Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Two minutes, Mr. Speaker, how do you talk about Patrick Moynihan in 2 minutes? It would take 2 minutes to thank Liz for allowing you to do all the wonderful things that you have been able to do: Only in America. It makes us so proud, those of us that come from the great State of New York, to know that someone that could attend a high school like Ben Franklin, know Hell's Kitchen, know what it is like to shine shoes and work on the docks, and at the same time, be able to reach the intellectual heights that you have done, not just for New Yorkers or the Senate, but for America. It gives hope to everybody in this country, but especially throughout the world, to show that when one is given an opportunity, that maybe they cannot reach the same heights that you have, but it is possible to do it in the United States of America. Your eloquence and wit, combined with your ability to defy party labels, whether it is liberal or conservative, you have always been able to do and to say and to be appreciated for what is good for the country. And whether we are talking about Kennedy or Johnson or Nixon or Ford, Presidents have been smart enough to know that when you are talking about Patrick Moynihan, you are not talking partisanship; but you are talking sound policy for our great country. It has been said that New Yorkers have a little more self-esteem than we need. It has been said that those that are on the Senate Finance Committee or the Committee on Ways and Means walk with swaggers. And even though most Members really do not deserve that label, when we know that we are honored to include among our body someone of such esteem as you, then we should be allowed to walk a little taller. Elizabeth, thank you for what you have done for our great country. We look forward to working with you, no matter what both of you decide to do later. God bless.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the rhetoric of the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means as he would have us to believe that the Democrats do not want to give relief as relates to the marriage penalty. Now, he knows that I know that we Democrats have come forward with a bill that true, it does not cost the $300 billion over 10 years, as his does, but it takes care of the marriage penalty, the same way we tried to take care of the estate tax abuses that we found in the Tax Code. The difference between the so-called Republican solution is that it is not concerning itself just with relief for those people who have an additional tax burden because they are married, it goes beyond that and it is a part of this tremendous, huge billion dollar, trillion dollar tax cut that they conceived in the last session which could not get off the ground. When it was vetoed, they did not even bother to override the veto. So if we were to take the cost of this bill far beyond that of marriage penalty, we will find plus $200 billion that does not even relate to the problem that we are addressing. The same thing was true when they tried to do something with the estate tax. No, my Republican colleagues do not want to pass laws, they want to pass bills that are going to be vetoed. They almost made certain that they have the veto before they bring it to the floor, because the President of the United States has already publicly said if they want to negotiate a solution to the tax penalty, sit down and talk. But if it was not so close to the election, this thing would be hilarious, because the first time the Republican leadership has an opportunity to go to the White House and to talk about working out a solution to legislation so we can get out of here, do they talk about the marriage penalty? No. Do they talk about estate tax relief? No. Do they talk about a general tax cut for everybody so people can have their money? No. What do they talk about? Well, listen. Stay tuned in. There is a new Republican plan, and the plan is to set aside a part of the surplus to pay down our national debt. And when does it come in? Three weeks before the conclusion of the legislative session. So this is poppycock. They are holding the marriage penalty bill hostage because they want to vote on the President's veto. He had the courage to veto this bill because it is irresponsible. We have to sustain the President, and then find out what is the next rabbit they are going to pull out of the hat before we conclude. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM 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 Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was so moved by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the previous speaker. But just let me say this, it seems as though the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, in his remarks to this august body, referred to the tax proposals of the Vice President of the United States. It may be parliamentarily proper to do that, but I do not think we want to hear anything about Vice President Gore's tax proposals on this floor because I will be tempted, tempted to bring up Governor George W.'s tax proposals. But because of my affection for my Republican friends, I would not want to offend or embarrass them and to have them to run away from them on the floor. So let us confine ourselves to our legislative responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), distinguished Member of the Congress.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the sovereign State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished 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 yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask whether the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) would yield 10 minutes of his time for those of us on the committee that support the motion.