Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to infer that he wanted to bend the Constitution so badly that we would suffer from it now and in the future. But in the period of time that we are living today, where terrorism is actually a threat to our everyday life, I cannot imagine that we would apply to a court in order to find out how we can keep some of these bums out of our country or to keep them from destroying our property and our lives. I take this war on drugs pretty seriously. We have lost lives not only to drug addiction but to our prison system. There is no question in my mind that most Americans believe if we wanted to stop this that we can but that big dollars prevent us from doing it. We go all over the world telling other countries that they really are not going after their drug traffickers, they will not extradite, they will not put them in jail, they will not do anything. Now is the time for us to do something. Now is the time to bring the best minds that we have in the United States, those who have the constitutional mandate to protect the American citizens. Obviously, the President has overlooked this legislation, the Judiciary has overlooked the legislation, and they feel that we stand on sound constitutional ground. But the whole idea that we cannot protect ourselves against those people who use our system, who infringe upon our rights to bring this poison into the United States, who threaten our national security, who have 2 million people locked up, at least over half of them for drug-related crimes, it seems to me that we are yielding to legal questions rather than questions that in times of war we find answers to. So I think this is a giant step forward. And if there are problems with it, I hope they come back to this House and to the Congress so that we can deal with it. But I think the mere fact that we are going to pass this law sends a message to the foreign drug traffickers.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in the Congress for close to 3 decades. I have heard more presidents declare war against drugs, and the results really have been declaring war against young people. If we were to take a look at the results of this war, we will find that we have about 2 million young people locked up in jail. Most all of these people come from minority communities that have been addicted to drugs, they have been arrested and, in most cases, have had mandatory sentences, where judges do not even consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of the law. These are not drug traffickers or kingpins or people that we were supposed to declare war against. And more often than not, we find that the public school systems located in the areas where we find the most arrests are systems that are not providing education to these people. Is it right? Is it legal? Of course not. Should it be dealt with? Of course it should. But the war that has not been declared is the war against those people that manipulate our republic, that manipulate the bank system, that are able to do these things because they have the funds and they do not end up in jail. It seems to me that what this legislation says, which I am an original sponsor of, is that we are going to declare war against those people that not only violate our law but are a threat to our national security. When before have we heard that we are reaching out for the strong resources of these United States, the President, the Justice Department, which includes the FBI, and we are talking about the CIA and all of the forces that are supposed to protect the United States of America, to get to the people, like terrorists, who do not deserve the support of the United States Constitution? We are asking the President to declare war, to bring in the Department of Defense, and not to allow people to use our system in order to bring the poison into the United States where weak people and untrained people become the ultimate person that is being destroyed. We see right now that we are building more jails than we are schools, and State legislatures all over the country are fighting for prisons to be located in their rural districts rather than support for farmers. And what we are seeing right now is that international drug traffickers who use our banks, who use our systems are a threat to our system. Now, we can get some people who want to find out what their constitutional rights are, but I tell my colleagues this, it just seems to me that we should not just concentrate on those who violate the laws on our streets and are arrested in the streets, but those who violate our national law and the international law. The people that we find doing the 5 and the 10 and the 20 and the 30 years are not the people who are banking and financing the drug trafficking in this country. They do not grow the drugs, they do not manufacture the drugs, they do not process the drugs, they do not use our banking system. They are guilty. They are guilty of using the drugs and selling the drugs in order to maintain their habits, and they should go to jail. But that should not be the direction in which we have our national drug policy. We should go after the worst of the lot; those who are sober, those who have clear thinking, those who have no regard at all for their fellow man, those that use the system, make the money, hire the lawyers and manipulate the United States of America. I hope what this means is when the President declares war, he is bringing all of the people that have the intelligence, that have the power to take these people, take their assets, and let them know, ``Not in our country can they do that.