Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the committee. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps). (Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior 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, when we are talking about justice, equity, and fair play, it is not right to call this a class war. While it is true that in the Republican tax bill, which basically came out of the Committee on Rules, that there are some democratic principles that we can support, the truth of the matter is one does not have to be an accountant or H&R Block or a tax lawyer to see that the $120 billion tax cut is not for the small business person. So take a look at it. Clearly, it is targeted for the wealthiest Americans that we have. Now, it may not be bad to do that, but do not pile up on a bill that is just trying to give a dollar extra in terms of minimum wage. If these things want to be done, come out and let the Committee on Ways and Means have hearings, vote on it and bring it to the floor so that the floor can work its will. What my colleagues are basically doing today is to say how can we kill the minimum wage bill. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, he stood up in this well and he said he thought it was bad to superimpose congressional rule on employers, and I know a lot of my colleagues think that is true. So why not just take the minimum wage bill, leave the tax portion to the Committee on Ways and Means, and vote up or down on what is right on minimum wage. Or do it their way and say, hey, the President is inclined to support minimum wage; maybe politically we can vote for it and have the President to veto it. Now, how can one get the President to veto it? Load it up with provisions of the tax bill that passed last year because he would veto it. Now, it just seems to me that if my colleagues on the other side did not have the political courage to get a vote to override the President's veto, we should not do on legislation for minimum wage what the Committee on Ways and Means and what this House is not prepared to do with a straight shot. Everything that the people want is going to be taken, whether it is the Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable drugs, and it is going to be said that my colleagues on the other side are for these things and then add on to it substantial tax cuts that is not for the working people but for those who really have the highest earnings and deserve the benefits the least. If one takes a look at the alternative that we asked for, many of the things that are in their bill we have, but what we do is close the loopholes of Americans that after enjoying the benefits of the great prosperity that we have renounce their citizenship, renounce their country, renounce the American flag and flee off to foreign countries. For crying out loud, why would anyone be opposed to closing up that loophole? It is in our alternative. We then will target the tax money, not $122 billion but $36 billion, to the small farmers, the small businesspeople, and this is what they want and this is what the President is willing to sign. We have targeted relief for people that need and deserve it. So if what my colleagues on the other side are trying to say is that they are for an increase in the minimum wage but they want to help the small businessman, how do they explain that three-fourths of the bill, in terms of tax cuts, is not going to the small businessman, not going to the small farmer? Is this their way to kill a bill by having the President to veto it and then wait until their whole legislative process collapses and then we negotiate with the President? We should not have to negotiate with any President. We should legislate, and we should also give the minority an opportunity to express its will. What does that mean? Why would the rule deny us an opportunity just for an alternative, just to give Republicans and Democrats an opportunity to say that we have a better way to do it? Well, we know one thing, that what is really trying to be done is to get that 800 pound billion dollar gorilla back up here to the tax floor in smaller pieces. It did not work last year. It was vetoed last year. An override for the veto last year was not run for, and an override this year is not being thought about to try for. There are things that we should be working together on: Fixing up Social Security, Medicare, Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable drugs, education; not to do it as Democrats, not to do it as Republicans but to do it as Americans and as Members of Congress and working with the President. One does not have to like the President to work with him, but they cannot do it alone and the only time we can accomplish something is by cooperation, as the chairman and I did when we brought to the floor removing the penalty for people who want to work after 65. That is what is called cooperation. That is how bills are not vetoed, and that is how we can work again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join in congratulating the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. His honesty in terms of opposing the minimum wage for the lowest working employees is really to be commended for coming forward and saying it, because like Governor Bush, I wondered about the meanness on this side of the aisle; and it is good to see that people are willing to say that there is a reason behind it. Mr. Speaker, one can be reforming and want results if one is going to cave in to the things that one believes in, and I would like to join with my Senator who makes it abundantly clear that the country is really not looking for tax cuts, but looking for us to do the right thing, protecting Social Security, Medicare, the Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable drugs. These are the things that the Congress, not Republicans and not Democrats, but working together, should be doing. There is very, very little compassion for the working people at a time that our country is doing so great. I oppose the rule because my colleagues do not even give us an opportunity