Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think the whole country now knows the substance of the bipartisan bill, the Norwood-Dingell patients' rights bill. I think all over, people are saying that the patients' rights should be determined by physicians and when that does not occur and when there is liability that they should have the right to sue. I think that there are enough people on the other side of the aisle that have decided that this was the right, this was the decent, and this was the moral thing to do. I think that both the majority and minority have come to believe that now the majority of the Members of the House were going to vote on the Norwood-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights, and every editorial indicated it would pass and the President would sign it into law. We wondered what little tricks anyone could come up with; what could they possibly do and what could they pull out of this hat of tricks that they manage to come up with from time to time? They could spread EITC further and not give the poor folks what they are entitled to when they work every day. They could look for the thirteenth and the fourteenth month. They could start determining that everything that came up they could not pay for was an emergency. But we never, never, never thought that they would just pull out of the hat a tax bill that never came out of the tax-writing committee. I say a tax bill that never came out of the tax-writing committee because I am led to believe that the provisions that are in this health access bill came out of the conference the Joint Committee on Taxation had, that is the Republicans had, and that no Democrats were involved in it, except to vote against it. So why would they take a bipartisan bill that Republicans have worked hard on and try to attach this poison pill to it, knowing that it is not paid for? It can be said that it is $9 billion, it is $12 billion; it can be said that it is not $40 billion or $50 billion, but if the President has promised that if it is not paid for he is going to veto it, then I guess the only answer to the senseless, committeeless bills that have come out to the floor from either the Committee on Appropriations or the Committee on Rules is that the majority has decided that it really does not intend to legislate at all. What it intends to do is to send out political statements so that the President of the United States can fulfill his commitment to the American people and to veto those bills that are not funded. It is not fair. It is not fair to do this for a bill that my colleagues know we have the votes to pass in the House of Representatives.

Mr. RANGEL. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

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

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I went before the Committee on Rules to try to get an answer to how the health access bill, which is just as much a tax bill as it is a health bill, how it could possibly get to the Committee on Rules without ever seeing the light of day in the tax writing committee. I know that the Committee on Appropriations can vote on earned-income tax credits, but it has reached the point now on important legislation that the committees of jurisdiction do not even have an opportunity to review the bills. There is one thing that we have appreciated in our committee, unlike the majority on the floor, is that whether someone is a Republican or a Democrat, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has made certain that those bills are paid for. At least he says that he will. Now, by any standard this bill, this package, would cost some $43 billion over 10 years. Somebody said, well, it should not make any difference, we are paying for it anyway. Well, we can use that argument by not investing in education and transportation and research and development. There are a variety of things we can say that we are paying for it anyway. But there is no way in the world to believe that the majority is serious about health access by combining it with the Dingell-Norwood bill. It is clear that when we have a rule like the majority has fashioned today, that for those of us who have worked so hard as Republicans and Democrats, who have tried to work together to get a decent bill, and the fact that so many Republicans have seen the light and walked away from the leadership saying they would rather have a good bill than just good will, that now the majority has done this; they have tried to think of ways just to overthrow this thing. And what did the majority come up with? Did they give us a fair rule where we can debate the issue? No, they had to think of another bill that is unrelated and attach it and to put it in the rule. So that those of us who just want to support Dingell-Norwood would have to support a bill that has never seen our committee.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hope this issue does not come down to Republicans and Democrats, even though normally on things like that, that is the way the votes go. I just cannot believe that people can make a decision on what should be funded as art when they have never even seen what they are talking about. I just do not believe, just because it was a foreigner that did it and thought he was doing something correctly, that we would be so upset that we would attack an entire museum, with all of its exhibits in it, just because inadvertently someone was upset. Now, I was raised as an altar boy, and I am familiar with the Blessed Trinity, and the fact that Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph. While there was the immaculate conception, there were still pictures of the Virgin Mary, and of course, Jesus, in every church and cathedral that I have had a chance to attend. Now, from what I have seen on television, this was an abstract drawing of an overweight African-type cartoon that, with all of my catechism and training, it never would have entered my mind that this was supposed to be the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, notwithstanding what the artist had put on the bottom of it. It never seemed to me that my mayor would be embracing anything like this, with or without the dung, as being what we think the Virgin Mary would look like, since basically we are talking about what a European Virgin Mary would look like as opposed to what an African Virgin Mary would look like. I can understand how people of different cultures would clash, but are we suggesting that every time there is something that we find grotesque or different or odd, or something that we are ignorant about and we do not understand, that we come