Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further inquiries.

Mr. RANGEL. Now, further parliamentary inquiry. If a bill is being reported out of a conference and a Member appointed to that conference had not received any notice at all of the conference, and, therefore, had no opportunity to discuss the differences between the House and the Senate bill and certainly no opportunity to sign the conference report and did not even know there was a conference being held, can you have a report being made to the House floor under those circumstances?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives appoints a Member of the House of Representatives to attend a conference between the Members of the House and the Senate, is it necessary or should it be that that Member that is appointed be notified as to the time and place of the conference in which the Speaker appointed him?

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I framed my question correctly. I will try again.

Mr. RANGEL. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. When a Member of the House of Representatives is appointed by the Speaker to a conference, is it necessary that that conferee be notified where and when the conference is being held?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if a Member of the House of Representatives was appointed by the Speaker as a conferee, is it necessary that that conferee be invited to the conference?

Mr. RANGEL. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is, when you have a conference report reported to the House, is it necessary to have a conference?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this discussion, we do it in an atmosphere of partisanship, which is shameful. It is such an important issue to the American people, and especially to married people. Had I been invited to the conference, that is after the Speaker appointed me, I would have been able to bring to that conference a message from the President of the United States. Because I was authorized to say that even though the President thought that there was a better way to target the relief for married couples, he recognized that those in the majority had this overwhelming compulsion to reward those people that God has already rewarded with additional wealth. But he had authorized me to tell the conferees, had I been told where the meeting was, that he was willing to go along in the spirit of bipartisanship with the Republican majority marriage penalty bill if only they would consider and attach to that some relief for the older folks that cannot afford to purchase their prescription drugs. The Chairman said, that is wrong, that we should not participate in ``you-scratch-my-back-and-I-scratch-yours.'' Well, we are politicians, and if my Republican colleagues have such an overwhelming concern for the taxpayers that they are talking about giving back close to $1 trillion, let us be honest with the taxpayers. The Republican majority is not giving them back anything, not 1 red cent. What they are doing, and they should be doing with us, is revising the tax system to give them some relief. They are not sending Americans a refundable tax check, as every one of the speakers implied, they are just reducing their tax burdens, and we would want to join in that effort. We cannot have bipartisan bills by closing up the conference and having it from room to room so that the minority cannot participate. We cannot have bipartisan legislation, unless my Republican colleagues reach out and ask the White House, what can be accommodated; unless they talk with the Democratic members on the committee and the leadership, and then reach an agreement. That is the beautiful thing about this great country and what used to be this great House of Representatives, is that no one comes here with all of the answers. Just being in the majority does not mean that they are brighter than the rest of us. Just being elected does not mean they have all of the answers. It means that they reach out, they discuss the problems together, and they come up with not what is best for their convention in Philadelphia but what is best for the people of the United States of America. It is no great genius if they can count that they have 218 votes and that they have some Democrats that will vote with them from time to time to pass bills. They have passed any number of bills knowing that they are not going to become law. How does that make them a better legislator? How do they go to a convention and say, ``I passed it and they did not support it?'' Where they really have leadership is if they are able to say, ``I had some great ideas. I was able to persuade the House and the President of the United States to buy these ideas, and together, yes, together, we did not just pass bills but we made law.'' We want to do it with them. There is not an issue that they brought up that we do not want to cooperate with them, but they just cannot give us slivers of tax relief and forget that we have a responsibility not only to relieve the tax burden of the taxpayers, but also to make certain that the social security system is there when they are eligible for it. We have a responsibility not just to give access to health care under Medicare, but to make certain that an older person can afford to get their prescriptions when the doctors say they need it. We have to reduce the tax burden on our people, but we also have a responsibility to pay down the Federal debt. That is $6 trillion. That means that every year we are paying billions of dollars in interest. We ought to relieve the next generation of that burden. What I am saying is, it is no profile in courage to come here and pass bills, especially when they have been promised a veto. What is courageous is to be able to say, ``I want to sit down with these Democrats.'' There are enough differences between our parties to fight about in November, but tax relief for the married couples, tax relief for estates, tax relief for couples with minimum wage, relief to be able to get affordable drugs, protection of social security and protection of Medicare, they are not Democratic issues, these are American issues. We cannot tackle these problems and we cannot bring solutions to those problems by going to Democratic caucuses or going off to our conventions saying, ``We fought off those people,'' and the other side cannot go to Philadelphia and talk about all the bills that they have passed unless they can tell the voters that they have given them relief because they have worked it out with Democrats and with the President. So, Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. I suspect there will be other bills on their way to Philadelphia, where they will be there trying to say, if one is appointed to a conference, would they be kind enough, gentle enough, courteous enough to allow the Democrats to attend the conference? It is a part of the House rules. Are they so afraid of a different opinion? Are they so afraid to engage? Are they so committed not to do anything to provide decent legislation that the President may sign? Are they so embedded with the concept that they do not want to touch prescription drugs that even when the President sends a national message, they want their bill: ``Take care of American old folks, take care of our sick,'' and to make certain that when we leave here, that we can go to California, we can go to Philadelphia, we can go to our conventions and say that we differ, and that is what makes America great, that is what makes this Congress great? But do not hold the older folks hostage giving them slivers of proposed tax give-backs, when they know that they are not talking about anything that they intend to become law. It is not too late for us to work together. We have had enough of the fighting. Why can we not go to Philadelphia and say that we do not need a mandate from the Speaker to meet, we do not need a mandate from the leader to meet, we do not need a mandate from our candidates to meet. We have been elected to enact law, to get it signed into law. Why do we not start today and say that from now on we will be working together, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but Members and proud Members of this great House of Representatives, and collectively we will be in the Rose Garden seeing that these bills in a bipartisan way are signed into law?

