Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if my friend from New York has found the net operating loss provisions to be the redeeming factor in the so-called Republican bill, he should feel comfortable in voting for the substitute, because it is there as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by this new description of bipartisanship. The gentleman just said he picked out the Democratic tax provisions, and so therefore by including that in the Republican package, it is bipartisanship. So anytime we agree with anything that you do, that automatically is charged to us, and it is bipartisan. Absolutely unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to understand it now, that is, that if you want to create jobs and avoid layoffs, give billions of dollars of tax bonuses to the corporations but exclude airline industries, because if you give them $15 billion, they will fire some 75,000. It is getting a little clearer. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee would like us to believe that those who disagree with the gentleman and his bill are either stupid or do not understand the bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) misrepresented the bill, but he never had enough time to share with us what part of the bill he misrepresented. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, that shows the depth of arrogance on the Republican side of this aisle. To really think that bipartisanship is their interpretation of democratic ideas is the epitome of arrogance. So that means that any time we want to have a bipartisan bill, all we have to do is go to the Democratic Campaign Committee and wonder what these rascals are thinking about and include it in a bill and come to the floor and claim that it is bipartisan. Shame on my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank God we have an honest person in the House to call it a Republican bill, so that officially shatters the myth of bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, referred to bipartisanship in his opening statement. His mentioning the bipartisanship is about as close as he will ever get to it. We had had some preliminary meetings to see whether or not we could support the President as he gave guidelines as to what he wanted in this stimulus package. The fact that a handful of Republicans visited the White House and the President changed his mind is not very, very impressive. I think, though, that one of the gentlemen who spoke for the rule spelled it out as to the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and that is that Republicans just have a difficult time helping poor folks or helping people not wealthy. They just have a propensity to help faceless multinational corporations. Now, you can call it a bonus, you can call it a credit, you can call it a loan, you can call it what you want; but at the end of the day these firms will be receiving billions of dollars out of monies that basically have been paid into the Social Security and the Medicare Trust Fund. That is not deniable. The guideline was supposed to be that it was not supposed to be a permanent fix, but they do have permanent tax remedies that they are selecting. It is outrageous to do something like this when the country is going through a crisis. And instead of raising the funds to pay for the war, they are actually giving bonuses to those people who are the beneficiaries of this dilemma we find ourselves in today. Patriotic people ought to know that it takes more than going to Disneyland to pay for a war. And what we ought to do is take a look at the tax cuts that the President proposed and got passed before he was commander in chief, because certainly we would like to believe that he wanted to support the very same things he campaigned on, and that is a viable Social Security System, Medicare, education, to make certain that we have prescription drugs, and to make certain that we had a Patients' Bill of Rights. All of this does not stop America from moving forward just because we have a lot of bum insane terrorists after us. This is the time for America to be at its strongest. And we ought to expect those that got strong economically in this country to help to be responsible and pay their fair share, instead of taking care of the people that are displaced, the people that are unemployed, instead of making certain to take care of those that are supposed to be the ones to spur the economy. You can give billions of dollars to the corporate structure; but if no one is buying cars, if no one is buying washing machines, what are they going to invest in? You have to be able to create consumer demand. What is happening here is that they found out the country was in trouble, and they were able to outrageously just hold the Democrats on the committee in utter contempt, hold the other body in utter contempt, and just decide that every time they go in a back room they can bring out a bill. Forget the bipartisanship, forget the President's problems, just ram it through. Well, it is not going to be rammed through the Senate. The President has already had his people call it show business. So what I am saying is if this is a show business bill, let us get the producers, let us get the actors, close down the show and run them out of town. