Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that my colleague on the other side of the aisle will be yielding the remainder of his time to our distinguished Speaker to close.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), my friend.

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me take this time to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, for taking my place in the tax conference. Had I been there, I would have been able to have a different view, but I thank the gentleman so much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), an outspoken Member on our government's budget. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have no response?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an outstanding American and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from California to know, when I found out that I was excluded from the meeting, I did seek to see whether or not another member of the Democratic leadership perhaps had been invited; but as I said to the gentleman early this morning, the gentleman should know, not one Democrat in this House of Representatives got the chance to participate in this bill.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have been here for 3 decades, and I have never heard such poppycock in my life. What we are talking about, the 10-year end of this bill, is because the Senate made me do it? It is true that we have violated every constitutional principle we could think of in terms of writing law and raising revenue but, my God, is the new Republican thing is ``it wasn't me, the Senate made me do it''? We are supposed to create revenue here. We are the ones that are supposed to write the tax bills. But what did we send over to the other side? Nothing. And so now we are sorry because they have shoved this piece of legislation down our throats. Bipartisanship. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, when you appointed me to serve on the conference committee along with our distinguished majority leader and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I was so proud because I would have been the only Democrat in the House of Representatives, where the people govern, to at least try to guide this away from just the rich and maybe reflect the concerns of the moderate and the hardworking people of America. So as soon as I was appointed, I waited and I waited and I waited for an invitation to the meeting. But the invitation never came. Now, I do not know where the bipartisanship is unless one of the Republicans is a closet Democrat, but I can tell you this, I went looking for the meeting. The White House was at the meeting, Republican Members of the House were at the meeting, Republicans from the Senate were at the meeting. But guess what? Not one Democrat from the House was at the meeting. Now, the chairman of the committee waves a piece of paper saying, this is what the bill would look like if the Senate had not made them accept it. Well, do not wave empty paper. Where is the bill, I ask the gentleman from California? Why is it that Members of this House have no copy of this bill that explodes in 10 years? Show us the bill if you are so proud of it. Or should we beam it up on the Web net as we have been advised and that is the only way we are going to find out what is going on? I tell you this: If you were proud of this document, it would not have been patched up in the middle of the night. We would not be here on Saturday morning. We would not have meetings in the darkness of the night where people do not know where they are, but we would have been walking forward, Democrats and Republicans, proud of what we were doing. Instead of that, we have no bill, we have a lot of sarcasm, and yet we are expected now to go home and be proud. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Better than that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic Party. Maybe he can find the bipartisanship, but for 3 days I have searched for it and it was not to be found in this Capitol. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it took so many years for the other body to come up with some plan to jeopardize Social Security and Medicare, these programs that the American people have come to rely on for so many, many years, the pride and the dignity that older folks had that they did not have to depend on their children and their grandchildren for survival. We knew a long time ago when Mr. Stockman was here with President Reagan that it was not a question of just fiscal irresponsibility, it was not a question of tax cuts. No President has to campaign around the country to encourage the people to support a tax cut. No, the American people knew exactly what was happening. It is, ``Get the money out of Washington. Why? Because they will spend it. This is your money. This is not the Congress' money.'' Well, whose is the deficit? Is that the Congress' deficit or does it belong to our Nation? Is this what we want which we had after Reagan, a country that was spending more money on interest on our debt than paying for health care? And what about the cases that we have of the education program, the prescription drug program, all of the things that were adopted during the President's campaign but we do not hear anything about that today. No, the real question is that in 10 years, all of this is over. Whatever benefits anyone receives under this tax bill, it is over. Because the Republican accountants and tax writers in the middle of the night came up with the strangest gimmick of all. It is called sunset. And so the big balloon at the end of this tax cut means an increase in taxes. I hope someone figures it out, because the entire bill is sunsetted in the year 2010, and it means that whatever the tax rates are today, they come back. But something else happens. Over 40 million American people will be eligible for health care because they are senior citizens, and they will be eligible for Social Security at the very time that the revenues will not be there. And God forbid if the surplus is not there, then what do we do? We have one of two choices: We can increase taxes, and those of us in 1993 who thought that was the right thing to do because we wanted to get on with the deficit, we wanted to protect Social Security, we wanted to protect Medicare but to do this we had to vote for the Clinton tax increase, and we lost 52 Members by doing the right thing. Everyone wants to enjoy the benefit of a surplus, but very few want to pay for the surplus. It means sound fiscal policy. Now we are going back to the days of old. I only hope the rule is defeated so we do not do this to our Congress, we do not do this to our country, and we do not do this to the American people.