Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

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

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the sovereign State of Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further requests for time. I just would like to once again thank the Members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on International Relations for the bipartisan way in which they approached not only both bills, but approached the differences that we have had with the other body. I would like to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle, and I certainly want to thank the staffs of the Committee on Ways and Means, more specifically of the Subcommittee on Trade, that worked well into the morning hours in order to make certain that we did have a conference report. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for not only the courageous way he handles his personal problems but the courageous way he handled this bill and the political implications that we felt. It is indeed an honor working with him and the chairman of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens.) (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 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 1\1/2\ 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 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade 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, I was listening to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and I am reminded that not only was this a bipartisan issue in this session of the Congress, but at first hearings that we had, Speaker Newt Gingrich testified with Jack Kemp and Andrew Young and Leon Sullivan and so many people came, fine Americans, Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives, in support of opening up trade relationships with Africa. It must make all of us feel proud today, as Members of the Congress, to be able to say that we were part of this initiative so that these smaller countries that are striving for better democracies, for improvement in the quality of health and education of their children, that have met with famine and drought, that know and see and face poverty and disease, that America is not treating them just as a basket case but reaching out and trying to transfer technology, create an atmosphere for investment, and to be able to say, commercially speaking, that we treat each other with the mutual respect that is so necessary for great nations, big or small, to work together for their constituencies and, indeed, for a better world. To have this coupled with the Caribbean Basin bill, that it was Ronald Reagan, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) pointed out, that worked with Democrats to fashion a package so that we would not just consider the Caribbean as a bunch of just exciting songs but that we could see that these were people with struggling democracies that were throwing off the yoke of colonialism, that they wanted so badly to be treated with respect from their giant sister nation, the United States of America, and as a result of this to be able to see the industry that was starting there and the tremendous setbacks that they had as a result of us going into the North American Free Trade Agreement. So President Clinton made a commitment that we would give them parity and Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on International Relations, working together and having Speaker Hastert to come across the other side of the Capitol and meeting with the leader on that side, and coming together to keep this fragile package together, like most Members I wish we did not have to expedite this. I wish we had had more time with the rule. I wish we had had more time in the conference and certainly more time for Members to truly understand that they are playing a very, very important role, a historic role, in cementing the relationship that this country will have with these developing countries. I am proud to be an American, so proud to be a Member of this Congress, and proud to be working with Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for those that have problems with how the bill is being expedited or the process in which the conference was held, I sure can understand those criticisms. The reason that I support the rule and support the underlying bills is because of the long wait it has taken even for this country to recognize that we should have equity in dealing with people of color in the Caribbean, in Africa. And in Africa, we never had any open agreement at all. For those who are against trade, for those who said I feel the same way about NAFTA and will vote against China, and feel the same way about the Caribbean and Africa, I can understand that. But for those people who say that we did not do enough for Africa, I ask why do you not ask the 48 African leaders and trade ministers that have been begging for these types of encouragement for investment so that they can get out of poverty and have disposable income and can become truly partners with the United States of America. For those who say that outsiders and rich people are the ones that are going to benefit, while they are there looking at the sand and enjoying the sun in the Caribbean, they should also see the poverty. Those people want to have more than just tourism. They want to be anchored in commerce. We can do it. We promised. We got agreements with the people in the Caribbean. They were undercut when we gave a better deal to Mexico. It is called the Caribbean Basin Initiative Parity Bill. Just make it equal with what we have given to Mexico so that we do not take away what is given to them. So my colleagues may not like the procedure. We waited a long time. I do not know when this would come back if we did not have the bill here now. I know one thing, I feel more secure in arguing the merits of these two bills now than I would if we mixed it up with arguing the bill as to whether or not we should give permanent trade recognition to China.