to the floor and say, cut the funding? Am I supposed to check every library that got a Federal dollar and find some book that I do not understand, Ph.D. or not, and come here and say, I am offended by this, and just because we do not understand it, cut it out? The city council of New York City has someone appointed from the city of New York sitting on this board. They are supposed to decide what exhibits they have and what exhibits they do not have. Clearly, if the mayor wanted to make the Brooklyn Museum a big hit, he sure did. There were lines out in the street. I could not find my way to the Brooklyn Museum of Art before the mayor announced what he did. So if we do not like this grotesque thing, we ought to charge it up to Mayor Giuliani for giving it all this free publicity. There are lines wrapped around the building. They have to get more private funds now because people know where it is. If the National Endowment has thought it was a pretty decent museum, for God's sakes, we do not want to say, because somebody may have made a mistake or someone did not understand what they were doing, that we in the Congress are so sophisticated, so smart, so creative, that we can say, hey, do not fund it. I do not think we would want to do that, and certainly the way the polls look, I do not think the mayor, well, whether he did it for political reasons or not is subjective, but I do not think that he will be the beneficiary of doing it for Catholics, because Catholics really do not believe that politicians set the criteria about what we like and what we do not like, certainly not from the mayor's point of view. So I hope we would reconsider this and not have a party vote on it. I think there are a lot of other things we do not understand that are worse than this.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my dear friend and colleague from California and member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I think we have the wrong forum for this type of resolution. This should be taken up at the Republican Conference, because the President of the United States and the minority here agree with everything that you are saying, and we have been saying it. The previous speaker already has indicated that you already spent the non-Social Security surplus, and, while my Democratic colleagues do not fully understand the need to bring this on the floor, I understand your calling, and you are saying, Stop me before I kill again. I understand that. But, you see, it has to be the chairman and the subcommittee chairman that hear your message, because they know you are right. But they are so creative that they come up with things that violate the budget caps because they cannot admit that they are going to sooner or later sit down with Democrats and sit down with the President and make certain that we have continuity in government. You just cannot do it by coming to an empty floor saying, Help us to do the right thing. You have to be able to say, Hey, listen. Census is an emergency. We were only joking. We know it comes every 10 years, but we thought the House was sleeping. But Republicans have to say, We don't tolerate it. Emergency home heating for the poorest of the poor, $1.1 billion. You have to send that message to the Republican leadership and say, We don't want that any more. The whole idea of creating a 13th month in order to manipulate an intrusion into the Social Security surplus you are saying is something that you as a Member of Congress will not tolerate, and certainly some of the creative thinking and deciding, which you are using, OMB-CBO, it means what we are going to have to do, Democrats and Republicans, is send a message to the leadership that is it is time for us to come together. You cannot possibly do the things that you want to do and talk about a $92 billion tax cut, unless you talk with Democrats. I know how badly you feel about having to sit down with the President, but, still, we are your colleagues. We want to work with you. But you just cannot come to the floor, make declarations saying, do the right thing, and then go into the Committee on Appropriations and do the wrong thing. So what I am suggesting is that if you can get your leadership to come out, not with a resolution, not with a vote, but just to come to the well of the House and say, How are we going to do this without intrusion on the Social Security surplus; the President says let us repair the Social Security system, let us do the right thing for Medicare, a modest tax cut, and then we will go on.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before we hear from our next Speaker on this subject, I would like to reiterate that if the Republicans are so outraged about this veto, I hope when the arguments are closed that they will explain to the American people, and some of the young students of the Constitution, why they are forfeiting their right to override the veto. When we do not like what a President has done in terms of legislation, either we accept it or we override it. I am afraid what we are going to find, however, with this Social Security plan, is that perhaps the money that is going to be used in their plan for Social Security would be the very same money that they would have used for the tax cut. But who knows. I think they are going to spend the rest of the time wondering when the President is going to come forward with a plan. And I think the gentleman from Texas pointed out, it is the Congress that legislates and it is the President that executes. If there is going to be any legislative plan, do not be running around howling at the moon asking for the President's bill. They are part of the majority. They should assume the majority and legislate. Not that they have had a great history for it so far this session. But maybe they should try it. They might like it. It may work. Something may happen. But I cannot think of anything that has been done to give any evidence that they have appeared to lead. They did not lead in the tax bill, they did not lead in Social Security, they do not lead in Medicare, they do not lead in a patient's bill of rights, they do not lead in gun safety, and they do not lead in education. So I do not know how much time they have to close, but I will be glad to yield some time to them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) to deal specifically with the question of Social Security.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans really thought that the President's veto was outrageous and they really thought that their $792 billion tax cut made a lot of sense, why would they not demonstrate this by moving to override the President's veto?

