Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, every time there is a good idea that we have in this House of Representatives, the Republican majority has to figure some way to find some wording that either it is going to be deep-sixed and never be brought to the floor or that it becomes a political statement because they can be assured that it is going to be vetoed. It is not only affordable health care. Whether it is school construction, minimum wage, gun safety, patient bill of rights, all good ideas, but they have to find some way to make certain that it never becomes the law; that they have to challenge Democrats and challenge the President. They keep calling this a bipartisan bill because they found a Democrat or two that lost their way. The truth of the matter is, bipartisanship starts with the committee. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is supposed to talk with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and say, hey, can we get a bipartisan bill? The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is supposed to talk to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and say, hey, can we work out something? That is how we get bipartisanship. That is historically how we do it here. But, no, what the other side has chosen to do is to wait until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and decide that we are not going to have any option. It is going to be the Republican way or no way. One of my favorite Republicans once said, if one gets a telephone call at 2:30 in the morning, it must be suspicious, that something is going wrong. Well, if one gets it at 3:00 in the morning, then they can rest assured that something is going on that they do not want the American people to know. What is it? That they have a bill, they have a statement. We do not challenge the fact that they just do not like government helping people. That is their way. That is how they think. If it is Social Security, if it is Medicare, if it is education, privatize it and forget it. Get some vouchers, let the private sector do it. Give the money to the HMOs, give it to the insurers because they cannot trust old folks with their own prescription drugs. All we are asking for is a chance to have another way. So I can say this, it is possible that the voters were sleeping when the Republicans had concocted this scheme to deny us an option to really provide health care for those who need it, but I assure them that when they vote today that the voters will not be sleeping when they check out the voting records as to who really was concerned about affordable health care. Even those that they want to help reject this cockamamie scheme that they can feed money into the HMO and that they are going to now go into the rural areas and provide health care. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, so that he may designate and yield to other Members of the House.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the primary sponsor of this bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman in the well for his vote for 527, and I hope we will see who is not voting for 527. But that was an eloquent statement against the bill; but I guess in the final analysis, it is the vote that really counts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, a member of the committee (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for the leadership that he has displayed on this most important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett). (Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin 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, I know we all are anxious to vote, but this is such a great victory for Republicans and Democrats to do the right thing. I would like to believe that many on the other side would really want to join with us, because I think that the voters are very concerned about how we got to where we are this evening. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), but I am afraid that I do them more harm than good by doing that, but it does show what happens when good people decide that they are going to do the right thing. We do not care what we will call the bill, but we are concerned that we do have a bill that we can move forward on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for doggedly following through. Mr. Speaker, in view of the overwhelming support on this side of the aisle, we can see whether the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has earned it on the other side. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend President Kim Dae-Jung of the Republic of Korea for his historic efforts toward peace and reconciliation on the Korean peninsula. By extending the hand of friendship in summit meetings with Chairman Kim Jong II of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, President Kim Dae-Jung has shown himself as a courageous visionary committed to the improvement of relations with the North. The agreement reached by the two leaders on humanitarian and economic cooperation represent a bold step toward resolving a half-century of conflict. As we prepare to depart on a Presidential Mission to Korea to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Korean War, I am filled with hope for the future of all the peoples of that great land. On behalf of president Clinton and the people of the United States, I join with my former comrades-in-arms, the men of the 503d Field Artillery Battalion who fought in defense of freedom and democracy in Korea in extending our congratulations to President Kim Dae-Jung and our best wishes for success in his great mission of peace.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the courageous Americans who fought and died in defense of freedom in the Korean War. On June 25th, we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the start of that conflict--the so-called ``Forgotten War''--which claimed more than 35,000 American lives. On behalf of President Clinton, I will co-chair, with Veterans Administration Secretary Togo West, a Presidential Mission to Korea to represent the people of the United States during the anniversary commemoration ceremonies in Seoul. We will be accompanied on that mission by some of my comrades- in-arms with whom I served during my wartime tour in Korea, members of the 503d Field Artillery Battalion of the 2d Infantry Division. The battalion landed in Korea in August 1950, arriving in time to participate in hard-fought battles that defeated the North Korean offensives against the United Nations forces on the Pusan Perimeter. When the Chinese entered the war in November with massive ground assaults against UN forces in North Korea, the 503rd and rest of the 2d Infantry Division fought their way out of encirclement by the Chinese near Kunu-ri. The battles in North Korea exacted a terrible price--the 503d lost almost all of its equipment and nearly half of its men. But in early 1951, overcoming many obstacles, the battalion rebuilt itself into a combat-ready unit, and played a major role in the 2d Infantry Division's stubborn stand against a far stronger force during the May 1951 Chinese offensive, an action that earned the entire division a Presidential Unit Citation. During the battalion's fifteen months in Korea, members of the 503d received nineteen Silver Stars, four Distinguished Flying Crosses, and seventy-nine Bronze Stars. The battalion suffered 512 casualties, including 150 men who died in Communist prison camps and 79 who remain listed as missing in action. The 503d, a Black unit, lived up to its motto of ``We Can Do It,'' serving with heroic valor in the face of relentless attacks by the enemy. In doing so, it shattered the biased and unfair negative stereotypes attached to Black fighting men and women in Korea and earlier wars. Mr. Speaker, today I pay special tribute to my brave and loyal Brothers who served in the 503d Artillery Battalion, and join with them in saluting all of our comrades-in-arms in Korea, whom we will never forget. Presidential Mission to the 50th Anniversary Commemoration Members of the 503d Artillery Battalion--June 25, 2000 Ronald Chatters, Samuel Gilliam, Harvey Ginn, Robert Greer, Hezekiah Gregory, Walter Jackson, William Jackson, Elgin Miller, Donald Minter. Henry Mitchell, Charles B. Rangel, Leroy Sykes, James Thompson, John Worley, Robert Lee Wyatt.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Committee on Ways and Means, under the leadership of the majority, has embarked on a political scheme before this election to present to the American people every week some type of a tax problem that they have not found a solution for. Unfortunately, before they bring the solution to the floor, they make certain that the President of the United States is going to veto it. It is absolutely remarkable how if they find a mosquito, they have to run for a sledgehammer to get rid of the problem. Take, for example, our very complex tax system, which year after year that they have been in the majority they have made even more complex. Just weigh the Tax Code that we had before they had the majority and weigh it today and see what they have done to it. Do our colleagues come and say to the Democrats and to the President that this system is overbearing, can we not work together to resolve it by simplifying it? No. No. What is the Republican solution? Let us pull the Tax Code up by the roots. If we have a problem with people being married paying too much taxes, do they just take care of it? No. They will have a tax cut so severe that the President of the United States would say we should take care of that problem, but we should not have to do it at the expense of not reducing the Federal debt, placing into jeopardy the Social Security System and our Medicare system. The emotional thing to talk about is how families would lose their businesses and their farms as a result of the hard work that their parents and grandparents have done. It would be wrong for this to happen. And even though we are only talking about 2 percent of the American people that would be subjected to a review of their taxes, they are still Americans, and they are still entitled to equity. But do we really say that the answer to this problem, and it is a problem, is to repeal the estate tax completely? Under the Democratic alternative the Republicans would be hard put to see whether any rancher, any farmer, any small business will be lost as a result of the $4 million exemption. I say exemption, which means that they do not even have to think about the reduced rate of taxes. Every estate planner knows that we have a better alternative. They know we take care of the problem. But we do not take care of the multibillion-dollar estates. That is what we do not take care of. We do not take care of those people who have had creative ideas, who have built up equities and tax liabilities that go into many numbers in terms of tax liabilities, that have never been taxed and would only be exposed to taxation at death. We do not talk about those. Oh, we probably have some in Texas and some in New York, but what we wanted to do was take care of 99.9 percent of the businesses that would be adversely affected, and this we have done. My colleagues have an emotional argument talking about repeal. But one day the American people will take a look at the cost of the Republicans' bill, the cost of repeal, and wonder whether the Republicans were thinking about them or whether they had a handful of people that have been kind to them that they are trying to get relief for. Because anybody can tell my colleagues that their bill in the year 2011 will start having a revenue hemorrhage of $50 billion a year. Maybe my colleagues are prepared to say that they feel that we can afford to do that and take care of Social Security, take care of Medicare, take care of the Patients' Bill of Rights, take care of affordable prescriptions; or, really, do they care at all? This is a great shot in the arm for my colleagues because they know the President is going to be responsible. None of them would be so irresponsible to be proposing this if they thought it would become law. They know it is going to be vetoed. They know that next week they will be coming back with something else that will be vetoed. I am just asking this. In the last weeks of this Congress, can we not come together on something and agree on it? Must we try to seek a Republican political statement instead of a bipartisan agreement? If everyone would conclude that the Democrat alternative takes care of the problem that we are talking about, why do we have to go beyond that and hemorrhage the revenue for those people that will become eligible in the next 10 years for Medicare and Social Security? My Republican colleagues know it is going to be vetoed, but it is not the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and that he be allowed to manage the time on our side.