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule because the Committee on Rules was kind enough to give us a substitute so that it would give Republicans and Democrats an opportunity to really get off the political hook. There is nothing more disgraceful during a time of war for people to take advantage of it and pull out old Republican tax cuts that are totally unrelated to the stimulus that the President asked for and that our leadership asked for. This bill that is coming up is the first time on this floor that we have deviated completely from the whole concept of bipartisanship. It is something that is just arrogantly brought to us, as other bills have been brought to the floor by the Committee on Ways and Means, without any consultation at all with the Democrats on the committee. It shows utter contempt for Democrats, utter contempt for the House, and in this particular case, utter contempt for the other body, since we started off on a bipartisan way with guidelines. Those guidelines are that this is supposed to be temporary tax relief. This is not temporary. It was supposed to be no bigger than $75 billion over 10 years. This more than doubles that. It was supposed to be offset, which is the budget's way of saying it should be paid for, and even the budget chairman says it is not paid for. This is a disgrace in terms of what it will do for long-term interest rates. It really throws a tax bonus to some of the largest multinationals in this country of some $25 billion, some receiving over $2 billion, one receives $1 billion, others receive $400 million, $500 million, and $600 million. My colleagues cannot justify this as building New York. We want to have a stimulus for people to go out and spend, so we take the people from the lower income and we give them a decent unemployment compensation, and we help to pay for their health insurance. What do my colleagues do for those same people? My colleagues do not take care of airline security; they do not take care of the security of people in the United States. These are bills we are waiting for. My colleagues can ram this through, but I think this time the train is going to hit a stone wall.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I am glad the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) mentioned this so- called tax increase because I was wondering where he got the idea. Someone got ahold of the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Armey) stationery and misused it and called the Democratic tax bill a $90 billion tax hike. Actually, we do pay for our bill by freezing the top rate for the one percent of the highest income people in the United States of America. We think in a time of war there should be a shared responsibility; and so, therefore, that provision is in there, but by no stretch of the imagination can we call an increase what people never received. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we have to continue to debate this because, for all we know, the administration may change its mind before the debate is over. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to emphasize the importance of Hispanic Heritage Month, September 15th-October 15th. A culture that began over 500 years ago as a fusion between Spanish and indigenous societies across the Americas, the Hispanic community has helped forge our Nation's identity and today the Latino population is the largest minority group in the United States. The Hispanic community enriches the ethnic diversity that makes our Nation unique, contributing greatly to the cultural, artistic, economic and political life of this country. Like many other immigrants who came to this country in pursuit of the American dream, Hispanics have struggled to overcome adversity, fighting stereotypes and discrimination. This battle has not been easy and I salute all those that have worked to advance the prosperity of our Latino population. While this fight is far from over, we can see the results of our efforts throughout the Country, beginning with our Congress. Today, I am joined by a constantly growing number of Hispanic colleagues, each with a strong work ethic and committed to public service and the preservation of our democracy. At home in New York City, I am proud to represent a district that reflects a cultural mosaic of Hispanic groups such as people of Puerto Rican, Dominican, Mexican and Cuban heritage. The influence of Latin culture is seen throughout the streets of Upper Manhattan from Washington Heights to El Barrio. It is an essential part of the cultural Mecca that defines the 15th congressional district and I am honored to speak for one of the Nation's most distinct groups. More than our fellow citizens, Latinos are our brothers and sisters. I would like to honor and thank the entire Hispanic community its contributions to the past, present, and future of the United States.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of the late Mrs. Frank (Caroline) Guarini, Senior, mother of former Congressman Frank J. Guarini, Jr. Mrs. Guarini's life spanned the entire 20th century; entering our world on March 25, 1900 in Niagara Falls, New York and departing it on September 9, 2001 at her home in Secaucus, New Jersey. On September 13th I was privileged to be in attendance with her loving son and family in a service celebrating her life. After completing her education in Canada, then Caroline Critelli worked in her family's furniture business before marrying Frank J. Guarini, Sr. in 1923. Never forgetting her Italian immigrant background, she raised her two children Ms. Marie Mangin and Mr. Guarini, Jr. to be proud of their heritage and grateful for all of that life had blessed them with. To this end, Mrs. Guarini remained devoted to the public throughout her life, contributing to the community through service and through the arts. In November of 1999, Mrs. Guarini was recognized by the Christopher Columbus Foundation for her continuous participation in its Columbus Day Parade where she was referred to as a ``child's dream of a fairy Godmother''. And in celebration of her 100th birthday in 2000, she played the theme song from Dr. Zhivago on piano on an international television broadcast. Whether in the capacity of work, family, service, church, or neighbor, everyone who met Mrs. Guarini was touched by her. Those that had the honor of knowing Mrs. Guarini, will forever remember her grace, charm, and beauty.