Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL 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 Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may need to just advise my colleagues that the House rules say that the House has to have a budget, not the White House. That is the House of Representatives. And that we do not have. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas 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 Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the senior Democrat on the Committee on Small Business.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the gentleman in the well who has the sign up there.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? It is as clear as it could be.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, it is only seven pages, but what is in those seven pages? This is not the tax bill that we hear the President talking about. This does not give relief to people who are married and suffer the marriage penalty. It does not take care of the estate tax. Who it takes care of politically are the top rollers in the United States. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of the relief that is in this part of the bill and the other parts that they will bring in tomorrow will go to the top 10 percent of the people in America, 43 percent of it goes to the top 1 percent. Yet they do not even have a budget. They would have us to believe that they are working under last year's budget, and technically it is this year's budget. But one thing is clear that they waived all rules that would prevent them from having to say that there is a budget on the floor today. We do hope that those of us who are concerned about Social Security, about Medicare, about prescription drugs, about improving the quality of education, about making certain our farmers and those young men and women who serve in the military that they are protected. How would we ever know without a budget, but we can take a riverboat gamble that perhaps the CBO at one time is right and maybe the $5.6 trillion is going to be there, but all of this money that we will be saying that we are giving back to the people, we do not give them back their obligations for the $3.4 trillion of debt that we got in before because of reckless fiscal policy. What we had hoped is that we could have a budget of measure and be able to make decisions in a framework of what our responsibilities are, but, unfortunately, the other side believes that the faster they go, the better it is and so, therefore, we hope to slow down this train so the American people could take a good look at the fraud that is being perpetrated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, not too long ago we had elections in the Congressional Black Caucus, and Julian Dixon sent in his absentee ballot. All I can remember about it was that the chairman had indicated that Julian Dixon had said that he was undergoing ``minor surgery.'' But the key word and the key thing about Julian is he also said, ``and don't worry about me, I will see you next week.'' I guess that shows us the type of person that Julian was, that he even at that time, when he was facing some type of a health setback, he was more concerned about the feelings of his colleagues. In this great body of Members of Congress, in this great body of politics, there are just some of us, and I am included in that number, who cannot resist the temptation to have press conferences and get on television. But all of us know in the bottom of our hearts that the real warriors of politics in this House are those who go about their business every day, wrestling with the difficult questions and not seeking the attention or the credit for the good that they do. Julian Dixon had to be the epitome of the selfless, hard-working legislator who, whether one is liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, we felt that he was one of our best friends. With all of the problems that I have stumbled across in the House of Representatives, there has been no Member who I have felt more comfortable in talking to than Julian Dixon. As a matter of fact, even if it was a personal problem, I would know that it would be well-kept within the heart of Julian Dixon. I hope that we can find some way in the days ahead, as we go through the most polarized period, I would suspect, in recent history that our country and this Congress will go through, that somehow we will remember that perhaps there will be the Rangels and the DeLays out there fighting, but the most important thing that our country really has as its treasures are not those who are out fighting but those who are out mending, and keeping this Congress and this country so great.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), my fellow Democrats, and join my colleagues on the floor in asking support for this piece of legislation, which is supported by the President and which our official Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, assistant Secretary Jon Talisman, have worked on, as well as the Senate, which has made some changes here. It is interesting to note the concerns that some of my colleagues have about the policies of some of our domestic corporations, especially those dealing with pharmaceutical products, as well as tobacco. It would seem to me within this body and the other body that we should be able to determine from a domestic point of view exactly to what extent we expect to control the conduct of these businesses in the United States. But much like foreign policy, with all of the problems I have with my government, somehow when I leave the United States, those problems disappear when I am dealing with foreign bodies. I have concerns about the production and sale of tobacco, but not to the extent that I am prepared to accept a criticism of a foreign body as to how we conduct international business. This is especially so since I have more criticism about how foreign countries conduct their business, and I am not allowed to participate in terms of what I think is right and what I think is wrong and what I think is totally unfair. For that reason, I have to support those people who diplomatically and legally have to work with the World Trade Organization, knowing that if we do not support our diplomatic efforts in this area, then it allows foreigners to arbitrarily select how they are going to penalize American businesses, American exports, American workers. I just do not like that one bit. I do not like the idea that they can arbitrarily select those exports that we have that have nothing to do with pharmaceuticals, nothing to do with tobacco, and decide they have to punish us because they do not like the way we treat our exports. We do not mind them looking over as to whether or not we have been fair in creating an even playing field for all of our businesses. We do not mind if they say they want to come to the table and renegotiate how we do this thing so we can say we do not like the way they treat their companies that are doing exports. But it does appear to me that when we are dealing with the European Union, when we are dealing with the World Trade Organization, we should be able to stand by those people who negotiate on behalf of the United States of America, United States businesses, and those Americans. We should be able to distinguish between our concern about how we treat American businesses here, how we penalize them for conduct that we think is unhealthy to the environment or to our people, distinguish that as it appears to be when foreigners are attempting to critique us, and indeed, provide sanctions against American businesses, the American community, American workers, and indeed, I would say, America in general. So while I do not challenge the good-faith interests people have in challenging this legislation, I ask my colleagues to support it. For those that have reservations, I ask them to continue to study and find ways that we can reach objectives they want. But on the international playing field, that flag should be flying for us. I support the flag, I support those people that negotiated with the WTO. I hope in the final analysis we get better than a fair advantage as it relates to American businesses, because as far as I am concerned, the more jobs for America, the better country we have.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I do not know whether I saw the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) here. Did you see him here today? Because he did not vote.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to share with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) that he better not start labeling people who are not on the floor. I am too civil to get involved in the so-called Republican leaders that are not with us this evening, and so I will not engage in that.

Mr. RANGEL. I thought he was part of the whip organization.

Mr. RANGEL. Is my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), here?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to tell my colleague how thankful we are for how helpful he has been to us this evening.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, well, since he is the President of all of these United States and the leader of the free world, I think that we should give him some flexibility. But I want to thank the gentleman for his concise answers.