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me if we really want to give relief that we have to recognize that there is no Republican or Democratic party way to do this. The only way that we can give tax relief in an effective way is to be working together and not to test the President as to what he would veto, but to work with him. The partisanship just drips in the rhetoric, and we hear a lot of it today. We find that the U.S. Treasury figures are not credible, and they represent Democrats, Republicans, our citizens. They are being challenged. The statistical data that supports that this is targeted for wealthy people, instead of coming from a nonpartisan government agency, it comes from the Joint Taxation Committee, where the Republicans appoints every employee that works for the Joint Tax Committee. But even worse than that, it just seems to me that when we start adding up all of the tax cuts that the Republican leadership has advocated on a weekly basis on the way to the Philadelphia convention, if we include the Federal debt, it comes close to a trillion dollars. In a sense, the Republicans are depending on a veto in order to come up with their next tax cut, because the figures just do not add up. They do not mean what they are saying. They are depending on a veto for some of these things, and to constantly talk about a surplus at a time when the Nation has a national debt of close to $6 trillion, and we include a mandate that that be reduced and that we do have affordable prescription drugs and to put together a package that the President would sign, I do not see how we can say that is scratching somebody's back. That is protecting our old folks' back to be able to say that if we have access to health care, we should be at least able to buy the prescriptions that the doctor has prescribed for us. I think it is courageous for the President to say that if we are so concerned about rewarding our constituents that are wealthy, we do it, but do not forget those people that need some political power in order to get an affordable prescription drug out of this House. I conclude by saying, too, we have to find some way to start being able to work together in a civil way. I have been in this House close to 30 years; and I have been privileged, absolutely privileged, to be appointed to many conferences to try to work out differences between the House and the Senate. I think it goes beyond bad manners. I think it goes to a question of testing the rules of this House when those people in the majority can have the arrogance to have a conference and not to have the minority represented. It is not a threat to me. I am not a lonely guy, but it is a threat to what this institution stands for, no matter what party has the majority. It is a question of equity and fair play. It is a question of the minority having an opportunity to express its views. It is a question as to whether or not a conference between the House and the Senate just means a conference between Republican leadership and excluding those of us who are not. I hope that no matter what happens in the next election, that my party, if it is in the majority, will never stoop as low as to exclude those people, just because they differ from the majority party, from attending a conference so that the people, yes, indeed the people, which the House is supposed to represent, can work its will and bring a conference here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to argue against the arguments made by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). I just refuse to believe that those people who voted for permanent trade relations with China were supporting the government of China or North Korea or North Vietnam. It was just a considered thought of this body that the best way to try to disrupt these types of communist governments is sunshine and let the light shine on the economic progress that countries can make through trade. And so it just seems to me that we should not have a double standard. And no one is trying to help President Castro. From what I see, it does not appear to me that he is in need of food or medicine. But what we are saying is that the Cuban people should not suffer while we have seen that this man, Castro, has outlived nine or 10 United States Presidents while we have been looking for change. And we should not use the denial of food and medicine and the denial of the rights of Americans to go where they want to go when they want to go just because we are concerned, and rightly so, about the conduct of this man in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been the policy of our country not to use food and medicine as a tool for foreign policy, and yet, as relates to the government of Cuba, we have been doing just that. We have allowed the people of the United States to believe that we have enacted the so-called Helms- Burton law in an effort to promote democracy in Cuba, but we have seen that sanctions really have not pushed democracy in Cuba. The fact is that we have been using a different technique as it applies to communism in North Korea, in North Vietnam and in, more recently, China. It would seem to me that, if we really want to be consistent with our foreign policy, what is good in terms of trying to turn around these other Communist countries should be good for a Communist country that is only 90 miles from us. In addition to this, so many American businesses are suffering unnecessarily because of this embargo. Our farmers are looking for new markets; the tourism industry; our bankers. There are just great opportunities. Not only that, but the same arguments relate to China; that other countries are ignoring this so-called embargo. They are doing business in Cuba at our expense. As a matter of