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is great that we in the Congress can take issue with our domestic policy, our foreign policy, our trade policy. That is what makes America such a great country, and we should always be able to challenge the procedure in which legislation is brought to the House, but I know that sometimes when I have series problems with my country's foreign policy, one place I do not have a problem with it, and that is in foreign countries. This is not a question of liberals against conservatives, Republicans against Democrats, or the Congress against the administration. It is the European Union that has challenged us, and we can bet our life, they are not concerned with our economic health. They are not concerned with pharmaceuticals. They are not concerned with arms. They are concerned in having a better-than-an-equal chance to compete against the United States of America. We had plenty of opportunity to work out our differences. We had approaches that we have taken to them, and this is one time that we came behind the administration and said try to work this out and avoid an economic crisis. And it has been rejected. What the administration has asked those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means to do is to come together with a piece of legislation, to say that we stand behind the United States of America in trying to resolve the differences we have with the European Union and the World Trade Organization. If we do nothing, if we debate among ourselves, if we say let us see what is going to happen, then sanctions come against us; and there is no other body for us to take this to. I think it is a great country. We have internal differences, political differences, and they should be worked out; but it just seems to me that when other countries are challenging our country, whether they are challenging our foreign policy or whether they are challenging our trade policy, when that flag goes up with the United States of America, that the President should be supported by the administration, and this Congress should support the administration. We are a long way from resolving this issue; but if we do nothing and find that our corporations are unable to effectively compete, we will not have the opportunity to say but we had concerns about the policy. I hope nobody in this Chamber ever is completely satisfied with any policy of any administration, but there has to come a time when we do come together to say America first, America first with exports for the jobs that are provided and America when that flag goes up.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for yielding me this time and for this opportunity in working with him on this very important issue that has affected our Foreign Sale Corporation legislation. As most everyone knows, the World Trade Organization has required the administration and, indeed, this Congress to work together to replace a tax treatment consistent with our trade agreements. I would like to commend the Republicans and Democrats on this committee, the leadership, as well as the administration, to commend Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Eizenstat and Assistant Secretary John Talisman in the way they approached this very sensitive situation, which, of course, the World Trade Organization has made such an issue. We in Congress could have ignored the WTO ruling down in April much as the European Union has ignored many of the issues and beef hormones and other disputes. But we have sought to work it out diplomatically. When that has failed, we have now come with a legislative resolution. It is a very sensitive situation, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) so much for giving me the opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of the people on the committee as well as this leadership on this issue.

Mr. RANGEL. No, I am not, Mr. Speaker. I support the bill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the moment of truth has arrived, and that is do we want to give relief to small business people in connection with estate taxes and to farmers, or are we really looking for a campaign issue; and that is that we force the President to have a veto. Clearly, there is a way to give relief immediately, and that is to sustain the President's veto and demand that, as we conclude our work in this session, that the President give some priority to giving relief to estate taxes. I can assure my colleagues, in speaking on behalf of the Democrats, that we would like to join with you in this effort where we can go home and campaign on so many other issues that we disagree with. But at least on this issue, we would be able to say that all estates that come up to $4 million would be exempt, that all individuals would automatically have $1 million exemption. Oh no, it would not take care of the very, very, very rich; but it would take care of the working people that work every day and protect the assets that they leave for their children and their children's children. Now, it is true that we can fight on each and every issue. We can fight against prescription drugs for the elderly, we can fight in terms of giving tremendous tax cuts, again to the very rich; but it would seem to me that we would be enhancing the reputation of this great august body if we could just find something that we could agree on and just not dismiss the Democratic alternative. We know that our Republican colleagues know that we protect the people that should be protected under our substitute. We know that the President would never have vetoed this bill if he thought it was the right thing to do by the people who could be hurt with an estate tax. And the most important thing is that the American people can tell the difference between a political ploy and those people who want to provide a legislative solution to what amounts to a real problem. Again, I am saying that Republicans and Democrats have not talked with each other too much during the last couple of years; and that is mainly because, well, they have chosen to look for confrontation; they have chosen to take the areas that we agree with and kick it up a notch to make certain that the President is going to veto. This is so whether we talk about minimum wage, the marriage penalty tax, and now as we deal with estate taxes. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to those people who want to support the President, support the American people, support small businesses, support the farmers, that this is a great opportunity for us to reach across the aisle and have this bipartisan effort so that we can tell the American people that we can work together, even though we did not start off that way. This is an opportunity for us to do it, and I suggest to my colleagues that we try working together before the election, at least on this bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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