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we approach consideration by the U.S. Senate of legislation to build a stronger trading and commercial relationship between the United States and the nations of the Caribbean Basin and Africa, it is good to be reminded by the leadership of the affected nations how critical this legislation is to their economic growth and development, while simultaneously aiding the United States by strengthening our export markets and creating new jobs. The new President of El Salvador, Francisco Flores, wrote a persuasive opinion editorial which was published in the Journal of Commerce on Tuesday, October 19, 1999. He rightfully concludes, after analyzing the beneficial impact of the Caribbean Basin Initiative upon the Caribbean Basin since its enactment 16 years ago, that the trade and commercial relationship between the region and the United States is critical, even essential, to economic development and growth in the nations of the region and is a prerequisite to political and social stability in the region. President Flores says ``The enactment of CBI is the single most important thing that the United States can do to assist in the long-term development of Central America and the Caribbean region.'' I am pleased to submit President Flores' editorial for the Record. The Case for Caribbean Trade Enhancement (by Francisco Flores) As early as this week, it is anticipated that the Senate will vote on passage of trade enhancement for the Caribbean Basin. This legislation has been pending before the U.S. Congress for five years. Last month, the presidents of Central American countries, along with the president of the Dominican Republic and the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, visited Washington to advocate the passage of Caribbean Basin Initiative enhancement legislation. We decided to visit Washington to meet with the U.S. government because enhanced trade with the United States has become critical to the region's ability to promote economic growth and maintain social and political stability. As a region, we are urging Congress to approve legislation that enhances trade benefits to the CBI nations, so that regional exports that are currently excluded under CBI are able to enjoy quota-free and duty-free access to the U.S. market. In simple terms, we are requesting that the trade playing field be leveled so that we can help ourselves. We regard CBI enhancement legislation as a stepping stone to the negotiation of a free-trade agreement between Central America and the United States. Enhanced trade will create an expansion of economic opportunities that are urgently needed to preserve our region's stability by creating employment and encouraging international and domestic investment. Conversely, a lack of trade benefits will postpone the prosperity of our region, and our democratic institutions could be threatened if governments fail to meet the expectations of the people. An expansion of economic opportunities between the United States and Central America would provide an incentive to prevent Central Americans from emigrating outside the region to seek better jobs and living conditions. Hence, free trade will also constitute the best prevention policy against uncontrolled migration from the region that the United States can implement. Enhanced trade between the United States and the region will also strengthen the positive trend that we have seen in trade between our two areas during the past decade. U.S. exports to the CBI countries--among which exports to Central America are predominent--have more than doubled since 1989, going from $9 billion to $22.1 billion, creating almost 125,000 jobs in the United States. CBI enhancement legislation will increase the region's purchasing power for all types of goods and services produced in the United States. For each dollar exported to the rest of the world by the CBI countries, approximately 75 cents is imported in products from the United States. In marginal terms for each additional dollar in the CBI region's gross domestic product, 44 cents are imported from the United States. Finally, enhanced trade opportunities for the region will bring a win-win situation for U.S. and Central American businesses. Enhanced trade will benefit industries such as textiles and maquilas that have contributed to our economic dynamism. In addition, it will provide flexibility to U.S. industries, permitting them to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive marketplace. In the area of textiles and apparel, extending CBI benefits to vertically integrated apparel production provides the region the best vehicle for attracting investment and creating jobs. We will not be able to compete with Asia and Mexico if we are relegated to a ``cut and sew'' operation. In our view, therefore, meaningful CBI enhancement legislation should include: Tariff treatment equivalent to the North American Free Trade Agreement to products currently excluded from CBI. In the case of sugar, CBI enhancement legislation should include provisions to monitor the effect of NAFTA on CBI countries' sugar access to the US preferential market, and if adverse, to take actions to ameliorate such effects. Quota-free and duty-free treatment for originating textile and apparel products that comply with the ``yarn-forward'' rule of origin, including 807-A and 809 programs and those made with regional fabrics formed with regional yarns. The enactment of CBI is the single most important thing the United States can do to assist on the long-term development of Central America and the Caribbean region. It is our hope that the Senate will move swiftly to pass CBI enhancement legislation, and that the House and Senate conferees will work to provide the most comprehensive and meaningful trade package for the region.