Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just simply say that he and I ought to start working together.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would answer the gentleman's question by saying that the chairman does not talk to Democrats about anything concerning tax policy.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the difference between H.R. 6 and the Democratic alternative is that H.R. 6 is going to be vetoed and the Democratic alternative can be signed into law. When the chairman had his blank sheet up there saying that this would provide zero, he was the only one on the other side that admitted that, yes, the Democratic plan and tax alternative is conditioned. I would say that the 20 or 30 Democrats who joined with the other side in trying to remove this penalty must have thought that they would be working it out in a bipartisan way and not have it fly in the face of the President's budget. They must have thought that the other side would not come and bring a tax cut bill to the floor without first having a budget. They must have thought, as the President would hope, that in the budget they would say that they wanted to deal with Social Security, that they wanted to deal with Medicare. They must have thought that, just being a Republican, that they would say that before a tax cut they would want to pay down, not eliminate but pay down, on the national debt. We are paying hundreds of billions of dollars of interest on the trillions of dollars that we owe on the national debt. Why should not the President think, as he gave his State of the Union message, that the Democrats and Republicans would come together, have a budget, deal with these issues, so that we can deal with the serious problem of the marriage penalty. So basically, if my colleagues want to know the difference, if they vote for H.R. 6, they are not voting for relief for the marriage penalty. They are voting for a bill that is going to be vetoed. The other side knows it and those who vote for it know it. If what we really want is relief, and we want it in a bipartisan way, we should not reject the President's hands, we should not reject the hand of the minority and a bill that really is dealing with problems that go far beyond the penalty, and take a bill that is targeted for $95 billion rather than double, take a bill that protects Social Security and Medicare, take a bill that pays down the debt, and take a bill that the joint committee says that this can be done, and take a bill that the President of the United States will sign. It seems to me that it is very simple for us to decide. If we just want to vote for a gift for Valentine's Day, that will never become law, then there is the choice, the blank sheet that the chairman has shown us. If, on the other hand, we want to reach out in a bipartisan way and present to the President a bill that he can sign, it is here. The choice is ours to make. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what is the time allotment?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the previous speaker, is talking about a tax cut, and that should be argued in a separate bill. But I think the way she expresses it and admits it has nothing to do with the marriage penalty, it has everything to do with something else. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the majority as to how many speakers they have remaining, because the last time I yielded back the balance of my time, they had a lot of speakers, and I think that the delivery ought to be more balanced. I have several speakers, but I think the time difference is on their side. I am trying to determine how many speakers that they intend to have.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that newspapers around this country have been able to see through what is a Valentine's Day gimmick. The truth of the matter is that even in our local Washington Post, the editorials would indicate that we are not talking about relieving the marriage penalty. Democrats, Republicans, the President, we all want to do it. The problem that we have, and we will be showing the chart from the Joint Committee on Taxation, is that the majority would have us to do this to take care of a tax problem that they see that those in the higher incomes are paying too much taxes, but it has nothing to do with the marriage penalty. They would pay $182 billion to take care of people who pay less than that because they are married, and they should, but at the same time, they would do this without bringing a budget to the House floor. So once they find out that the President needs a budget, needs to take care of social security, needs to take care of Medicare, wants to pay down the national debt, if they decide not to do any of these things, then they are saying they do not want relief from the marriage penalty. Let me say it again. Unless they agree to work out something with the President to avoid the veto, which would include drafting a budget that takes into consideration shoring up Medicare, shoring up social security to pay down the debt, if they travel in the other way, if they break the rules of the House, if they get waivers from the House, if they bring it to the floor and say that they are not going to do any of those things, then they know there is going to be a veto. Why ask for a veto? Why not work this out with the Democrats? Why not work it out with the President of the United States? Why does it have to be a camel's head in the tent for a $1.8 trillion tax cut given to us in dribbles and drabs when what we can do is to see what we can do to fix the roof while the sun is shining; do those things that a great country should be doing while we have the surplus; take care of this social security, which all of us have beneficiaries of in our districts; make sure that we have affordable prescription drugs for our elderly; make certain that the Medicare system works for our aged; and pay down the national debt, so that the billions of dollars that we are paying in interest can be eliminated so that we can do more things for education, more opportunities for job training, and close that gap between those who have nothing, and not even hope, and those who have been the recipients of a very great economy? Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as we reject the Republican plan that has worked outside of a nonexistent budget, that we will have an opportunity in the substitute that would follow to really target the money where it could really relieve the pain of the penalty of getting married and paying more taxes, but at the same time we will be giving assurances to Americans that we have a budget where they know how this fits in, that it is not the same 800-pound, $792 billion gorilla they could not get off the ground last year, it is not the George W. $1.8 trillion tax cut, it is not the camel trying to get the tax cut head in terms of the tent, as we try to take care of our national obligations. We have to be able to say that we are going to do all of those things, social security, Medicare, pay down the debt, and then, of course, we can join across the aisle working with the President and taking care of the marriage penalty. Mr. Speaker, I hope that, if we can possibly defeat the Republican plan, I hope that we can join together on the substitute, which will be signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article that appeared in the November 7th New York Times entitled ``Little Ambassadors with Hearts in Need of Repair.'' It tells the story of two infant children from Siberia who were transported to the United States to receive life saving heart surgeries. It also tells the story of a remarkable public private partnership between the United States and Russia involving our Department of Energy, the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy and the Children of the World Foundation. This wonderful organization's Chairman is a great friend of mine: William Denis Fugazy of New York. Mr. Fugazy and the Children of the World Foundation have not only sponsored these two Siberian infants for their emergency medical procedures but five previous children all of whom have received vital heart surgeries. The heart procedures are being done at the Children's Hospital of the Westchester Medical Center of New York. I know all of my colleagues join me in wishing these two young infants the best of luck in these surgeries and a wonderful life to follow. I also commend the work of the Children of the World Foundation which is part of the Forum Club of New York which itself brings key business and political leaders together. I believe that in the New York Times article Bill Fugazy summed up the importance of the work of the Children of the World Foundation when he said that the medical procedures being performed on these children and the ones done previously ``have opened avenues not there before and created new friendships.'' [From the New York Times, Nov. 7, 1999] Little Ambassadors With Hearts in Need of Repair (By Elsa Brenner) Two Siberian toddlers have arrived in the United States on an adult-size mission: to serve as emissaries of Russia and symbols of an effort to improve relations between the two countries. Because they were born with potentially fatal heart defects and faced limited prospects for reaching adulthood in Russia, Sophia Ovchinnikova and Sergei Yurinski are at the Westchester Medical Center here to undergo surgery not available in Russia. Some political and business leaders are want the two babies, handpicked from among thousands of others suffering from congenital heart defects in Russia, will serve as symbols of healing between nations--particular in the area of nuclear disarmament. ``The children show the real human side of the work we're doing in Russia's nuclear cities,'' Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said last week. ``Everyone--Russians and Americans--want what's best for kids.'' The United States Department of Energy has been working in the remote Siberian regions of Tomsk, where Sophia lives, and Krasnoyarsk, Sergei's home on a nonproliferation program aimed at reducing the availability of nuclear material for weapons. Sophia, 13 months old, and Sergei, 22 months old, arrived at Kennedy International Airport on Oct. 6 to a red-carpet welcome and were taken with their mothers to the Children's Hospital of the 1,100-bed Westchester Medical Center. A motorcade including the New York City Police and Fire Departments, the Westchester County police and dignitaries and businessmen, accompanied them. Those present included Kirill Speransky, senior counselor of the Russian Mission to the United Nations, Edward Mastal, director of the Highly Enriched Uranium Transparency Program of the United States Department of Energy, and Edward A. Stolzenberg, president and chief executive officer of the Westchester Medical Center. The children's visit is sponsored by the Forum Club's Children of the World Foundation, a New York-based organization established by William Denis Fugazy, a limousine magnate and lobbyist, to give ailing youngsters in different parts of the world access to the most advanced medical techniques. The Forum Club, an organization of business and civic leaders, counts among its members Lee A. Iaccoca, the former chairman of the Chrysler Corporation. The Siberian babies are the sixth and seventh to receive heart surgery in the United States under the sponsorship of Mr. Fugazy's foundation, which was formed last year. Both Mr. Fugazy and Secretary Richardson said that because of the mutual humanitarian, economic and political benefits to both sides, American offers of medical assistance have been well received. The United States selected the two Russian children through the medical department of the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy. In many cases, care at American hospitals specializing in pediatric heart surgery is the only opportunity for sick children like Sophia and Sergei to live normal lives, said Dr. Lester C. Permut, the surgeon in charge of Sophia and Sergei's cases. The Westchester Medical Center is providing its services without charge to the children's families. Dr. Permut said that Sophia and Sergei suffer from two of the most common heart disorders in children and that in the United States, the prognosis for such cases is excellent; a 95 percent survival rate after surgery. ``In this country, we consider these kinds of pediatric heart surgeries very routine operations,'' he said. But in Russia, children having surgery to correct congenital heart defects have only a 5 percent chance of survival because advanced pediatric heart care is not available there. As Olga Victorovna Ovchionikova, Sophia's mother, explained through an interpreter: ``I was told my child could have surgery in Novosibirsk, but that it was highly experimental and there were no guarantees. Then we heard about this. It was like a miracle.'' It is the first time that the Children's