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there are no expendable human resources in my America. I view every high school dropout, every welfare recipient, every child as a vital resource that must be rescued from the effects of dependency, reduced earnings, and the potential of being permanently locked out of a productive future. This Congress must adequately fund public schools; this Administration must support a national initiative to engage educators, parents, business, and communities in addressing the needs of urban schools; and our U.S. Department of Education must articulate a new vision to address the needs of poor performing urban schools. This is about ensuring that we leave no child behind, no family behind, no community behind. Investment in public education and job training is the key to developing young minds and giving all of America's children a chance to excel. At the present time, however, a significant number of children attend schools where facilities are crumbling, classrooms are overcrowded, students are without computers and Internet access, and many teachers are uncertified and lack the requisite content expertise. While there are many dedicated teachers and great public schools in this country, it is a shame when even one child in the United States receives an obsolete and inadequate education. America must develop a new paradigm to keep children in school, provide a solid education foundation, world-class academic skills, industry responsive job training, and preparation for post-secondary education and life-long learning. Children growing up in America's urban communities need to know that there will be a job for them when they complete school. It just makes good sense to educate people. The economic future of America's urban communities is contingent upon developing strategies for achieving sustainable and systemic change in public school and the delivery of state of the art technical training. We must value the input of families, businesses, teachers, unions, universities, and faith and community-based organizations in a coordinated effort to promote educational achievement and the creation of work. All stakeholders in the community must recognize and acknowledge the contributions of all members of the community. If this nation is to succeed in closing the opportunity divide, we must first close the racial, literacy, economic, social, and the technology gap for future generations. The private and public sector must be willing to blur the distinctions among public schools, the business community, and traditional academic institutions. We need a national agenda for addressing poor performing urban schools. This initiative is about creating opportunity for America's poorest communities. What is good for our poorest communities is ultimately an investment in the future of America's economic growth. Free market expertise can have a dramatic effect the quality of public schools and their ability to attract the best and brightest of the teaching profession. The business community must assist schools in laying a solid groundwork in math, science, and technology skills at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. We also must reach out to public schools, whose teachers and administrators are charged with the responsibility to insure that the skills learned today are the skills prospective employers want and need. We must reach into the hearts and minds of the students we serve, giving them the skills, the confidence, and the opportunity to succeed in our nation's increasingly digital economy. Our nation's children have a big stake in the future of America, but many are not being provided with adequate education, job training, and opportunities that will allow them to take advantage of the prosperity and promise of the new global economy. Tragically, an entire generation of poor urban and rural children, many minority and most undereducated, are missing out on the American dream. At the time of unprecedented economic growth in this country these children are being left behind. Where is the outrage? Where is America's outrage? These children deserve better. Students in schools that have high concentrations of poor children are at great risk of being left behind in an economy driven by technology, increased knowledge, and higher skills. Gaps in student achievement, between high-poverty and low-poverty students, and between minority students and their peers have persisted and in some cases widened in recent years. As they get older, these children are less likely than other students to attend a college or university. This breach in opportunity undermines one of the central purposes of public education: providing all children, regardless of background, with a basic sound education and an equal chance to compete in the world of work when they leave school. Americans consistently tell us that education is their highest domestic priority. In that context, we need to put a face on America's education priority, the face of America's poorest children. We must articulate our plans for the next century; a message of inclusive economic participation, self-reliance, affordable higher education, market-driven job training, world-class public schools, and accountability for educators and students.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Well, you did not answer, though.

Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will yield further, I am just trying to clear up when we are having conferences with Republicans and when we are having conferences as designated by the Speaker, because since you do not intend to really tell us what is going on as a body until 5 o'clock, if the legislative conference is going to take place at 5 o'clock, then I would like to know while you have your conferences leading up to that.

Mr. RANGEL. Then last night, the meeting that took place as relates to the Senate and House bill, we would not call that a conference, now, would we?

Mr. RANGEL. Will the majority leader yield further?