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it would be very sad if the majority did not understand their responsibility. I am going to try to run this by just one time because the gentleman who just got finished speaking said the mule and the horse are working against each other. The majority sets the agenda. The majority sets the budget. The majority sets the spending level. The majority sets the amount of taxes that are going to be made there. So I do not know why we need to have a resolution because would they be changing anything in their resolution that if they were going to say that expressing the sense of Congress that the Republican majority should not increase federal taxes? The Republican majority should not fund additional government spending. The congressional Republican majority for some reason omits now cigarette taxes or whatever they are going to do. Just put in there ``majority,'' and then we would know what we are voting for because everyone agrees with them. It is just that this is not the process that we control taxes and spending, by using the suspension calendar. If they want to say, let the committees do it, then do it. My God, they did not ask for help on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We had to pull teeth to get some votes out of them where the minority provided the leadership. They did not ask for help in cutting back the number of teachers the President requested and the number of policemen. They sure did not ask for help when they decided they wanted to cut taxes by $792 billion, and they are asking for help by having a continuing resolution, and I assume they will be running down to the White House trying to get some help from the President of the United States. All I am suggesting is: If they got the majority, they do not come to the floor and say it is a sense of Congress, they do it. They set the authorization, they set the spending and they set the taxes. So, if it makes them feel better in coming here with sense of Congresses, we are going to help them. We are going to support it, and we are going to say we all do not want Federal increases in spending, and we do not want increases in taxes and we will have prescription drugs even if we, as the minority, have to provide the leadership for our aged and for our sick people, and we will pay for it, Mr. Speaker, but we believe in legislating and not just bringing something up on the suspension calendar. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I have offended anybody, then I apologize. I just would want to say that it is extremely frustrating for a legislator to come to this floor and to believe that we can decrease, or not increase, Federal taxes or not have additional spending by putting a bill on the suspension calendar. It is frustrating to see that the tax writing committee is not dealing with taxes, the appropriating committee is not dealing with bills, but that the Committee on Rules is still pushing out bills under suspension. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the tax writing committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the tax writing committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is stupid. An issue like this should either be brought to the floor by leadership for discussion, or someone ought to take a course in Economics 101. Now, I know the difficulty it is to count when they are trying to put together a budget. It is something like what is, is; and how many months in a year; and what is an emergency. I know the difficulty they are having. But it cannot be so bad that they are going to make a mockery out of the entire legislative process by asking this floor to feel good by saying that we are not going to raise Federal taxes in order to fund additional Government spending. There are only three things to do if they are going to spend. If they are going to have additional spending, for whatever purpose, they have to go to the majority. Now, I know it does not feel comfortable being in the majority, but they are the majority. They are the leadership. And so, they have to find out what they want to spend. And I guess they would go to the Committee on Appropriations. But we do not spend here in the minority. Majority spends. So what is the solution? The solution is that they either increase taxes, which the resolution they are dictating to the Speaker and to the Republican leadership that they cannot do that, they go into the Social Security Trust Fund. And then they put on commercials on TV that they are not doing that, even though the Congressional Budget Office says that they are. Or the third thing that they do is come to the floor and say, I never put my hand in the cookie jar in the first place. This is no way to deal with the problems that we face as a Nation. We do not come on the House of Representatives floor with a sense of Congress. We legislate in this House. We send these issues to the respective committees. We have hearings. And we do something about it. If, on the other hand, they are in a continuous resolution mode and they are not involved anymore in legislation and they just want the President to be their partner so that the Government does not close down, then go to the White House and tell him what to put in the bill. Because clearly, the President is going to have issues in the omnibus bill that has never come out of the committees that have been set up in this Congress. So I know maybe they want to have something to vote on. And who knows, maybe the public really thinks this is on the level. Maybe they really think that we are coming down here voting against Federal taxes. Normally they wait until April 15 to do something this stupid. But, no, now they are saying here on the brink of the Government about to close down because of the inability to pass the appropriations bills that they are going to take the Suspension Calendar, which says that it is noncontroversial, and then we are going to mandate and see who has the nerve to vote against something which says that we are not going to have an increase in Federal taxes. Do my colleagues not know that, if we could do this, nobody in the United States would ever have to pay taxes? We should have 435 Members on the floor every day passing resolutions that we do not need any taxes. We can pull up the Code by its roots, just pass the resolution. We can stop spending tomorrow. Pass a resolution. But one thing they will