civilian court or in military courts used for court martial cases. Conviction in the Military Tribunal would not require the same rules of evidence and a two-thirds vote of the commissioners could lead to a conviction even in the case of a death penalty. As the New York Times editorial on Sunday, December 2, 2001 stated, it is very difficult to criticize a President when the nation is at war but the editorial board felt compelled to speak out against the extensive extra-judicial powers assumed by the Bush administration. A conservative columnist like William Safire, who writes for the New York Times has condemned the Military Tribunals as kangaroo courts. Safire is mindful of the spectacle of a bin Laden trial and the security risks that would entail and suggests rather dispassionately that the United States should ensure that Osama bin Laden is bombed to smithereens. A liberal columnist like Thomas Freedman equivocates. He recognizes the danger of the extra-constitutional decrees but his position is that the nation is up against an enemy with no love for life and cannot carry out business as usual. In a global society, there is a danger that America will project to the world that it only values the life of its own citizens. The constitution and life will be preserved for Americans but different standards will be used to measure those who are not citizens of Rome. It is a slippery slope that can readily lead to the dehumanization of others. Treasuring the ewei and not the ethey is inextricably linked to the present human condition. That is the troubling issue in the Middle East. It is that thought process that led to the bombings in Jerusalem. Saturday night that resulted in the death of 25 Israelis and over 250 wounded. It is that same mentality that has led to the unending grieving of the 3,000 lives lost in the World Trade Center. Some emergency measures are sorely necessary in light of the holocaust of September 11, 2001. But one of the stranges phenomenon of the latter twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century is the increasing insecurity of human life and the proposed solutions to enhance safety which seem to augment the quasi-incarcerated nature of our lives. It has prompted the expansion of the penal state with millions in prison and hundreds of thousands leaving prison to be reintegrated into an economy that is jettisoning those who are presently employed. The military reserve now provides additional security on our streets. Airport security has been federalized and new legislation has been passed by Congress to counter terrorism. The Attorney General is convinced that expanded powers will make us more secure. This should be seen as a temporary holding action. We fought a war in yesteryear to make the world safe for democracy. We need to explore a new politics and to construct a new global system to make the world safe for Christians, Jews, Muslims and non-believers.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today is a bittersweet day. It is with both great sadness and immense pride that I rise today in honor and celebration of the life of my friend, the Honorable R. Lawrence Coughlin. Robert Lawrence Coughlin was born on April 11, 1929 in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and grew up on his father's farm near Scranton, PA. He served distinguishably as a Republican Member of the United States Congress for 24 years, from January 1969-January 1993 representing a portion of Philadelphia, PA and its surrounding suburban Main Line area. Lawrence's accomplishments were great during his tenure in Congress. He was a man of great honor and truly a gentleman. I had the pleasure of serving with him while I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and he served as the Ranking Republican Member. At first glance, one would perceive our relationship as that of the ``Odd Couple'' as Lawrence and I strolled side by side through the Capitol as he donned his signature bow tie and me wearing a more conventional necktie. He represented the wealthy suburban Main Line area of Philadelphia and I represent the vibrant Harlem area of New York City. However, we had many shared interests and experiences. Lawrence Coughlin served in the Marine Corps during the Korean War. His military training was evident in the way he conducted himself in the Congress. He was a very disciplined man who took a dogged approach to tackling the difficult problems that face the nation and the Congress. I remember his passion for the youth of our great nation. This passion was the source of his drive to do whatever was necessary during his tenure on the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control to rid our communities of the scourge of drugs. Although some would say, Lawrence had a Patrician air about him I would say he had the air of a proud ex-marine who viewed the war on drugs as a series of unending battles to be confronted head on until the war was won and victory proclaimed. As a man of great consciousness, I will forever remember his stamina and commitment in his efforts to eliminate drugs from our communities, making the world a better place for our youth. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues join me in celebrating the life and the political accomplishments of my great friend, the Honorable R. Lawrence Coughlin.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was moved by the remarks of the Speaker. I do not think anyone tried harder in this House in working with the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) in trying to bring a solution to the problem that is before this House. I think it is safe to say that the one thing that they tried to do was to try to bring some resolve to the question of providing health care to people who are unemployed. We provided over $70 billion in our substitute for tax incentives, corporate and individual taxes; and we did this because we seriously believe that we do have to do certain things in order to create capital, in order to create investments, in order to allow people to be able to invest. But we truly believe that we should have had an opportunity to come before you today and say that the people who are left out of this bill, or the people who are left to the governors to do what they have to do, or the people that may be left up to the Secretary of the Treasury, that we just do not have a provision here that I can explain or that you can explain to the people who have been left out. We know tonight that we had a missed opportunity