Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that we all have to be in support of this once the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) acknowledges that the same Congress that makes the decision today as to what it is going to attribute to reducing the deficit is the same Congress that is going to come back and say what they think is in the national interest. It defies reason and common sense why the majority party can come to this House and tell the American people and our colleagues that they do not trust their ability to control spending. But, in order to do this, they have to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they say they do not want to do. We are going to help them all that we can and we are going to help to reduce the Federal debt. We are going to try to stop them from these outlandish tax cuts that they tried to do in the last session and was vetoed. When that $792 billion tax cut was vetoed, the majority did not even try to come together and try to override the veto because they never expected that tax cut to pass. As a matter of fact, I think the good wisdom of the Republicans in this House is that they do not expect any of these tax cuts to become law. They do not even bring them to the floor unless they promise to veto. And they are never discussed, anyway. And so, if they want to call this the Republicans' bill to control itself from excessive spending, why would we not be able to support them in that effort? You are the majority. You are in charge. You set the agenda. You set the appropriations bills at the spending level. You come in and ask for your tax cuts. And then in the middle of the night you smell a surplus that we never had before in all of the Reagan-Bush years. We never really had a chance under Republican Presidents. Even though we had the majority, we did not know what a surplus was until we got President Clinton and Vice President Gore. So this is new to us. And so it is obviously new to you, as well. We are enjoying a surplus, but we still have this tremendous, close- to-$6 trillion national debt, and it has to be reduced and it has to be reduced by discipline. I would suggest, since it is too late in this session, that maybe the first thing that we should do next year is that Republicans and Democrats set aside their party label and start to talk with each other as to what is in the best interests of the people of the United States. Maybe then we will not have Republican bills and Democratic bills saying, Please stop us before we spend some more. Maybe we can have bipartisan bills that will be able to show the American people that we are serious. And so in an effort to show you my sincerity, I stand here tonight and join with you and say, let us do this. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. And with it I pray that you in the majority can control your urge to spend unnecessarily and depend on our support. 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 just ask the gentleman just one question; and that is, can the same Congress that passes this resolution today be the same Congress to ignore it in September? That is all I am asking. What we are doing today is just showing good intentions, and that is what it is all about. We could vote for eliminating disease. We could vote against war and for peace. And that is good and I will vote with the gentleman. But I just do not want people to believe that what we are doing today means that we are under any legislative obligation to fulfill what the gentleman is stating.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I only have one remaining speaker so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join with the chairman of this committee in asking for a bipartisan vote on this, I guess we can call it a bill. It really does not mean anything. But if I understand the chairman of the committee and the sponsors of this bill correctly, we have to have this bill to make certain that the politicians do not spend up the surplus and that we reduce the deficit. We have to let the whole country know that we are here to stop these politicians who cannot control themselves. Now, I assume that the politicians that we are talking about are Members of Congress, because they are the ones that will be doing the spending, and these are the people that we want to control. And I want to control them, too. It just so happens that the people that have created this declaration of wanting to reduce the deficit are the people who are in charge of the spending. Are my colleagues saying that the majority does not trust itself, and so it has to create some type of a mandate, some proclamation saying that they are going to reduce the deficit by $25 billion? Suppose these same politicians that my colleagues and I are trying to control decide that they do not want to do this, and suppose they have the majority? Then it means that what we are doing today is worth absolutely nothing except to send out some political message. And so why would we not join with our colleagues in saying control the politicians, control the spending, reduce the deficit, pay down the Federal debt so that we do not have this burden of interest to carry? And since we know that our colleagues know that they are in control of the calendar, they are in control of the tax cuts, they are in control of the spending, why would we as the minority not say, for God's sake, put handcuffs on these people, they are completely out of control? So do not ask why we are joining with our colleagues. We have no choice. Our colleagues are telling us that they have no discipline, as the majority party comes to the end of this congressional session, except to attempt to buy themselves out of it. Well, I have more confidence in my colleagues than they have in themselves. But if they feel that they can bypass the Committee on Ways and Means and bring a leadership proclamation to the floor that says I love America and I would like to reduce this debt, and figure that any Member is going to vote against it, then my colleagues are mistaken. So let us suspend the rules, let us suspend common sense, let us vote for this proclamation, and get on to legislation to see whether or not we are really concerned about reducing spending and making certain that we do not just give tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the working poor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT 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, this bill comes to the floor under the Suspension Calendar, which it is a suspension of the rules. But I would assume it also means it is the suspension of common sense. I have never before heard anybody that is going to reduce the deficit by proclamation. I was amazed that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) would say that he was addressing his remarks to the people at home, because I would be embarrassed to tell the people at home that I am supporting a bill that never went through any committee in the House of Representatives. It is just that someone woke up in the middle of the night and said let us give a message to the people at home. Last night, the message would have been that we would reduce the budget by $7.5 billion. But that was not a sufficient message for the people at home. That would not fly in going to the convention. So we say, let us reduce it by $90 billion or whatever the new numbers are going to be. One does not reduce deficits just by standing on the floor proclaiming what one wants to do. One does not reduce the deficit by just trying to find out what is the new surplus under the Clinton-Gore administration, what has been announced, and then, as soon as one does, one adds it to the list of tax cuts that one has had that, so far, is $611 billion. Then, too, one has to restrain one's spending. The people at home know that the only way to reduce debt is to increase revenue or to decrease spending. So what my colleagues are trying to do is to do both. But since we know that this is merely a proclamation for the people at home, and since we know that nobody in this House is against the concept, and since we know that the gentleman that is supporting the bill on this side belongs to the same committee I belong to, and it certainly did not come from our committee, that maybe it came from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. I do not have any problem with that, because we Democrats would support the reduction of the deficit. It is a waste of people's time to do this. We need people to do things by action, not just by statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and maybe the more committee members we have of the Committee on Ways and Means, we can see where this suspension came from. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in praying for a speedy recovery of Senator Coverdell. I have had many differences with the Senator on legislative issues, but I have not met anyone that has been more of a gentleman, more of someone that respects the other view, and someone that really respects the institution of the House and the other body. It is times like this that we throw away the labels of Democrat and Republican and realize that God's hand is involved in everything that we do, and at a time like this, only our prayers can be of any assistance to our colleague.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``United States- Cuba Trade Act of 2000,'' to supplement legislation I introduced last year, H.R. 229, the ``Free Trade with Cuba Act.'' The United States- Cuba Trade Act of 2000 will make the necessary changes to the U.S. Tariff Schedule and ensure that Cuba is not subjected to Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, the so-called ``Jackson-Vanik'' amendment. (It is unclear whether the ``Jackson-Vanik'' amendment applies to Cuba, but the proposed legislation will eliminate any ambiguity in the law.) The legislation also calls on the President to take any appropriate actions in the World Trade Organization to restore full trading relations with Cuba, once the legislation is passed. H.R. 229 repeals the legislative authority of the trade embargo against Cuba. The bill I am introducing today will, when applied in conjunction with H.R. 229, fully normalize trade relations with Cuba. It makes no sense for the U.S. to trade with communist China, communist Vietnam, and other communist and formerly communist countries while continuing a 40-year old failed effort to promote reform in Cuba by isolating her people. The 40 year old embargo has not achieved the intended result-- isolation has not promoted political and economic reforms. In fact, here we are, 40 years later, and Fidel Castro is still in power, having outlasted almost 10 U.S. Presidents. Many of the proponents of the China PNTR bill spoke eloquently about the benefits of trade with Communist countries, including the political message that it sends to the people and leadership of those countries about the benefits of freedom and the strengths of America's economy and society. However, some of these same proponents now balk when asked to apply these same principles to Cuba. It is hard for me to understand why in the view of some, these principles apply with such force to China, but not to Cuba. American businesses, workers and products are our best ambassadors--whether we are talking about China or Cuba.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk today about bipartisanship. We do have unanimity on trying to remove an inequity that exists in the Tax Code. And we are fortunate that because the economy has been kinder to us that we can do something about it. Bipartisanship to me means that the majority has to work with the minority and work with the President of the United States and not legislate and pass laws that they know that are going to be vetoed, but, rather, see how we can come together as Democrats and Republicans and do what is not best for our respective conventions but what is good for the people of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, to explain this more fully, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, to close out the motion to recommit with a suggestion that would allow us to make law and not politics. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

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

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it could be that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) is reading an entirely different bill than the Republicans have been really pushing, because any editorial people who understand the bill have called it a fraud. Certainly this is not a question of giving the taxpayers back their money. We have a responsibility to pay down the Federal debt. When one does that, that is giving back money. To protect the Social Security system, that is a responsibility we have. God knows, if one goes to the town hall meetings and sees the people that work so hard to make this country as great as it is, and they cannot even afford to get prescription drugs, that is our responsibility. So just because one wants to help the rich, one cannot hide behind it and say it is their money. America has an interest in making certain that all of our citizens are protected, and not just the wealthy few. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans consistently use this word bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan. To be bipartisan, it would mean that they have some type of an agreement with the Democrats, and certainly that would include the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, to say that we have some Democrats and not enough to override a veto hardly seems to be a truly bipartisan effort. It reminds me of the story that someone who asks what was the recipe of this very delicious horse and rabbit stew, and they said it was equal part rabbit and equal part horse; that is, you put in one horse and you put in one rabbit, and that is not exactly equal. Neither is having a handful of Democrats something that my colleagues can call bipartisan. If my colleagues want to be bipartisan, let us sit down with the leadership of your side and our side and the President of the United States and get something that is not a political statement but something that we can go home so proud that we have something signed into law that brings relief and not something that makes people in Philadelphia feel good. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN 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, this whole concept about if we do not give the money back to the taxpayers that it is going to be spent by the Congress, I do not know what is in the water on the other side of the aisle, but the Republicans happen to be in charge of the Congress. It is almost like a serial killer saying, stop me before I kill again. If they cannot control themselves in terms of this spending, then let the whole world know it before November, but do not say, we are going to waste the taxpayers' money. It will not be ``we,'' it may be ``thee.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, well I hope the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), when he is doing all that research about the Republican majority, would just check the records and find out that they have so tried to protect the vested special interests that they have added 1,543 pages to the Internal Revenue Code. That is not exactly pulling it up by the roots. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.