not do, they will not come up with any concrete ideas to cut back spending or any ideas how we can avoid having Social Security be a problem in the future. So, Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that we should be doing, individual minimum tax, increases in minimum wage, even the extensions which are so important to the American people, questions of education, patients' bill of rights, a variety of things. But in lieu of a press release, we are now going to use the Suspension Calendar to say we do not want any further increases in Federal taxes to fund additional Government spending. Mr. Speaker, I want other people to make some type of observations on this historic piece of legislation that has now come before the House of Representatives, even though I wish the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means was here so that we could have an exchange as to how we could deal with these tax issues. But I will deal with the Committee on Rules until we can find out how we are going to do this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I say this with all deference and respect to my dear friend from Illinois, Mr. Speaker. It is not just this one bill that we are talking about. We expect that another tax issue will be coming up on the suspension calendar. If I thought it was just a question of time, I would not resent it.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrent resolution before us today. The ability to engage in commerce over the Internet has revolutionized the way we and the world conduct business. It has integrated and opened markets and spread consumer products, technological and medical advances to the farthest reaches of the Earth. Books and magazines are now a touch away for many of us, no matter where we live. Clearly, it has transformed our economy, and is in the process of transforming the economies of the rest of the world. We need to continue this process and this progress and ensure that e-commerce is allowed to grow and develop. Currently, WTO members have agreed to a moratorium on the imposition of duties on electronic transmissions. That moratorium may be made permanent, as this resolution urges. I would also urge my colleagues in voting for this resolution to consider how we can ensure that more Americans, including our schoolchildren, are positioned to capitalize on the benefits of this new technology-driven global economy. According to this resolution, more than 1 billion people will be using the Internet in the next decade. That 1 billion needs to include the entire United States working and school-age population. In fact, that is an issue I think that we should have addressed in this legislation, had this legislation been brought to the floor in the normal House procedure. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before us today. I do hope that the House leadership would find some way of bringing issues that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means to the committees of jurisdiction so that we can have hearings, we can invite those people that have the responsibility, and handle these in the way that we should. I am afraid that the suspension calendar more and more is being used as a press organ of the majority, rather than the committees that have been structured for this purpose. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to allocate the remainder of the time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the gentleman from Texas for this bipartisan effort to make certain that those people who are disabled can make that transition into the labor market. This is a bill that was cosponsored by all of the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means. It was a bill that has been worked out by Republicans and Democrats not working in a partisan way, but trying to make life easier without losing benefits for those people that suffer disabilities. This, I think, really shows what can happen when people put partisanship behind them and try to work together. This was not a case where the majority was asking for the President to send them a plan, no. It was as legislators they got together and drafted the plan. As we have been able to work out differences on this bill, why can we not do this with Medicare? Why can we not do it with prescription drugs? Why can we not do it with Social Security? Oh, I know we will hear screams that the President really ought to send us something to guide us. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues did not ask the President for any guidance when they decided to enact the $792 billion tax cut, and we did not ask for a whole lot of guidance to come up with this decent piece of legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I say congratulations to Democrats and Republicans for doing the right thing, and I hope this might be just one giant step forward in moving toward resolving the Social Security problem that we have. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) the senior member of the tax writing committee of the Committee on Ways and Means and also a member of the Committee on the Budget, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield blocks of time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I had asked earlier whether this was a tax bill. Having been privileged to serve on the tax writing committee for over 20 years, I was under the impression that revenue bills went to the Committee on Ways and Means. And if we are changing these rules and the revenue bills now come out of the Committee on Rules, there are some Democrats who have revenue bills and they just want to know which committee to go to in order to see how they can get them reported to the floor. Now, it is my understanding that this afternoon the Republican leadership will be meeting with the President of the United States for the purpose of seeing whether or not they can negotiate some solution to the budget problems that the