to give and to take on this side of the aisle and the other side, on this side of the House and the other side. We missed that opportunity because certain people were convinced that the present health delivery system does not work and they wanted to change it for the future. It is almost unbelievable how you would not give us an opportunity to share with you our views. But to hold us in such disrespect that we could not bring it up in committee; that we did not have a chance to bring it up in conference; that we could not bring it up on the floor, and yet, as we conclude, you know that this bill is not going anywhere in the Senate. As I look and see the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on the Budget, or maybe the chairman of the former Committee on the Budget, or maybe the chairman that used to be concerned as to what we did with the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund, who said we were not going to invade it, who said we would put it in a lockbox, who said so many things, but at the end of the day, this tax cut bill is not paid for, as the substitute was and as the motion to recommit asks you to do. People have screamed that what we are doing is raising taxes. All we are saying is that the President did not know when he gave the $1.3 trillion tax cut that we were going to go into a recession. He did not know that we would be at war. And all we are saying is that as we look and see and try to bring some balance to the budget, if not now then in the future, at least have it using the language of people on the Committee on the Budget and have a set-aside. But we do not have even that. So as we plunge into deficit spending, we do it using the payments that people are making for what? For tax cuts? No. To pay for the war? No. For health care? No. For unemployment? No. They are using this for their Social Security. The payroll tax is what is keeping us going, and we are operating on fumes. I just want you to know that we want to give to the Speaker the sense of bipartisanship that we have given since the war has begun. But partnership means two sides. You first have to talk with people. You have to get people's views. And somewhere down the line we have to get back to the idea that things that are important enough for tax policy and trade policy and unemployment policy and health policy to have hearings and witnesses and markups, and to bring it to the floor in a bipartisan way. We do not have to win. We are in the minority. We can count. But we demand the respect to be heard, because we do feel a compassionate concern not only that business be allowed to prosper so it can create the wealth and the jobs, but those people who are not in the system, that have been dislocated, they cannot wait until the other body does something. They should have been taken care of by this Congress at this time. I ask you to support the motion to recommit to give us an opportunity to come back and to put some meat on the bones. Do not leave it to the Secretary of the Treasury to get us out of this. Do not leave it to the President. Leave it to the people that have the experience and the jurisdiction in our committees to do something about it. I hope you will consider that on the motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. I am, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I stated, Mr. Speaker, when we were in conference, we wanted to follow what the President had suggested and to take in consideration tax cuts, many of which were not liked by our side, but we thought it was a question of give and take. But there is one thing that we insisted upon, and that is that either we take everything or we take nothing. So the things that we were willing to do, some of those things we put in our substitute bill as an enticement in believing that if the House was going to be fair enough to give us an opportunity to say that we have a better plan, that Republicans and Democrats would have an opportunity to at least hear the merits of the plan, since ours had substantial tax cuts. But we just refuse to believe that the unemployed have to be held hostage to the tax cuts, so therefore, we insisted that until we could work out the differences, there would be no agreement. The complexity of finding an answer to how do you properly give coverage to unemployed people is a problem that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), and Members of this House have wrestled with for months and perhaps years. We have 44 million people without any type of insurance at all, and that is increasing. The recession is causing more people to become unemployed, and therefore, more people without insurance. So we struggle to find a way. The majority insisted that we discard the way that we have because, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said, it is too expensive. Others said it is a Cadillac system, and some said we are paying for more than people deserve because they are unproductive people. They talk about how you can get cheaper policies, and that you were given more. But the fact is, there is a cap on what the other people are giving. So given 60 percent, if you cannot afford the 40 percent, you are just out of insurance, because you are there to negotiate with an HMO that is in it for profit, and one cannot really negotiate from that position. Certainly if we can just picture for one moment that we have lost our jobs and that we have lost our COBRA benefits, and that what we do have are tax credits, can Members imagine what they, their wives, or their kids, would have to go? Where do they go with the credits? What do they do? Who do they ask? The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said people would be fighting for those credits. Do we wait until it is time to pay taxes and find out that there is no tax liability, and then get a refund? Oh, no, says the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), they do not have to wait. We asked, why do we not have to wait? They said, ``Because we have a provision.'' What is the provision? The provision is that even before we filed the tax, they know we have no tax liability so they advance the refund, and we take that someplace and negotiate. We said to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), that is pretty complicated. We do not understand how that works. He did not understand either, to be honest. He said, it is the President's program. So what did we do? We sent it over to the President. We never heard from anybody since. So I was really