Hospital at the Westchester Medical Center--one of only about 10 hospitals in the state licensed for pediatric heart surgery--is taking part in the Children's Foundation program. More than 100 children each day are cared for at the center here, which has the region's only pediatric intensive care and neonatal intensive care centers. Next year, the Medical Center plans to complete construction of its new 257,500-square-foot, four-story Children's Hospital. At the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York earlier this year, Anton Kozhedub, 3, of Ukraine and Maria Lucia Miller and Merolyn Roario, infants from the Dominican Republic, underwent heart surgery. Mr. Fugazy said those medical procedures, like the others that have been performed, ``have opened avenues not there before and created new friendships.'' In particular, Police Commissioner Howard Safir of New York City and law enforcement officials from the Dominican Republic have since exchanged information that has aided in arresting criminals. And pharmaceutical companies are exploring new business venues in the Dominican Republic. Also, George Steinbrenner, the principal owner of the Yankees, helped finance a hospital in the Dominican Republic, a country that is a rich source for American baseball teams. In the latest partnership with Siberia, the most immediate and palpable gain is Sergei's speedy recovery. A hole in his heart has been repaired and he is making satisfactory progress, Carin Grossman, a hospital spokeswoman, said. Dr. Permut, who performs about 150 open-heart procedures a year, explained that the wall that should have formed between the lower left and right chambers of Sergei's heart did not completely close when Sergei was in the womb--resulting in an abnormal blood flow and increased pressure in the artery that goes through his lungs. Before the operation, the blood pressure in the artery to Sergei's lungs was the same as that in his aorta, when it should have been one-fourth of the pressure. It has, however, finally begun to drop, but not to the level it should be. Under ideal circumstances, the surgery should have been performed before Sergei reached 6 months. ``It is already late to start fixing the problem,'' Dr. Permut said. Sergei's lungs have suffered, although the damage is probably reversible, Dr. Permut said. Without the surgery, or a heart-lung transplant later on, Sergei would have lived only into his teenage years or perhaps until he was 20. In contrast, Sophia is undergoing a correction of a hole between the two upper chambers of her heart at precisely the correct time in her life, Dr. Permut said. Her medical problem is less complex than Sergei's, although the mitral valve in her heart needs to be repaired as well. Without surgery, she might not have lived past her 20's, he said. In interviews last week, Sophia's mother, Mrs. Ovchinnikova, and Sergei's mother, Yulia Sergeevna Yurinskaya, said they had been overwhelmed by the kindness New Yorkers have shown to them and their children. ``They've treated us like family,'' Mrs. Yurinskaya, a housekeeper at a Siberian factory said, speaking through Dr. Gregory Rozenblit, a director of the department that performs angioplasties at the Medical Center. Sergei's bed is littered with toy trucks and other presents from well-wishers. Mrs. Yurinskaya is able to talk by phone every day to her husband Mikhail, who also works in a factory in Siberia, and to her parents and inlaws. ``They were very worried about the baby, and at first they were crying because everything was so bad. But now they are crying because they're so happy.'' Sophia lives with her mother, aunts and grandmother in a small town in Siberia. Ms. Ovchinnikova, a single mother who works as a housekeeper in a gym, said she talks to her relatives only about once a week at a pre-arranged time and place from the United States, because there is no phone in their apartment in Siberia. When they do talk (the news from Siberia is that the snow has already begun to fall) the women discuss their new hopes for Sophia and changing relations between the two countries. ``We can't believe what is happening,'' Ms. Ovchinnikova said, ``that after all these years of cold war tensions, there is now so much friendliness.'' Sophia is awaiting surgery, and since their arrival in the United States, Sophia and her mother have lived in a small apartment here provided by the hospital, so that Sophia can recuperate from a cold and ear infection.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a provision relating to the rum cover over provision for Puerto Rico. The House-Senate conference agreement calls for an increase in the rum cover over for Puerto Rico from the current level of $10.50 to $13.25. It is my understanding that by an agreement between the Administration and the Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Pedro Rossello, one-sixth of the $2.75 increase in the rum cover over to Puerto Rico will be dedicated to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust, a private, nonprofit section 501(c)(3) organization operating in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico Conservation Trust was created for the protection of natural resources and environmental beauty of Puerto Rico and was established pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico dated December 24, 1968.''

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from Texas for the courtesies he has extended to me. While we have had major policy differences, he has always been a gentleman, he has been fair, he has been honest, and above all he has been sincere. I want to thank Mr. Singleton and the entire majority staff as well as Janice Mays. We have probably one of the best staffs in the House and they have worked hard and they have worked with us. While it is my opinion that we did not accomplish too much in this first year, I look forward to working with the gentleman side by side, hand in hand to see what we can do to restore confidence in the Social Security system, the Medicare system, and see what we can do about prescription drugs.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the former chairman and now ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, my friend and distinguished colleague. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and would just like to say to the chairman that I understand that my signature was expected at midnight last night, and I am sorry I could not be with him, because then the gentleman might have treated me more gently this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that on this last bill, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have worked on together, that we might have found a more bipartisan tone than the one which the gentleman has just expressed today. The gentleman talks about the accomplishments and what has been done for those people that are disabled as though his Democratic colleagues did not join with him to make this bill all that it is. The President presented this to the Congress and we worked together, and I agree that we do have a good bill. There are some things that the gentleman does not talk about, and I expect that there is good reason for it. The gentleman has a delay here for the President's program dealing with transportation network for organ procurements, and the gentleman delays this from going into effect. It is controversial; it has nothing to do with taxes, but somehow the gentleman got that in there. The gentleman has some other bill that came from the other side, a contractor that deals with NOAA. It has nothing to do with taxes or the disabled. And then, when we get involved with taxes, the gentleman talked about a Congress that produces. Well, I had hoped that we would not end on this note; but the last I heard from the majority, they were pulling up the Tax Code by the roots. True, that was 6 years ago, 5 years ago, 4, 3, 2, 1, and continuously counting down. The closest the other side came to even dealing with the Tax Code, as I recall, was a $792 billion tax cut that never even got off the ground. And if we were to just weigh that bill, I hardly believe that even the staunchest conservative Republican would say that it simplified the Tax Code. Now, I would have to agree with the gentleman that on the expiring provisions, the extensions of legislation that is existing law, that the gentleman and I worked together not as a Democrat or a Republican, but we worked together as tax writers, and with the help of the administration we were able to get these provisions paid for. We were able to put it in in a responsible way. We could not stop all of the irresponsible things the other side wanted to do, so some people might want to focus on how the Republicans intend to make electricity out of chicken waste. But the gentleman insisted on the provision, we have it here, and God bless. The gentleman can join the wind and the closed-loop biomass, and if that is the way the other side wants to spend the credits, they are the majority and they can do it. But that is one of the things that we did not want to be associated with. But I agree with the gentleman on the other good provisions. What are they? The extensions of existing law; to say that this Congress will not be irresponsible and allow these provisions to expire without doing the right thing. So what I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is that he has no idea the pleasure it has been working with him on these positive things. And the only reason I stand up to point out some differences with the gentleman is that I would appreciate the gentleman not calling them Republican initiatives. The good ones are the bipartisan initiatives; the bad ones belong to the other side. 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, my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, spoke a great deal about bipartisanship in 1997 and the need for the Congress and the White House to work together. I agree with him, but can we not start with Republicans and Democrats in the House working together? That would be a good beginning. It is almost insulting to take a bill of this importance and then put it on the suspension calendar. This bipartisanship does not start with the Republican leaders and the President of the United States. If it is going to work, it should start right here, with Members of this House having mutual respect for each other, with important bills going through committee, with Members being given the opportunity to amend them, and if the amendment is not worth the majority of the votes then the amendment is defeated. That is how democracy works. That is how this is supposed to work. This suspension calendar is supposed to be for noncontroversial legislation. It is supposed to be that we already agreed on something; that there is no need for amendments, no need for debate. We are restricted to 20 minutes on each side, but what we are talking about is our teaching hospitals. We are talking about making a mistake in 1997 and trying to remedy it by bringing it to the floor so that we could remedy it. No one can deny that lowering the price for prescription drugs for seniors is a very, very important thing. We tried to do this in our committee and we were unable to do it, and this would be the perfect time to find out what the people, Republican and Democrat, liberals and conservatives, would want to do. We are not being given that opportunity, and the gentleman is talking about bipartisan and working with the President of the United States when he is not even working with his Democratic colleagues because we are in the minority. Indeed, the rule that we had in the Committee on Ways and Means was a gag rule to make certain that none of our amendments would ever get an opportunity to pass. I do hope that somewhere along the line, before we adjourn, that we start allowing each other to set the standard for bipartisanship, that we start talking with each other and we do not find just a hand of Republicans, because they have the leadership going in the back room and deciding what is good for the whole House and because they have the votes, putting it on the suspension calendar where Members cannot work their will, and then when it is all over and they find out that they have a train wreck on their hands they are going to ask the President of the United States to work with them. They did not ask the President to work with them when they went into the Social Security trust funds. They did not ask the President to work with them when they came up with a $792 billion tax cut, but when they work themselves into a corner and they cannot get out of the box, then they have to call for bipartisanship. Bipartisanship starts now and it starts today, and it should not be put in a bill like this on the suspension calendar. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be divided equally between the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the Committee on Commerce.