leadership, for lack of a better word, have found themselves with on the other side of the aisle. I cannot possibly see how they think that bringing up a bill for the sole purpose of embarrassing the President can help them in this effort. As I understand this bill, which comes out of the Committee on Rules, they would want to raise $100 billion over a 5-year period and say that these are the President's revenue raises. Well, it seemed to me that if the President did have tobacco taxes and the President did have user taxes and that these were pulled out of a budget that these revenue raises must have been attached to something. In other words, the President must have said that these monies should be used to pay for prescription drugs. The President must have said that this money should be used to improve the quality of our educational system. But no one puts together a budget and talks about raising revenue unless it is for a purpose that has not been legislated. But this is very unusual because a Member of this body has decided that he wants to raise $20 billion a year and then come to the floor and ask the House to vote against this bill. Now, I know and have come to understand why we would want to have 13 months in a year. I have come to understand why we would want to have across-the-board cuts. I have come to understand anything that they want us to understand because they are in the leadership. But I do hope that before this debate is over that they might be able to explain to those American people who are not legislators why, in God's name, they would attempt to say that they want to raise taxes by $20 billion a year, why would they want to attribute to the President of the United States while their leadership is supposed to meet with them, and why is it that they do not want to do anything good in this bill, such as improving the quality of education or paying for prescription drugs. So, Mr. Speaker, I can see why this did not come through the tax writing committee because they do not intend to raise taxes, they just intend to talk about taxes. But no matter what they do, they are going to be remembered for a $792 billion tax bill. If they want to be remembered about taxes, they do not need these little gimmicks, just stick by their guns and say, surplus or not, we still support a tax cut for $792 billion. If they do this, they do not have to go to the suspension calendar, they do not have to go to suspended rules, but they will be remembered for what they want and not just $20 billion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, is this a tax bill?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Bob Matsui and I are introducing legislation to prevent tax avoidance through the device of renouncing one's allegiance to this country. I am pleased that my colleagues Messrs. Gephardt, Bonior, Stark, Coyne, Levin, McDermott, Kleczka, Lewis of Georgia, Neal, McNulty, Doggett, Tierney, Frank of Massachusetts, Brown of Ohio, Luther, and Vento are joining us as cosponsors of this legislation. I understand that our motives for introducing this legislation will be attacked. Therefore, I want to leave no question about why we demand an effective response to the tax avoidance potential of expatriation. Citizenship in this country confers extraordinary benefits. Our citizens are able to enjoy the full range of political and economic freedoms that our government ensures. With the benefits of citizenship comes the responsibility to contribute to the common good. This country is fortunate in that it can depend on the voluntary compliance of its citizens to collect its taxes. In that respect, we are unique in the world. The willingness of our citizens to continue voluntarily to comply with our tax laws is threatened when very wealthy individuals can avoid their responsibility as citizens by turning their backs on this country and walking away with enormous wealth. I reject any suggestion that our bill is a form of class warfare or motivated by class envy. It is true that our bill will affect only very wealthy individuals. Only very wealthy individuals have the resources necessary to live securely outside the borders of this country as expatriates. Closing a loophole that only the extraordinarily wealthy can utilize is not class warfare. It is a matter of fundamental fairness to the rest of our citizens. Opponents of effective reform in this area have gone so far as to suggest that those reforms would be inconsistent with our nation's historic commitment to human rights. I strongly disagree. The individuals affected by the bill are not renouncing their American citizenship because of any fundamental disagreement with our political or economic system. These individuals simply refuse to contribute to the common good in a country where the political and economic system has benefited them enormously. Some opponents have gone so far as to compare the plight of these wealthy expatriates to the plight of the persecuted Jews attempting to flee Russia. That argument is worthy of contempt. Our bill imposes no barrier to departure. Indeed, most expatriates have physically departed from this country before they renounce their citizenship. For reasons that continue to puzzle me, there was bitter partisan dispute in 1995 over this issue. The partisan nature of that debate obscured the fact that there was a genuine bipartisan consensus that tax avoidance by renouncing one's American citizenship should not be tolerated. The dispute during 1995 involved an argument over the appropriate mechanism to be used to address tax-motivated expatriation. The Clinton Administration, the Senate on a bipartisan basis, and the House Democrats all supported legislation that would have imposed an immediate tax on the unrealized appreciation in the value of the expatriate's assets. The House Republicans supported a provision that imposed a tax on the U.S. source income of the expatriate for the 10- year period following