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I can understand how so many Members want to deal with the President's right to grant clemency or his trips to Africa, but I wish they would put their outrage and emotion to override the veto. Other than that, then I think what they are saying is either they have not got the votes, or they agree with the President. 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts 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), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has the right and obligation to veto any bill that an abusive Congress sends to his desk if he or she believes that the bill, the legislation, is not in the interest of the American people. The President of the United States has reviewed this piece of Republican legislation and has vetoed the bill. Now, the Congress on the other hand, has the opportunity to override the veto. All they have to do is to indicate that they think the President is wrong and then ask for a vote and override the veto. Now, the Republican majority obviously do not want a vote to override the veto. They would like to make a comment or two but they want to avoid having a debate on the floor and exercising their constitutional right to say that the President is wrong. Now, why would they use this political or legislative tactic? One, it could be that they believe the President is right and they do not want a vote on this because they have changed their mind. They recognize the legislation was abusive. They went home. They tried to sell it to the American people, and the American people said they do not want it. Or maybe it is two. Maybe they just counted the votes, and they found out that all of the Republicans really do not believe in this political rhetoric, so they do not have the votes to override the President. Maybe that is one of the reasons why they are not exercising their constitutional right. Mr. Speaker, I really think that the reason that they do not want the override is because they never intended to have a legislative package. Why would they have worked so hard in the vineyards for a whole day among just Republicans in putting together this enormous $792 billion tax cut and not send it to the President? Why did they carry this bill throughout the hills and valleys of their congressional districts to try to sell this political document? What they were saying is, we cannot vote for anything in the Congress. We do not have the ability to get a bill out for Social Security. We cannot get a bill out for Medicare, not for prescription drugs, not for patients' rights, not for school construction, not for gun safety. Listen, we just do not know how to shoot straight. But there is one thing we can say that we want to do and that is reduce your taxes. So, Mr. President, please veto the bill so that we can go home and say that you were the one that knocked down the Christmas tree that we put together in the House Republican leadership and the Senate Republican leadership. All I am saying is this: Either you believe in the President by not wanting to override the veto, either you do not have the votes to override the veto, or either you do not believe in this document that you put together anyway. Meanwhile, we will await to see what you want to do. We are here, and we are not in the majority; and we laud your efforts to attempt to convince the American people that you are right. But believe me, the American people want legislation, they want it on the floor, and they want votes. If you do not like what the President did, for God's sake, show it, and let us get a vote and let us try to override. If you do like what he has done, but you do not have the guts to say that he has it right, sit there, let the hour pass, and then we will move on to something else. I hope it is Social Security. I hope it is Medicare. I hope it is prescription drugs, but then again, I hope for too much from the majority party. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that during the week of July 12 through 16, the Congress was privileged to have a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Gabon visit with members of both the House and Senate. The delegation was headed by President Guy Nzouba-Ndama and included members of the opposition party. It was the hope of this delegation that this visit would strengthen their understanding of democracy and political leadership in the U.S. and strengthen ties between their National Assembly and our Congress. It is by coincidence that the delegation was here in Washington during our consideration of the Africa Trade Bill. As many members suggested during the debate on this legislation, it's time that we take another look at our policies toward Africa. The Republic of Gabon is a good example of the changes occurring across Africa. The Republic of Gabon achieved its independence in 1960 and became a democratic republic with three branches of government; the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. President Omar Bongo became the leader of Gabon following the death of President Leon Mba, Gabon's first president, in 1963 and has served as President since that time. After the 1993 election, political parties supporting the President and the major opposition parties negotiated the ``Paris Accords'' in October 1994. These agreements included reforms to amend electoral procedures, inclusion of opposition leaders in government, and assurances of greater respect for human rights. In July 1995, the Paris Accords were approved by a national referendum. President Bongo was reelected to a seven-year term in December of 1998. The National Assembly of Gabon is composed of 120 members and is elected by direct popular vote to serve a five-year