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for being thoughtful enough to give some of us in the Congress an opportunity to express the appreciation that we have in having from our city, and indeed from our country, someone like Cardinal O'Connor. I knew and respected and admired him and worked with him on so many different occasions. And because of the splendor of his vestments and the manner in which he carried himself, it is impossible for me, even now, to think of him as being gone. But I would suspect that, with all of the spirituality, that he would want us to not think of him as being gone but, rather, to carry out some of the things that he would want us to do and some of the things that he has just built such a wonderful reputation on. We pride ourselves in New York for our parades. The older we get, the longer it seems like the parade lasts in terms of marching. But one of the brightest spots that we all looked forward to, no matter what ethnic group it was, was reaching St. Patrick's Cathedral and knowing that, no matter what the weather was like, the Cardinal would be there with a smile on his face. And it was just unbelievable to see how, no matter what the religion or the faith or the background was of the sponsors of the marchers in the parade, Cardinal O'Connor was their spiritual leader. When the Haitians were trying so desperately hard to reach our shores and the Coast Guard was meeting them halfway and turning them back, the Haitian community was so frustrated that they did not know what to do. And I went to the Cardinal and reminded him that so many of the Haitians that were being persecuted were Catholics. And time after time and mass after mass, he would hold for Haitians to come into St. Patrick's Cathedral and, believe it or not, the mass, which I knew as an altar boy in Latin, he would say patios so that the Haitians would feel not only a part of being loved but a part of the spirituality. How would he be remembered? In Harlem, we have a church called the Convent Avenue Baptist Church. For over 20 years, we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday and Baptist ministers and ministers from all over the country come to speak. We can rest assured that one person would be there early and stay late with all of his beautiful vestments in the middle of Harlem, and that would be Cardinal O'Connor. The things that he allowed Catholic charities to do, and Catholic charities took care of the needs of the poor, and not all of the poor are minorities but, unfortunately, too many are, and if we took a look and found out where the resources were being spent, we would find it would be in the south Bronx, south Jamaica, and in Harlem. The Cardinal was not satisfied to allow lay people to do it, but if a building had to be open or a ribbon had to be cut, he would cause excitement of the people in the community to know something was happening because he would be there smiling and blessing the opening of those things. Yes, I do not know how we all are going to get along without remembering our great Cardinal. But again, in closing, I would say that he would want us to remember him for all the good he tried to do. And I think that all of us would be better people if we recognized that, whether we are Jewish or gentile or Muslim or Hindu or Catholic or Protestant, that somehow this great person was able not just to preach to Catholic catechism but to give a sense to all of us that we were loved by God and that we have a responsibility to love our fellow man. He will be missed, but there will be enough of us that could try to fill the gap and I do hope that the spiritual community will never forget that we were not made to compete with each other but we were made to be like the Cardinal, to bring each other together. I thank my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for giving us this opportunity to thank God for having a chance to have known and to have worked with his Eminence.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for giving me this time to speak. Mr. Speaker, certainly on most occasions if we had an expedited rule I would be on the side of having as much time for the Members to review not only the rule but the underlying legislation as possible, but when there is a situation it is either an expedited rule or no rule at all, clearly we have to take a closer look at the legislation that we are about to consider and ask why should it be expedited, if at all? First of all, when we talk about the Caribbean Basin parity bill, the word ``parity'' means that we already had an agreement with these countries in the Caribbean. We already reached out to our neighbors in the area and said that we are living now in a decade where we do not want to talk about just aid. We want to talk about commerce. We want to talk about trade. We want to talk about support for democracies. So when we went into an agreement with the North American Free Trade Agreement, what happened was that they got an edge on these little countries in the Caribbean and the President and the Congress said, hey, we promised to give them parity. So we are not talking about something new. We are talking about something we have been waiting for for years and that is to bring some equity in our relationship and our trade agreements with these countries in the Caribbean so that they would not be adversely affected by NAFTA. Then, of course, when one talks about the historic legislation that we have where for the first time we are opening up our commercial doors to 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, this is the first time that we are really treating countries in this continent the way we treated the rest of the world. For those people who just want to scream that we are talking about Chinese goods and Asian goods and transshipment through the Caribbean, that is so unfair to say and so untrue. There are no tighter rules that could be written than those that are in the bill to stop transshipment. In addition to that, it is almost insulting to the countries that are involved that it is so in need of jobs to believe that they would give those jobs to Asia and not to the people in their country. I am suggesting as well, and as has been said by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, we know that the mother of all trade bills will be coming to the floor, and that is normal trade relations with China. It would be sad, it would be painful, it would be disgraceful for these smaller countries, these developing countries, to get caught up into that type of debate. I am asking not to like the rule but to vote for these rules because it is necessary that not only we expedite the rule but we expedite the passage of this legislation so that it does not get caught up with the debate that is going to come on whether or not we should give normal trade relations to China.