expatriation. Armed with revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation that showed their version as raising more money, the House Republicans prevailed and, in 1996, enacted their version of the expatriation legislation. A recent article in Forbes Magazine summarized the effect of the 1996 legislation as follows: ``It ain't workin'.'' Although the law appears to be draconian on its face, there are plenty of loopholes. In the first quarter of 1999 alone, a grandson of J. Paul Getty; a son of the shipping magnate Jacob Stolt-Nielsen; and Joseph J. Bogdanovich, the son of the Star-Kist mogul, took advantage of those loopholes. The article suggests that many other expatriates deliberately have lost citizenship without formally renouncing it, believing that was a simple way to avoid the 1996 Act. The 1996 legislation made several modifications to ineffective prior law expatriation provisions. It eliminated the requirement to show a tax-avoidance motive in most cases and eliminated one simple method of avoiding the rules, involving transfers of U.S. assets to foreign corporations. There were many other ways of avoiding those rules such as delaying gains, monetizing assets without recognition of gains, and investing indirectly through derivatives. Those techniques were left untouched. The 1996 legislation made no serious attempt to prevent the avoidance of the estate and gift taxes, even though expatriation has been described as the ultimate technique in avoiding estate and gift taxes. Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, has approximately $90 billion in assets. If he were to die or transfer those assets to his children by gift, the potential liability would be substantial. If Bill Gates were to expatriate, he could immediately make unlimited gifts in cash to his children without any gift tax liability. If he expatriated ten years before he died, his entire $90 billion stake in Microsoft could be transferred to his heirs with no income tax or estate tax ever being imposed on that accumulation of wealth. Chairman Archer recently sent a letter to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation requesting a study and report on the 1996 expatriation legislation. I welcome that letter as an implicit recognition that the Congress should return to the issue of tax motivated expatriation. However, I believe the time for study has passed. In 1995, the Joint Committee on Taxation issued an unprecedented 140-page report on this issue. The Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation testified at length on this issue in several congressional hearings. Further studies now only will be used as an excuse for delaying action on this issue. That delay will provide a window of opportunity for those considering tax motivated expatriation. It is time for the Members of Congress, not their staff, to make decisions and take action on this issue. Following is a brief summary of my bill. Summary of Bill The bill would impose a tax on the unrealized appreciation in the value of an expatriate's assets. The amount of that tax would be determined as if the expatriate has sold his assets for their fair market value on the date that he expatriates. To the extent that those assets are capital assets, the preferential capital gains tax rates would apply. The bill exempts the first $600,000 ($1.2 million for a married couple) of appreciation from the tax. It also exempts U.S. real property interests and interests in retirement plans. The expatriate would be provided an election to defer the tax with interest until the property is sold. The bill would eliminate the ability to avoid estate and gift taxes through expatriation by imposing a tax on the receipt by U.S. citizens of gifts or bequests from expatriates. The new tax would not apply in circumstances where the gift or bequest was otherwise subject to U.S. estate or gift taxes. In addition, the new tax would be reduced by any foreign estate or gift tax paid on the gift or bequest. The bill would eliminate the ability to expatriate on an informal basis. It would require a formal renunciation of citizenship before an individual could avoid tax as a U.S. citizen. Generally, the bill would apply to individuals formally renouncing their citizenship after the date of action by the Committee on Ways and Means. The provisions designed to prevent avoidance of estate and gift taxes would apply to gifts and bequests received after such date.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to pay tribute to Dr. Dean Ornish, a man who has dedicated his career to building healthier lives. Dr. Ornish is considered by many as the leading authority on the effects of diet and lifestyle on health and well-being. His groundbreaking research has resulted in the discovery that comprehensive changes in diet and lifestyle can reverse even severe coronary heart disease without drugs and surgery. Dr. Ornish has produced valuable research that can empower individuals and build healthier communities. He is a talented, dedicated researcher whose work must not go unappreciated or unnoticed. Dr. Ornish is the founder, president and director of the non-profit Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, where he holds the Bucksbaum Chair. He is Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and a founder of the Center for Integrative Medicine at the university. Dr. Ornish received an M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, was a clinical fellow in medicine at Harvard Medical School and completed his internship and residency in internal medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Dr. Ornish is the author of five best-selling books, including New York Times bestsellers: Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease; Eat More, Weigh Less; and Love & Survival. His research and writings have been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, Circulation, The New England Journal of Medicine, the American