term. The first multiparty elections were held in 1991 and the former ruling party, the Gabonese Democratic Party (GDP), retained a large majority in the National Assembly. In the 1996 elections, the PDG secured 100 of the 120 seats. The Senate's 91 members were last elected in 1997. The Gabonese government and its leadership have taken important strides in implementing a populist democracy. Gabon is also fortunate to have a high level of prosperity and is developing an expanded middle class. President Bongo, with the assistance and cooperation of legislative leaders, is taking strides to increase economic opportunity for the Gabonese people by privatizing state-owned industries and improving the countries infrastructure. We support the efforts the Gabonese government and its leadership has undertaken to increase their knowledge of the democratic process as practiced in the United States. We also encourage the Gabonese political leadership to continue its positive strides and understand that true democracy does not occur overnight. We also understand that an expanded middle class and economic development are important elements of a vibrant democracy. I look forward to building and expanding our nation's ties to Gabon. We should do everything in our power to ensure this nation's continued growth.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today along with approximately 20 other Members, I am introducing legislation entitled the ``New Markets Tax Credit Act of 1999.'' The legislation is designed to spur $6 billion of private sector equity investments in businesses located in low- and moderate-income rural and urban communities. We should all be pleased with the economic growth that this country is experiencing. However, our current economic boom is not being enjoyed by all areas of the country. Many urban and rural low-income communities continue to have severe economic problems. Businesses in those areas often do not have access to the capital they need to grow and provide job opportunities for the residents of those areas. The residents of those areas lack access to basic businesses, such as grocery stores and other retail facilities, that all the rest of us take for granted. Unfortunately, business investment capital tends to flow to those areas of our country that already are experiencing rapid economic growth. We need to develop policies to direct some of that business capital to low-income communities. I believe that targeted tax credits can play an important role in this area by enhancing the economic return to the investor. The low-income housing tax credit is a very good example of how targeted tax credits can direct capital to needed investments. I am very pleased that the President's budget contains several proposals to promote efforts to attract business capital to low-income areas. The bill that we are introducing today is the tax portion of the President's proposal. He also has made other proposals designed to promote growth in emerging markets in this country, just as this Nation, through entities like the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, helps to promote growth in emerging markets overseas. The President's budget proposals this year are a continuation of the efforts of this administration in community development. I am very pleased that we have been able to enact several important community development tax initiatives with the President's support. The Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community tax incentives and the brownfields tax incentives are important tools in assisting community development. I believe that the bill we are introducing today is another important tool needed to expand economic opportunity to all areas of this country. I look forward to working with the President and Members of this House and the Senate in enacting this important initiative. Following is a brief description of the bill: Description of the New Markets Tax Credit Proposal The bill provides an annual nonrefundable credit to taxpayers who make qualified investments in selected community development entities. The amount of the annual credit is 6 percent of the amount of the investment and it is allowed for the taxable year in which the investment is made and the succeeding four taxable years. The credit is allowed to the taxpayer who made the original investment and to subsequent purchasers. An investment in a community development entity would be eligible for the credit only if the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the entity is a qualified community development entity and only if the entity uses the money it receives to make investments in active businesses in low- income communities. Low-income communities are communities with poverty rates of at least 20 percent or with median family income which does not exceed 80 percent of the statewide median family income (or in the case of urban areas, 80 percent of the greater of the metropolitan area median income or statewide median family income). The Secretary of the Treasury would certify entities as being qualified community development entities if their primary mission is serving or providing investment capital to low-income communities and they maintain accountability to residents of the communities in which they make their investments. The amount of investments eligible for the credit is limited to $1.2 billion for each of the years 2000 through 2004. The Secretary would allocate that limitation among the qualified community development entities.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit this bill to the conference, hoping that Democrats this time might be included so we can clean up this bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.