to have an alternative. What is the fear in just allowing the House to work its will? There was a time that the tax-writing committee used to be involved in taxes. We yield to the distinguished people on the Committee on Rules to pick and choose what they would like. But when they do not have the courage of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they are against the minimum- wage increase, for God's sake, do not kill it by just burdening taxes on it. Just say that we do not want reform on this side of the House of Representatives. How dare my colleagues say, how dare my colleagues say that the tax provisions in this bill is to protect small businesses. That is outrageous. It is an insult to the American people. It is clear that two-thirds of the tax benefits, they do not go to small businesses, they go to the richest Republicans that we have. So do what you want politically and kill the minimum-wage bill, but for God's sake, do not say that you are doing it fairly. The same thing applies to the Patients' Bill of Rights. If you do not want patients to have a bill of rights, and your leadership does not, do not compromise and say you are coming out for it and then load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, it was clear to us a long time ago what our Republican colleagues' game plan was, and that is to do absolutely nothing and get out of this House of Representatives. And how did they intend to do it? By getting this big $800 billion tax cut, thinking about anything you could imagine, and having the President veto it so that you could go home and campaign on just how we Democrats are against tax cuts. Well, guess what? We Democrats are for tax cuts, but we also are for saving Social Security, saving Medicare, and helping all Americans enjoy it and not just the chosen and the blessed few. Why is it that when my colleagues' tax cut was vetoed, they did not move to override the veto? Could it be that they had lack of votes, or could it be they had lack of guts? In any event, now they have to give us an $800 billion tax cut $200 billion at a time. What does the $122 billion tax cut have to do with giving working people a buck increase from $5.15 to $6.15? Why did my Republican colleagues wait until the President said he would veto it before they brought it to the floor? Many of the things that my colleagues have in the tax provision we support. Why did they overdo it? If they really wanted to be fair, why did they not give us a chance really to report out a tax bill that the President will sign? Now, if my Republican colleagues want to be against the working poor, do it. But at least have the courage to stand up here and to say that every time you steal one of the President's good ideas that you have to load it up with some piece of the $800 billion tax cut until you have to force him to veto it. So if we want to talk about reformists with results, we better walk away from many of the critics outside of our side of the aisle that are talking about the way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not taking care of the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for seeing their way clear to allowing the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to have an amendment to this bill, and I wondered why my colleagues could not reach beyond that to allow some of us on the tax-writing committee to have an amendment to the tax bill. I know one thing: my Republican colleagues may be for reform, but they certainly are not supporting results.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity. I guess it was in June of 1950 when I was with the 2nd Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Washington, when we heard that there was a police action in Korea. In July and August of that year, we were sent to Korea in a troop ship. Most of us were 19, 20 years old, and we were the first troops, American troops, from the States to go into Korea. The 24th and 25th Divisions having left from Japan going there had been pushed from the 38th Parallel to the Pusan Perimeter. We landed and had substantial casualties but managed to get close to the 38th Parallel. General MacArthur had the Inchon landing and then we moved swiftly north to the Yalu river which separated North Korea from Manchuria, and the entire 8th Army and the 2nd Infantry Division, of which I was a member, were there waiting to go home in September of 1950. It was on or about this time that the Commander in Chief, Harry Truman, had a dispute with General MacArthur and General MacArthur left and dealt with the President of the United States. During this time, the Peoples' Volunteer Army completely surrounded the entire 8th Army, and on November 30, 1950, a massacre occurred of the 2nd Infantry Division and many of the supporting battalions that were there. In June, I will be taking some of those veterans back to South Korea, and we are attempting to revisit some of the battle sites in North Korea. It was strange that people found it so easy to forget the tens of thousands of soldiers that responded to the United Nations and responded to President Truman as nations of the world got together to stop Communism. But I do not think that this is unusual to see our young people doing this type of thing. And so whether it is World War I or II or whether it is the Korean War or the Vietnam War, I really think we ought to pay more attention to those people who take time out from their families, who put their lives on the line and many times are captured and give up their lives and then come back home to find themselves faced with getting food stamps and adequate pay and just plainly a lack of respect for what they have done. It has been 50 years but we have a long way to go, and I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity to pay tribute to so many friends and comrades that are no longer with us today.