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to give assurances to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that I will be working with Mr. Houghton and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, not only on the legislation but on our trade ambassador to make certain that he is giving this a priority. When it reaches the point that we can meet together, see where we are and then if we do not get the type of response that we believe is adequate, then you can depend on me working with the committee and the chairman to see that this is done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means that this is an important piece of legislation, but there are constitutional prerogatives that provide that the Committee on Ways and Means originate this type of legislation. Mr. Speaker, in view of the merits of the legislation, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), one of the original sponsors in the House of the legislation such as myself and other Members.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in support of H.R. 2133 which would establish a commission for the purpose of encouraging and providing for the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary on May 17, 2004 of the Supreme Court's unanimous and landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. While the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution outlawed slavery, guaranteed rights of citizenship to naturalized citizens and due process, equal protection and voting rights, nearly a century would pass before the last vestiges of ``legalized'' discrimination and inequality would be effectively revoked. The right of equal protection under the law for African-Americans was dealt a heavy blow with the Supreme Court's 1875 decision to uphold a lower court in Plessy v. Ferguson. The Plessy decision created the infamous ``separate but equal'' doctrine that made segregation ``constitutional'' for almost 80 years. It was not until the 1950's, when the NAACP defense team led by the Honorable Thurgood Marshall as general counsel, launched a national campaign to challenge segregation at the elementary school level that effective and lasting change was achieved. In five individually unique cases filed in four states and the District of Columbia, the NAACP defense team not only claimed that segregated schools told Black children they were inferior to White children, but that the ``separate by equal'' ruling in Plessy violated equal protection. Although all five lost in the lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted each case in turn, hearing them collectively in what became Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown decision brought a decisive end to segregation and discrimination in our public school systems, and gradually our national, cultural and social consciousness as well. The first, however, did not end there. We may have overcome segregation and racism, but now the fight is economic, one in which some of our schools are inferior to others because of inadequate funding, overcrowded classrooms, dilapidated school buildings and a nationwide lack of teachers. We only have to look at the high levels of crime, drug use, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy and unemployment to know the value of a good education. If Brown taught us anything, it is that without the proper educational tools, young people lose hope for the future. No one challenges the concept of investing in human capital, but it is a well-known fact that we spend ten times as much to incarcerate then we do to educate. If we can find the resources to fund a tax cut and for a U.S. prison system with nearly 2 million inmates, we can give our public schools the repairs and facilities they desperately need, we can reduce class sizes and provide adequate pay to attract the best and brightest into the teaching profession. I urge my colleagues here in the House to join me in remembering the lessons of Brown v. Board of Education when we consider our national priorities, by committing ourselves to addressing the unfulfilled promises of equality and opportunity contained in the Brown decision.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in praise of the late Judge James ``Skiz'' Watson, the nation's most senior African American federal judge, serving on the United States Court of International Trade, a lifetime appointment by former President Lyndon Johnson in 1966. A former New York State Senator, Civil Court Judge, and decorated veteran of World War II, Judge Watson passed away at his home in Harlem on September 1, 2001. In memory of this distinguished jurist, I introduced legislation today designating the building located at 1 Federal Plaza in New York, New York, as the ``James L. Watson Court of International Trade Building.'' Attaching his name to the courthouse where he served for 36 years is a fitting tribute. Judge Watson was my friend and constituent for many years; he was the judge for whom I clerked after completing law school; and the man who contributed with all of his heart to his family, his community and our nation.