fact, ironically, Cuban-Americans, who best know Cuba, are being denied the opportunity to do business in their homeland. So what I am asking is that we just strike all of the funds that would be used to enforce this economic embargo against Cuba and allows us to have a consistent foreign policy and not to use food and medicine as a tool against them; not to deny people an opportunity to send money back home; not to deny people the opportunity, especially Americans, to go where they want to go, when they want to go, without fear of spending money or suffering sanctions from the United States Government. So I am asking for an aye vote on this so that America foreign policy and trade policy with Cuba would be in alignment with our overall universal policy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think all of us have compassion in trying to find some way to bring democracy in all parts of the world and certainly Cuba being so close to us, we would like to see that happen there. When we talk about people voting against China and not giving them normal trade relationship, a lot of people did that. But an embargo is close to an act of war. I have heard some of my colleagues say, ``Well, didn't you support an embargo against South Africa? Why do you think it is so different from China?'' An embargo is not effective when it is a unilateral embargo. No one respects our embargo. They know it is a political thing. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy or with our trade policy. What we are doing is because there is a constituency, a constituency that wants to make certain that this deviates from our policy, and a good policy, and, that is, not to use food, not to use medicine in order to change the political composition of any government. We should not use it as a political tool. That is what we are doing here. Anyone can tell you, anyone that served in any administration as Secretary of State or any Assistant Secretaries of State in charge of Latin affairs would tell you that the embargo is bad foreign policy for the United States of America. We should not get involved in this type of thing, and it is not working. But, my God, if you can see American businessmen over there, to see tourists over there, to see students over there, to see our doctors and our scientists exchanging information over there. The Cuban people are not stupid. When they see what Americans can do, how they think and the competitive nature of their business and see how democracy really works, that is how you get rid of Communist government. You do not deny people the opportunity to listen, to travel, to send money, to do trade, to have commerce. That is when you are ashamed of your government and you do not want them to see things. We want to have this thing wide open, so Americans can see what is going on in Cuba and Cuba can see what is going on in the United States. Why should we be fearful in terms of our national defense of this small handful of people that are in Cuba? Why can we not make them our friends and a part of the Caribbean Basin Initiative? Why can we not bring all countries to trade with us? What country are we denying the opportunity that is this close to us that is in our hemisphere not to be a part of our trading partners? I ask you all to think about our farmers, think about our businesspeople, and support this amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the previous speaker, said, if the President intends to veto this, shame on him. This really shatters the whole concept of the bipartisanship which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) had tried and continue to try to bring to this House. Whether the majority likes it or not, the President of the United States is a part of the equation. When he presented the retirement savings accounts to this Congress, it would seem to me that the majority, as well as the minority, should at least look at these concepts and to see what could be worked out for true bipartisanship. The whole idea that people would complain that the substitute had not passed the committee when, even yesterday, we had budget issues coming to the floor for votes that did not even come to the committee, this whole idea that Committee on Ways and Means issues and tax issues should come before the Committee on Ways and Means is relatively new. I thought my colleagues just went to the Committee on Rules for these issues to be before us. But I am convinced that those who put this bill together, if they had any idea that we would have the type of cash flow, the type of surpluses that are available today, when they put together their bill, that it would have been more expansive, and they would have concerned themselves with those group of Americans that do not have disposable income in order to have pensions. We have less than one-third of those small business people that have any pensions at all. Yet, two out of five of every working people work for small businesses. The Social Security system was not created to be a pension. It was created to supplement a pension. So while work has been done to be of assistance to those in the higher income tax brackets, what this does is provide incentives, not only for employees, but it provides an incentive for small employers to be able to do what they would want to do for the employees and, therefore, would enhance and supplement the Social Security benefits. So the substitute takes into consideration the fine work that has been done by our colleagues and just broadens it to enhance those people who, by any standard, have been excluded from the bill that is before us. So I ask my colleagues to support the substitute; and I also ask them, when they think in terms of bipartisanship, would they please include my President.