Journal of Cardiology, and elsewhere. A one-hour documentary of his work was broadcast on NOVA, the PBS science series, and was featured on Bill Moyers' PBS series, ``Healing & The Mind.'' His work has been featured in virtually all major media; he was on the cover of the March 16, 1998, issue of Newsweek magazine. Dr. Ornish has received several awards, including the 1996 Beckmann Medal from the German Society for Prevention and Rehabilitation of Cardiovascular Diseases, the U.S. Army Surgeon General Medal, and the 1994 Outstanding Young Alumnus Award from the University of Texas, Austin. He is listed in the Dictionary of International Biography, Who's Who in America, and in Men of Achievement. He was recognized as one of the most interesting people of 1995 by People magazine and by LIFE Magazine as one of the 50 most influential members of his generation. Mr. Speaker, I have great admiration for Dr. Dean Ornish. He is truly a remarkable individual whose outstanding research and effective programs have improved the overall quality of life for many people. His proven research on behavior modification has the potential to revolutionize the way modern medicine approaches heart disease. Dr. Ornish's promotion of healthy hearts and healthy lives is an inspiration for all Americans.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) to please explain this resolution.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I continue my reservation only to thank, again, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for facilitating this through the great Committee on the Judiciary and to tell my friends and colleagues that they can join with the close to 70 Members of the House tomorrow, Thursday, as we meet in Statutory Hall at 10:00 on October 14, where we can really say God bless America and the wonderful people that make this country as great as it is. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RANGEL. Continuing to reserve my right to object, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his unanimous consent request and at the same time thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); our majority and minority leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and also to have the resolution amended to make certain that it includes the Pacific Islanders with the Asians. I also, in furthering my reservation, would like to point out for many years my brother, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and former Congressman Frank Guarini have gone around the world. We have been to the Middle East; we have been to Africa; we have been to Europe, and we were all fascinated that no matter what mission we were on for the United States Congress, how blessed and how glad we were to get back to these great United States to see how it has been God's will for over 200 years that people from all of these countries that for whatever reason found themselves here seeking a better way of life. With all of the holidays that we have had, Frank Guarini who now has retired and chairs the Italian American Foundation had put together some 30 organizations of different backgrounds and different cultures with different languages and has made it abundantly clear that if it were not for these people we would not have the great country we have today. So I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for the great role that he has played over the years in bringing people together, but most importantly on making certain that we could fashion something that expresses not my feelings or the feelings of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) but the feelings of most Americans and certainly the representatives in the House

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support of the work that OPIC is doing. It is always an emotional thing when we think that in dealing with foreigners, we are going to lose American jobs. And, coming from a community like mine who still suffers unemployment and underemployment, I would like to spend my time on the floor doing all that I can to encourage investments in my community and similar communities within the United States. But I think we all have come to understand that trade and commerce involves exports and that the exporting industry creates jobs, many in my district. I have had the opportunity to make several trips to sub- Saharan Africa and to work with OPIC and the Ex-Im Bank and American businesses. And so often we hear that with these developing countries that we cannot give them fish, but we have to give them the tools to teach them how to fish. And so many times we see in these developing countries, well, it is not just a question of American businesses getting the protection of OPIC, but it is the question of American businesses being able to export to these American businesses that are located in these countries. I would hope that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) will continue to have enlarged tourist activities in his district. But in order to do this, people have to have jobs, they have to have money, and many of them are able to enjoy tourism here because they have jobs that are here. So there are enough restrictions to show that the investment is not going to be a direct challenge to our manufacturing operation; that is written into the law. But it would seem to me that it would be a terrible thing to put such restrictions on OPIC that those people, and they are people who have the courage to take the risks, to go overseas, that America goes with them as partners and say that we want investment in this part of the world, we want people to be economically independent, we want to make certain that we preserve democracy, because democracy without economic support cannot last that long. So it just seems to me that we can take a deep breath about these things when it involves foreign countries. We say foreign and all of the vital juices fly up. But God knows, I believe that we ought