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the majority party clearly has shown their unity on the question of sunsetting and polishing the Internal Revenue Code at some time in the future, 2004. I guess that is pretty courageous to say on the eve of April 15 that they want to get rid of this code. We do not know whether they have enough votes to come back with something before we get out of session. We have not the slightest clue as to what they would replace it with. So we are saying this, if they are going to overwhelm us with their votes and abolish the code, we ask them to support the motion to recommit at least to put some protections in it for the taxpayer for the American people; that it be fiscally responsible; that whatever they come up with, that it is fair; that it be certainly more simple than the code that they are trying to replace; that they not pick up some of these ideas that are floating in their side about taxing prescription drugs; that they do not make home purchasing more difficult by eliminating the deduction of mortgage interest. For God's sake, do not hurt charitable giving by removing the deductibility. Do not hurt our schools, our churches, our synagogues and our mosques. We do have a pretty progressive tax system. From what I have heard with some of the things that are being considered on the other side, it might be a little too difficult for the working poor. We also are asking in the motion to recommit that our colleagues do not restructure the tax system so that they are shifting the burden to local and State governments because they have enough. Our concern also deals with the Internet with the structuring of some of the recommendations they are making that would put a 60 percent increase in the sales tax on the Internet. Well, we do not know where they are going, and they do not either. All we know is that they want to get rid of the code as we see it. Maybe if we are lucky, we can get someone of the caliber of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to sit on this 15-person commission. Other than that, I do not know who even would be on the commission to come and tell us what we should be doing. If they do a good enough job, maybe we do not even need the Committee on Ways and Means. If that works for the tax-writing committee, maybe we can get a commission for the Committee on Appropriations and a commission for the Committee on Commerce. I know we have not done much work around here in the last couple of years, but I hate to see the day that we just set up commissions to do our legislative work. But I support the motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think the discussion has been good and healthy, especially during this time of the year, when American taxpayers recognize the complexity of the Code. One of the previous speakers from the other side said for the last 5 years all we have done is talk about changing the Code. I would like to believe that if they are in the majority and in charge of the tax-writing committee, that instead of talking about changing the Code, they would have changed the Code, if they had the votes to do it. On the other hand, I think the most frightening thing about this argument is what do we replace it with. No matter how much we complain about the complexity and the unfairness and the inequity of the Code, I do not think that any American would support just changing the Code until they fully understood what impact the new Code would have on them in their lives. We have not the faintest idea as to what we would replace it with. The best idea, in my opinion, that came from the other side as to what we would replace the Code with, it would be with a 15-person commission, taking it out of the hands of the Congress, having four Members appointed from the Congress and the rest of them private citizens, to come back to the Congress to tell the American people what the new Code should be. I do not think that is right. Commissioners do not get elected, we do. It is no profile in courage on the eve of tax payment day to come here and talk about they do not like the Code. No one likes the Code in its present form. What does take courage is to say that, I am in the majority, we are proud of it, we are doing something about it, here is the new Internal Revenue Code. We ask Americans to come forward and to vote for it. Now we are saying let us sunset what we are talking about. Well, at the appropriate time, what I hope to do is to say that if we do have this new code, maybe in the motion to recommit we might be willing to consider just a question of making the code equitable, making it fair, making certain we do not tax prescription drugs, that we do not hurt people in terms of the deduction of mortgage interest. At least send some signal as to what is being talked about. There are a half a dozen bills over there. The commission has not even gotten up to what my dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), is talking about. We do not know who is going to be on that commission, and I think that is going to be very, very important before we determine what we are doing. So I hope that we turn down this offer and support the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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