surprised that what I used to refer to as the Thomas tax credits, since the statement is attributed to him, is now the President's tax credit, and I still could not find how do people use the advance refundable credit. The truth of the matter is the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) did not know then, he does not know now, and it is not in the bill. He may be able to tell us how he would like for this to work, or he may talk about his newly found good relationship with the with the Secretary of the Treasury, or he may say, trust the President. But there is one thing that he is not going to be able to say, and that is anything concerning how to use the advance credit in order to get insurance, except that on page 100 and only on page 100 they say, check with the Secretary of the Treasury. At some time he will come up with some program. What we had suggested is maybe you do not like COBRA. Maybe you think it is too expensive. Maybe you think it is too inclusive. But the whole idea was to do something and do it now. This was not supposed to provide for a permanent change in health delivery system. It was not a reform bill. The President did not say everything had to be right. Maybe some of the loopholes that we expanded we went too far. But he said give me something, make it temporary and do it now. Which meant what? We could have kept our system for one year, brought in Medicaid to supplement it and to make certain that everyone had coverage. And at least use it as a testing ground that if it was abused, if people was using more than they should, than we could get together and come up with a good Medicaid/ Medicare reform bill. As it is now, we are left with nothing except your imagination and whatever the Secretary of Treasury may come up with. And the reason we broke down in our negotiations is because there was no provisions there for refundable advanced credit for people to get insurance. There is no provision now, and that is why we are opposed to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if anyone can tell me how they get these credits. All I am saying is that I respect that the gentlewoman knows that we had a bill and she studied it and she would like to critique it. I only wish that the majority would have allowed us to bring the bill on the floor so it could be critiqued, one. Two, if we are talking about credits as a substitute for the existing program, the one question that I keep asking is, if they have the credit but no tax liability, how does a guy go to the HMO and try to get insurance? The answer is that the tax credit is advanced, so they can get it up front, they do not have to wait for the Treasury to give it to them. So I accept that. I am saying if there is this advance credit, where do they go and what do they do with it? The answer is that there is no answer. They make it up as they go along, because the Secretary of the Treasury is the one that is going to determine at some point in time sometime next year how the program works. But if Members are trying to find out how it works tonight on the floor, as we say in New York, forget about it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. I do not have a bill. I am saying, in the gentlewoman's bill, how do they negotiate the credit?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am so glad that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is on the floor. No one has worked harder to provide adequate health care for the majority of Americans and continues to work to expand that coverage. While she does refer to our bill providing only 75 percent of COBRA and fails to talk about the Medicaid provisions that we have to provide for additional care, the truth of the matter is that there is no Democratic bill that we can debate. We have been denied the opportunity to have our substitute on the floor. But I think it is safe to say for those people who wondered what went on in the stimulus conference that we had, I think the chairman of that conference, who happens also to be the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, would agree that we accomplished a lot in recognizing that we did need short-term tax incentives to stimulate the economy. We never challenged that. We never challenged that. I think that he would also agree that in the area of unemployment compensation, while there was a wide gap, we thought if we continued to work, that even that gap could be covered. The major problem we had was providing health care under a new program that was introduced to us, we thought, by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and now we find out by the President, that would allow people to get health insurance with a credit, and if they had no tax liability, they would be able to negotiate with an advance refundable credit. I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), this advance refundable credit, it is more or less, I would suspect, some type of a voucher that would allow the person with no tax liability to go somewhere and try to get health insurance, try to negotiate for it. And while there would be a cap on the cost, still there is some thought that the program would work by allowing them to get into the system. What I have been saying all night is that if the gentlewoman does not talk about health insurance, I will not talk about page 100. But I have looked through this, and we were unable to find any way to make the credit system work in conference. One of the Senators who was in charge said that we should go to the President, and the White House could not find any way to handle it, so the way they handled it on the floor is to say the program does not exist in terms of what they do with advance refundable payment. I may be wrong, but all I am saying is that the only thing that I see that refers to how an unemployed person with no health insurance and no tax liability, when we ask how do they get negotiated into the system in order to get health insurance, it is on page 100. If there is another part of this bill that tells how people can really use the advance payment of a displaced person using this so-called credit, I would like the gentlewoman to refer to the page. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the hardworking gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), especially on health affairs.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take some of the time on the other side if they would like to yield it to us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).