Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. I am certain that the gentleman who just spoke did not mean that for the last 5 years that all we got from the Republican leadership is talk, but if he does, then we cannot have any guarantee. If things remain the same, then it would be an additional 5 years of talk. Why do we not produce first, and then we will be in a position really to put in something, rather than just be against something. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Congress, if we assume this awesome responsibility to produce a better Internal Revenue Code, would need outside help. But to abolish the existing system before we do that is where the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and I differ.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the previous speaker, is one of the brightest Members that we have in the House; and certainly it is a pleasure for me to serve with him on the Committee on Ways and Means. Some of his ideas in terms of how we could reform the tax system, to me, just makes a lot of sense. But I know one thing that he will never, never challenge is the fact that any political party that holds a majority by only six, whether that is a Democratic majority or Republican majority, cannot even hope to reform the tax system unless we are working together in a bipartisan way. There is no Republican way to correct this Internal Revenue Code. I would agree with anybody who would say and there certainly is not a Democratic Party way to do it. But what the American people want is not for each one of us to be political victors. What they want is a Congress that is working to their best interests. Can we say that this Code is working to their best interests, that this is the best we can do? I would say the answer would be no. We could do a heck of a lot better. But one thing that we would have to start doing just for openers is to start talking with each other. Forget the mutual respect. Forget the professionalism. Let us start talking and seeing what we can do to work together. I would think if we were talking about Social Security, if we were talking about Medicare, if we were talking about the tax system that we would have to find a way where, working together, we could come up with the right solution. And quite frankly, in the other areas, I would think that there would be enough difference between Democrats and Republicans that we could fight the different way, different philosophical and political beliefs, so that we will always maintain the difference between Republicans and Democrats. So I am not saying that we should all look alike. But on these important issues, it really bothers me that the chairman of the committee could schedule hearings about different alternatives to this tax system on the week the taxpayers have to file taxes. I do not challenge the sincerity of my Republican friend on the committee or on the House leadership. But why this week? Why would we have 3 days of hearings and alternatives to this system, as burdensome as it is, when we know that the legislative calendar does not permit us to do anything, nothing? We are going out for 2 weeks. We will be out next month for Memorial Day. Come July 4, we will be out. In August we will be out. September we have the Labor Day recess. We have to do August recess for the convention. We have to get reelected. So we are not even thinking about changing the Internal Revenue Code. So why do we sit up there for 3 days talking about it? Oh, because it is April 15, and we want to make a political statement. Well, for 5 years, for 5 years they have enjoyed being in the majority party, the Speaker, the distinguished majority leader, the chairmanships of every committee, the chairmanship of the once awesome powerful Committee on Ways and Means. My God, in 5 years, why have we not seen a change in the Tax Code? Why do we wait 5 years to bring it up again? As a matter of fact, just between us legislators, I weighed the Code as to how much it weighed when the Democrats were in charge; and then I weighed it just last week. My colleagues would not believe the increase in weight. My God, there is about a hundred new sections added on to the old Code. The people that make up the returns say it takes 3.5 hours more even to figure out the complexities. It is that way when they are putting in loopholes, it is more complicated. But all I am saying is that many people ask, well, we always are complaining about the Republican majority. What the devil would we do if we ever were in charge? Number one, we will talk to them. Number two, in any legislation, we would ask you for their ideas. Number three, we would know ahead of time if it is bipartisan, if it is not bipartisan, it is just not going to fly. We have learned so much about how difficult it is to lead when we do not have a meaningful majority. But we hope that we will not slip into the posture that just because we cannot lead, just because we cannot legislate that we would say, let us close down the shop, let us close down the Internal Revenue Service, let us close down the tax collection business, let us really get rid of the Code and tell millions of American businessmen and small businessmen, we cannot tell them right now what we are going to replace it with. All we can tell them is that we are mandated that we must come up with something. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has the unique idea that, even if the Congress cannot come up with something, let us get a commission to come up with something. In other words, some Member was being very, very critical in the Committee on Ways and Means before I came to the floor and said that we were trying to hold on to our jurisdiction. Well, do my colleagues know something? He is right. Because it is the only committee that is there in the Constitution saying that the Committee on Ways and Means shall provide the ways and means for the United States Government to operate. But, then again, they may want to change the Constitution. But I hope we do not change it to set up for a commission for ways and means. Because then I see a commission for an appropriation, a commission for commerce, a commission for education, and one day we will wake up and we will find out that there is really no need for the U.S. House of Representatives as we know it. And so, I would suggest this: There is nothing wrong with commissions, but there is something wrong when we refuse to assume our responsibility to do what? To legislate. It is not just to criticize against this Code that most Americans are annoyed with this week. It is not enough to say get rid of it in the year 2004. What is important to do is to have hearings, to have meetings and to legislate, to educate the American people as to that we can do a better job and to have the political courage and the guts to come down here and to vote for something instead of just cursing the doctors. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not said anything to anger the Members on the other side. The only frustration that we feel is that it is very unusual for tax bills to come on the floor that are not sponsored by Members of the committee so that at least they could talk with us about them. It is even more unusual that the bill never would even come through the committee so that our staffs would have been attuned to understand better what the implications would be about the bill; and, of course, one has to be very suspicious when in the middle of the night a bill is introduced and it just reaches the floor on the Suspension Calendar. Mr. Speaker, you cannot talk about hundreds of billions of dollars, or I guess some people can talk about hundreds of billions of dollars, without having it come before the committee; but we would like to believe that somewhere in here it makes some sense. Obviously, you have not really had enough time to make any sense out of this, because you are bringing up a bill and you are asking Democrats to vote for it, but the people who drafted the bill are asking Republicans to vote against it. Now, I know people do not think much about the Congress, but this really confuses them. If you have a bill, at least you should be supporting it. Those of us on the other side are saying this, that if the $100 billion we are talking about seems to be an excessive burden on the taxpayer, should you not in all fairness talk about what this is supposed to pay for? Are you not supposed to say what you have done is said to the President that I am prepared to ignore the Social Security System as it is, I am prepared to ignore the Medicare system, that I am not going to do anything about affordable drugs for the aged, that education is not on our agenda. So, Mr. President, when you talk about all of these things that you would like to see done, all we want to know is how much does it cost, and what we will do is extract these things, put them in a bill, bring it to the floor, and we will not vote for it, but we will ask Democrats to vote for it. No, no, Mr. Speaker. This not only does not make sense, but I do not really think that it is sound legislative policy. If there is something that you want a vote for, be creative. But if you are going to bring legislation to the floor, and then when people pick up the newspapers tomorrow they find out that the Republicans brought this bill to the floor, House Resolution 467, but after they understood it, they voted against it, what can I tell you? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. RANGEL. The Chair is saying this bill passed?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the voice vote, what was the Speaker's announcement?

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman from Colorado explained the reasoning behind this, that the gentleman has something in the cage and he wants to kill it before it comes out of the cage. That has made more sense than anything I have heard on the floor today. The President's bill is in a cage, so the gentleman now takes the President's bill, takes it out of the cage, because he wants to kill it. Mr. Speaker, well, now, that is creative legislation. I just would like to say that also in that cage is the social security system, the Medicare system, assistance to our aged for prescription drugs, the education system, the minimum wage system, systems for our national defense. All of these things are in that cage. I just hope that the gentleman does not kill it all. It seems to me that the gentleman might do better in explaining, a more effective way than this tiger in the cage legislative process is by saying that we are not bringing up any positive legislation, so the gentleman just wants to take those things from the President's budget that might prove to be painful because they do not intend to provide the things that are good for this Republic, for this country, that can make this country proud. We do not need Republican legislation and Democrat legislation, we do not need to be fighting each other over tigers in cages. What we have to do is pause, work together, and find out what is good for the Congress, but more importantly, what is good for the American people.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I understand the gentleman correctly, if I understand the gentleman from Colorado correctly, the reason he is bringing up this bill today and asking his colleagues on the Republican side to vote against it was so we could kill it. In other words, he does not want to put this tax burden on the American people. So the gentleman has this new creative way of killing legislation by having Republicans to introduce the legislation, and then to kill it. That is his goal. Well, let me share with the gentleman that your side has been killing legislation in a different way, and you have been very effective, and that is you just do not bring it up. The Social Security legislation, you have not brought up a bill; the Medicare legislation, you have not brought up a bill; giving affordable prescription drugs to the elderly people, you know how to kill that. You do not bring up a bill. Since when in any legislative body, in any small community, in any county, in any city, in any State legislature, have we come up with such cockamamie idea that the way you kill legislation when you are in the majority is to introduce it? Now, you have got to take a deep breath. You kill legislation when you are in the leadership by introducing the legislation, and then you vote against it. Now, I have to admit, since there has not been any positive legislation coming from your side in the last couple of years, that this keeps Members' voting records up. But can you imagine the precedent that you are setting, where with everything that you do not like, you introduce a bill and then tell people to vote against it? Talking about wasting taxpayers' money, this is really extreme. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was asking my friend from the Committee on Ways and Means to yield only because I wanted to respond to what I thought, what I did think were questions to me, and, that is, I was saying that this was a pig in the poke, p-o-k-e, and he was saying that this was reduced to writing, his proposals. It does not make it more accurate just because he has been able to reduce it to words. It is words that are irresponsible. We cannot talk about the President's increase in taxes without talking about a package of benefits that the President has in this package. But I think the American people, all I can ask them to do is that if you are sincere in the resolution, vote for it, because I am convinced that what you have done is to create a resolution to embarrass the President that has taken all of the facts as relate to the benefit of his budget and stripped that off and just talked about the pain of operating government. Anybody that would vote for this standing alone would be very, very silly. But since the proponent has come from your side, how you intend to handle this, I do not know. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a member of the Committee on the Budget and someone who truly understands how to be responsible about facing up to the problems facing our great country. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want an answer?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a great honor for me to be a part of the Committee on Ways and Means and see that the Republican leadership is now sharing the tax writing authority with other members on their side. This, I think, is good and healthy. That way, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means does not have the responsibility of having to explain this tomfoolery that we are dealing with on the floor today. Because it just seems to me that anybody on our committee that would be talking about the President's tax revenue raises would also be talking about the President's program. Because I would welcome the opportunity to vote for a $100 billion tax increase over a 5-year period if I thought for one minute that the majority party was prepared to repair the Social Security system for our kids and our grandkids; if I thought there was just one scintilla of interest in having Medicare be held whole for those that follow up; if I thought this was the price that we would pay so that our senior citizens would have affordable prescription drugs; if I thought that this bill, which my colleagues just pulled out the cost and the pain, that this would be something to allow us to reduce our Federal debt and the interest on that debt; if I thought for one minute that the Committee on Ways and Means was asking people to pay this increase in taxes because we were going to invest in our education system so that all of our kids, from whatever community, will be exposed to the education and the training that will be necessary for this great Republic of ours to maintain our competitive edge in technology. But I do not know who would do this on our economy to just find out the cost of government and pull that out and say, why do they not pay for the pain when the majority party is not even concerned about the security of our Social Security system. Now, the reason I am not annoyed is because I know that they are not serious about this. And the reason I know it is because there are a series of so-called ``tax bills'' that would be reaching the floor. Far more exciting, I would think, and far more creative and, of course, far more irresponsible is the idea that they are going to sunset the whole Code and they will do this on the week that Americans have to pay their income taxes. And I would suspect that when they go to sunset the Internal Revenue Code that they will say at some point in time in the distant future they will substitute the Code with something else. Well, back in Harlem they call that a pig in the poke, that they do not buy what you do not know. And certainly they have not demonstrated the leadership to give us any alternative. I have been here on the Committee on Ways and Means. The chairman has no bill. The Speaker has no bill to substitute the Code. But we will pull it up by the roots and let America decide what we are going to do in the future. I know that they have to have something to go back home to at the end of these 2 years that they have been down here in charge, and so it does not bother me that that is the reason why they are bringing this to the floor. But it should bother some of the people on the tax writing committee that have to explain this. I mean, give the other fellows an opportunity to talk about taxes. But for those who have the responsibility to explain it, give us a break. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with Senator Patrick Moynihan,and a number of my House and Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to stop further Medicare cuts in the indirect medical education (IME) program. IME payments are extra payments made to teaching hospitals for the fact that they are training the next generation of doctors, and that the cost of training a young doctor--like any apprenticeship or new person on the job--is more expensive than just dealing with experienced, older workers. The young person requires mentoring, orders more tests, and makes mistakes unless closely supervised. It is natural that a group of young residents in a hospital will reduce a hospital's efficiency and increase its costs. Medicare should help pay for these extra ``indirect'' costs, if we want--as we surely do--future generations of competent, highly skilled doctors. The Balanced Budget Act took the position that the extra adjustment we pay a hospital per resident should be reduced from 7.7% in FY 1997 to 5.5% in FY 2001. This provision was estimated to save about $6 billion over 5 years and $16 billion over ten--in addition to about another $50 billion in hospital cuts in other portions of the BBA. In the Balanced Budget Refinement Act which was enacted last November, we recognized that these cuts were too much, and froze the fiscal year 2000 rate at 6.5%, reduced it to 6.25% in 2001 and then dropped it to 5.5% thereafter. Mr. Speaker, last fall's delay and spread out of the cuts is helpful--but these cuts are still too much. The nation's teaching hospitals, which do so much to serve the uninsured and poor, and which are the cradle of new clinical research and technical innovation, are hemorrhaging red ink. Our bill stops further scheduled cuts in the IME, freezing the adjustment factor at 6.5% rather than letting it fall to 5.5%, and saving teaching hospitals about billions of dollars that would otherwise be taken from them. I hope this legislation will receive consideration this year, before the cuts resume, and these premier medical institutions are faced with cuts, layoffs, and reduced service that will literally cost us lives in the years to come.