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the leadership here can get hold of one or two Democrats and believe that everything they do is bipartisan. It reminds me of the story that Jim Wright told about this wonderful Texas stew that everyone loved, and they asked what kind of stew it was? He said it was horse and rabbit stew. They said, it tastes delicious. What is the recipe? He said, oh, it is one horse and one rabbit. They said, it tastes delicious, but how do you do it? He said one-half horse, one-half rabbit is how we make it. Except it is one whole horse and one small rabbit. And that is how the Republicans have moved forward in trying to get bipartisanship here. But I tell you, the tax bill, the $1.3 trillion tax bill, certainly was not bipartisan. This bill is not bipartisan. And the rule which I stand to oppose will not even allow us the opportunity to provide the revenues to pay for this bill, if and when it becomes law. There is a train wreck that is going to occur, and the train wreck is that we have signed more checks, or promised to sign more checks, than we have made deposits in the bank. We have this $500 billion contingency fund over 10 years, but we said we are going to have $300 billion of it for defense, $73 billion for agriculture, $6 billion for veterans, $50 billion for health insurance, $82 billion for education, $122 billion for expiring tax provisions, $200 billion to $400 billion to change the alternative minimum tax. And there is just not enough money in our account to pay for these things, without invading the Medicare trust fund or the Social Security trust fund. Now, we know that there are some people on the other side of the aisle that wish that we did not have these programs, and we also know that they know that these programs are so popular that they cannot be legislated out. But what you can do is to do what the President said in his campaign, and that is get the money out of Washington, because they will spend it. I think the answer is, if we are spending it for Social Security benefits, if we are spending it for health care and education, if we are spending it for a stronger America, to invest in our young people, then that is what we were sent here to do. But if we are just getting the money out of Washington so that we can create a deficit, so that we leave to our kids indebtedness, that we do not repair the Social Security system, we do not repair the health system, then I do not think that is what we were sent to Congress to do. In the middle of the night a deal was cut, after so many good Members on both sides of the aisle tried to present a bill to the President that was good for the men and women of the United States of America. It is not a day to be proud of, but it is a day that we are going to vote down the rule, I hope, and vote down this legislation.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule this morning because the Committee on Rules did not see fit to allow the Democratic minority to pay for this bill. What do we mean by that? We mean that the cost of this bill is $33 billion over the next 10-year period. Under normal circumstances, if we did not have the dramatic tax cut that the people did not call for but the Republicans did, this would not have been a problem. But I can tell the Members that when we had a similar situation in trying to get the money to pay for the charitable contribution bill, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), was kind enough to provide the committee with a letter of comfort saying that in the budget there was $500 billion that was there as a contingency fund, some politicians call it, a slush fund, but the proper name is a contingency fund. That meant that, in cases of emergency, one could go to the contingency fund to get the money, and the first to get there is the first that gets the money. It is almost like having a bank account, where you make a $500 billion deposit, but then you start writing checks on that account. I am telling the Members what we are talking about is a budgetary train wreck that the Republicans are driving us to, and each and every week we will be getting closer to that disaster. I wish we could see some of the good old days, when Republicans got in the well and said how much they hated Social Security, said how much they hated Medicare, said how much they hated the Federal Government getting involved in education. But they do not do it that way anymore. They are more sophisticated. They say there is no real money at all in the Social Security Trust Fund and that we may have to move into the Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, the way they kill legislation is no longer by voting against it, it is by saying we do not have the money for it, unless of course they have the political courage to increase taxes to pay for it, and we know that is not going to happen in the next 4 years. So what I am suggesting is this: if my colleagues will not let us actually pay for it, let us see how many checks they intend to write on this $500 billion deposit that they have made in the Federal account, the $300 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and the $134 billion promised to the Secretary of Defense. In other words, to get after Social Security and Medicare they do not even mind holding it hostage on national defense. The $200 billion to $300 billion defense modernization is no longer a priority. The list goes on and on and I have not even started.