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for the way he has handled this, not only on the floor, but certainly, as the ranking member of the subcommittee on social security. It gives me an opportunity to once again congratulate my long and dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who showed an interest in social security generally, and this type of cooperation between our parties still gives me some ray of hope, no matter how small that glimmer may be, as we move forward on our political calendar, that there are many other things that we can accomplish in working together. For those people who believe that it is in our best interest to have confrontation and do nothing, I suggest that at the polling places, both Democrats and Republicans may suffer. It seems to me that there have been enough suggestions made by the President that Republicans can pick and choose those that they feel comfortable with, those that they think are in the best interests of the people of this great country, and to be able to work with us to do it. This is a classic example of the leadership of the chairman and the subcommittee chairman, in working with us so that we can get things done. I laud the Members for this effort, and I look forward to working with them on other issues that remain within the budget, as this has, that do not invite and encourage a veto, but those things that we know that we can work out our differences on, not only on both sides of the aisle but also on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to an extraordinary woman and member of our community, a constituent of the 15th Congressional District in New York from the time I was first elected. Leola Hageman, who died on February 1, served her community over the last 40 years with energy, dedication, intelligence, creativity and love. Her passing is an enormous loss for the people of our community, New York City and the United States. Leola Hageman moved from her native Chicago to New York City in 1959, with her husband, the Reverend Lynn Hageman, and their three children, Erica, Hans and Ivan. In 1963, Reverend Hageman founded an experimental narcotics program at Exodus House on East 103rd Street, and Leola Hageman worked with him as his full and indispensable partner. The program served thousands of addicts with exceptional rates of success. Mrs. Hageman's contribution to our community by her work at Exodus House, without more, would already have been substantial. However, Mrs. Hageman demonstrated her exceptional energy, courage, intelligence and constructive spirit in a myriad of ways. One particular project drew her attention and efforts for more than 30 years: improving the education for the children of our community. In the late 1960's, she worked tirelessly for the creation of local school boards, part of a decentralization plan to improve education in communities throughout the city by appointing people to the boards who would represent their communities. These boards helped to change the direction and conscience of the city and well beyond. Later, in the early 1980's, when Reverend Hageman suffered an illness and was no longer able to carry on leadership of Exodus House, Leola Hageman opened a facility for children, including children of drug addicts, to come after school. Once again, well ahead of her time, Mrs. Hageman recognized the dangers of children being out on the streets in the afternoons after school and before their parents came home with nothing to do--and created a safe and constructive environment for them to come to at Exodus House. The seed that Mrs. Hageman planted with that program has now blossomed into the East Harlem School at Exodus House, a highly successful middle school founded by Reverend and Mrs. Hageman's two sons. The East Harlem School is now in its ninth year of operation, providing an exceptional educational experience to its students. Mr. Speaker, the loss of Leola Hageman, and only a little more than a year ago her husband, the Reverend Lynn Hageman, leaves an enormous void in our community. Their lives epitomized the finest dedication to service and ``tough love''--as one alumnus of Exodus House put it at a recent memorial service for Mrs. Hageman. The example of the way Leola and Lynn Hageman chose to live their lives in dedication to others should serve as an inspiration and a challenge to each of us now and in the years to come.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that Joint Committee on Taxation report and it says, yes, that there is zero under the Democratic plan. If the Republicans have no budget, if the Republicans do nothing for Social Security, if the Republicans do nothing to pay down the national debt, then there will be absolutely nothing under our plan. We are assuming at some point that the Republicans will work with the President and work with us and do those things and then relief is there. It is as simple as that. The report is available. It is called the Joint Committee on Taxation. None of the people in the district of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) will get any benefit from the Republican or the Democratic plan until we come together and work together. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 has been pointed out that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 92,571 constituents who are Social Security beneficiaries. And certainly, if they are just going to go after giving tax relief, they really do not care anything about them and those on Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just reiterate that saying it over and over again does not make it right. We have a bill that takes care of the problem and the other side knows it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of our Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 to say shame on the gentleman who just spoke. The only reason his side gets the goose egg is because the joint committee said that they would do nothing with Social Security, do nothing with Medicare, and do nothing to pay down the national debt. And we are prepared to say yes it will be zero in tax cuts until we fulfill that responsibility. The gentleman knows it, and I know he knows it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member from the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)