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the cooperation that they gave to us in the minority in indicating that this would be a priority piece of legislation. It gave those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means the opportunity to get the support of our Members on this side of the aisle and to demonstrate how cooperation can have both sides of the aisle working a lot more closely. We hope that this sign of cooperation means that before this year ends, that we will have the opportunity to show that there are plenty of differences between our parties and how we achieve the goals, and we do not challenge each other's intent in terms of what is good for this country, but certainly there should be a lot of things that we can agree upon. I think it would be healthy and it would be the right political thing for us as an institution to bring those things forward, Democrats and Republicans, to show the House, to show the other body, and indeed to show the President and the country that we are a body that can work. This is a good piece of legislation. It is long overdue. The manner in which it has received overwhelming support is just indicative of what we can do when we put our minds to it. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and that he may control the time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to George Jackson, whose outstanding record of accomplishment in the media and entertainment was cut short with his passing on February 10, 2000. Jackson was Harlem's shining media star. Before his death at age 42, he had compiled a record of successes in film, music and the internet. I offer special commendation and condolences to the mother of George Jackson, Henrietta ``Hennie'' Hogan, who as production supervisor at my hometown newspaper, the Amsterdam News, nurtured his interest in communications. Therefore, I commend to my colleagues the following tribute on George Jackson which appeared in the Amsterdam News. [From the Amsterdam News] Shooting Star Leaves Us (By Vinette K. Pryce) It is the letter ``h'' which sums up George Jackson's life as a legacy who enhanced the music industry. During a sentimental journey, titled ``From Henrietta, to Harlem, to Harvard, to Hollywood, to Heaven,'' his longtime mentor Brian Carty reflected on Jackson's life with friends and admirers on Monday at St. Paul the Apostle Cathedral. A life which began when he was born to Henrietta ``Hennie'' Hogan on Jan. 6, 1958. Carty's eulogy was punctuated with Biblical quotations from Philippians, Chapter 2, verses 1-4 and 12-18, which discuss servitude and a spiritual connection to duty. Hogan, he said, considered her son a gift. Encouraging George's every endeavor, Hogan nourished his ideas by enrolling her son in a preparatory school. Hogan's career as production supervisor at the New York Amsterdam News helped supplement George's zeal for media/communication and entertainment. When he graduated from Monsignor William R. Kelly and Fordham Prep, there was no doubt that George's next venture would be advanced education at one of America's most prestigious universities, Harvard. The Ivy League institution proved fertile ground for George's broad sociological outlook on society. He chose the field as one of two majors (the other was economics). It was that fundamental preparation which motivated him to venture west to a state where he had few connections, but a much bigger sociological challenge than any other he had ever embraced. George tackled his commitment by combining Hogan's teachings, his Harlem upbringing and his Harvard education with film to project poignant issues and some very successful films. Richard Pryor's Indigo Productions at Columbia Pictures helped hone Jackson's career from 1984-86. It was a new day for the white-washed movie world, which had not yet embraced faces like Wesley Snipes. Jackson partnered with Doug McHenry, and the pair decided on bold collaborative ideas. They co-produced 12 films including ``Krush Groove,'' ``New Jack City'' and the Martin Lawrence hit ``Thin Line Between Love and Hate.'' While the films' messages sparked curiosity, the soundtracks spawned success after success, reaping platinum and multi-platinum status. Assured of his impact and dedication, a slumping Motown Records borrowed his talent by naming him president of the legendary record label. That appointment returned the Harlemite to the East Coast, Hogan and a whole new challenge. Again George accepted the mantle. It was here be attempted to use his college education in sociology in the making of music videos, which sell CDs. Hogan completely understood that her son was destined on a course which extended from coast to coast and would impact on millions. Jackson's tenure at Motown ended with a new venture--one which prepared him for the 21st century and a whole new approach to sociology. George dedicated nights and days to Urban Box Office, an Internet venture which focused on the hip-hop culture. In addition, he started working on Soul Purpose, an online media magazine which was on the verge of a major breakthrough. ``He worked 18-hour days,'' said Vivian Chew, president of Time Zone International. ``He was always at everyone's beck and call.'' Immersed in preparations for a major hip-hop convention planned for London in May, Chew explained that Jackson virtually ``held [her] hand'' through acquisitions of many deals surrounding the international music meet. When Chew heard of the Feb. 10 tragedy, she said she felt as if she had lost a best friend. ``My heartfelt condolences are extended to George's family,'' Rev. Jesse Jackson said, adding, ``He was a tremendous talent in an industry where people come and go. He had staying power. Because of his commitment to quality product, film, video and music, he leaves a legacy of excellence and creativity for future generations to follow. His vision will not be lost on those who will work in his footsteps of inclusion.'' Jackson's journey ended on Feb. 10. Mourning his departure are Hogan, his beloved mother; Yuko, his wife; Kona Rose, his 16-month-old daughter; Dr. Sharon Jackson, his sister; Bobbie E. Stancil, his brother; and friends and fans all across the United States. Contributions may be sent to the George Jackson Memorial Scholarship Fund c/o De Salle Academy, 200 W. 97th St., New York 10025.