to stamp out communism wherever we find it, yet we find the majority of people here think we should do business with China and with North Vietnam and North Korea, and then we have a little island right out there in the Caribbean. It seems as though we get so upset when we try just to remove the embargo, even though I do not know about Castro trying to do anything to overthrow our government; still, we are very selective when we start getting angry with Communists. But since there are so many other countries that do have democracies and these are the countries that certainly do not cause us political problems, I hope that my friends on this side and the other side of the aisle would find some worthwhile projects where we can say we want to encourage investments in these areas, we want that American flag to be waving with capitalism and investment, and that we want jobs on this side of the ocean as well, which will come as a result of forming these types of economic partnerships. So I just want to say that I want to thank people on both sides of the aisle for putting together a bill that we can say is bipartisan, and let us give OPIC a chance to do the job that they have been created to do. I will be opposing the Rohrabacher amendment, but I certainly will be giving my strong support for the bill.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I understand the problem that my chairman has in not understanding any amendment that preserves the projected surpluses in social security and Medicare. But this is what the President has been saying all along, that we can present bills that are paid for, we can reduce benefits and other things, but the bill has to be amended, amended, amended, amended, paid for, paid for, paid for, paid for; not bust the social security trust fund, not bust the Medicare trust fund. That is all the amendment means. I think we have had enough of partisanship for today. I think it is abundantly clear that the American people want a decent patients' rights bill. That is what they want. That is what Republicans want. That is what Democrats want. We cannot be effective as a body if we truly believe there is a Republican right way to do it or a Democratic right way to do it. The only way we can do it is putting the party labels behind us and sitting down like the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has to put together a bill that is not good for our parties, not good for our elections, but good for those people who need solid health care. That is what we are trying to do. That is why we have a motion to recommit, not to get rid of the bill, but to make certain that we pay for whatever we attach to what is a good bill. We do not know where Members got the access to health care to tax bills, but obviously if there is a little Republican bag of tricks, then come up with some money to pay for these things. That is all we are suggesting. It is just not fair to the American people to see that they have lost the support of their own party on a bill that is good for the American people, and instead of just taking it and working with it and seeing where the next struggle would be for bipartisanship, they had to come up with something that not even the Members of the tax-writing committees have seen. What they have done is to try to poison a good bill. It is not the right thing to do, it is not the fair thing to do, and it should not make Members proud, as Republicans, that they can kill a bill. They have the majority. The real question is, do Members have the determination to work with us so that we can work our will in providing the right thing for the American people? When people talk about a Patients' Bill of Rights, they are not talking about a tax bill, they are talking about something that we have created together with Republicans and Democrats working together. So I do not know why that side would object to the motion to recommit. It gives them the opportunity to be responsible. It gives them the opportunity to review the access to health care through using the tax system. If Members really believe we should use the tax structure, that is, no longer pull it up by the roots, no longer reduce it to the size of a postcard, but put another 30, 40, 50 pages there, which certainly the IRS would say that we would need in order to carry out the bill that Members just pulled up. If Members really want to use the tax code for that purpose, I do not think there would be serious objection on the Democratic side, and not by the President of the United States. But they have to pay for it. This message has been sent out so often that I think the American people understand it a lot better than some of my colleagues on the other side. All it says here is that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Ways and Means. That means that we have to meet as a committee. I know that is difficult, but, Members know, no caucus, but Democrats and Republicans come together and report the same bill out promptly, which means all we have to do is to find ways to pay for this bill. Then we report it back to the floor. Then we can get on with the Patients' Bill of Rights. If Members have no concern about what happens to social security and no concern about what happens to Medicare, then they can say, let us deal with the projected surplus. They can even say, let us do it with smoke and mirrors, whatever makes them feel comfortable. But the whole thing is, let us not bring a bill to this floor and pass it because they have the numbers, only to have the President of the United States veto it. Do not send a bill like this over to the Senate, only to have them pile on whatever they wish to do in terms of loopholes for large corporations and probably donors to their party. In other words, it is not Christmas in September. It is time for us to come together as Members of Congress, cut out the partisanship, and work together as a team.

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