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 2\1/2\ minutes. I would like to respond briefly to the chairman of the committee because not too long ago a distinguished Member from the other side who serves on the committee commented that the Rangel substitute was no more than what he and Republicans had suggested several years ago and that he thought it was a good idea at the time; but he had no idea that President Clinton with a Democratic Congress would be able to have a budget to allow us to get the surplus that we are enjoying today, but now that he sees the surplus, then he would say, Let's go for the whole thing. That is the problem that we have today. You people are not interested in passing laws to take care of the small farmer and small businesses. What you are interested in is politically a veto. If indeed you were concerned about helping the small family farmer and the small businesses, what you would do is say, well, listen, since we can agree with the President, let us get this signed into law, and then maybe if God is willing, you will be in the majority and you can take care of it. You have been in the majority 6 years, and you have not done a darn thing except push for vetoes. Veto, veto, veto. Every time we reach agreement with you, you kick it up another notch and make it impossible for the President to be responsible and deal with this. This will cost $104 billion over 10 years, and then we have got to hemorrhage $50 billion each year. We have been able to take care of the problem that you have been crying and bawling about for a long time, and we agree that it is an inequity. Why can we not come together where we agree, get the President to sign something, and then for God sake get together and try to resolve some of the other problems, whether it is the marriage penalty, whether it is the Patients' Bill of Rights, whether it is the minimum wage. You agree with us, but you always kick it up a notch to be irresponsible so that the President cannot sign it into law. There is still an opportunity. If you vote for the substitute, let the President sign it and take credit for it. The only difference between the bills that you have had and the bill that we have got is that we have decided to be responsible, we decided not to gut the budget, we decided to protect Social Security and Medicare and still take care of those people who inherit the businesses and the farms from their parents and their grandparents who worked hard each and every day to provide and leave this for them. And so I am suggesting, vote for the substitute and then maybe next year we can go further. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

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

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

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