Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House and privileged to serve for a long time. I have seen a lot of political things, but I have never seen a sham like the one that we are trying to pull on the American people today. There is not a Republican in this House of Representatives that can look their constituent in the eye and say that this bill is going to become law. There is not a Republican in this House or in the other House on the other side that would be able to say that there is an economist that they can find any place in the United States that says we can spend the same money four different ways. If we were talking about a $4 trillion tax cut and an $800 billion tax cut to go into effect in the next decade, one would think, with a five-vote margin, one would reach out to some of the Democrats, some of the Democratic leaders. Maybe one might even talk to a Democrat or two on the tax writing committee. But this has nothing to do with tax writing. That is why my colleagues had the Majority Whip there, not the tax writing people. I feel sorry for a lot of Republicans who were not able to get involved in it. But fear not, because, instead of their involvement, the lobbyists did the job for them. What this is, really, is a rule to have Christmas in August. It is a wish list so that every contributor that one can find listed in the FEC will get a promise that maybe one day if they keep the majority they can keep these things away. Because my colleagues know in their heart of hearts that the President and the American people are too responsible to let this happen. So they have a freebie. They got your Christmas list, and they know it never, never, never will become law. But it would seem to me that now is the time to be bipartisan. Once my colleagues know this thing is going to be vetoed, at least have a small tax bill that they think that they would be able to work with. But just listen to this, because I want to listen to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) from the Committee on Rules, late into the night, the Republicans give away as much as they can to the other body to see that they can get 51 votes so that they can at least pass it. With all of this rush, one would believe that they are rushing the bill to the White House. That is the process: House, Senate, conference, White House. Oh, no. They want this bill to turn slowly in the wind at every Republican fund-raiser around the country and to be able to say, ``You see, we even turn chicken manure into electricity. It only costs $500 million. But in our bill, we are the only party to take care of chicken manure for the chicken farmers so that we can get a great charge out of it.'' I tell my colleagues this.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 58, which disapproves of the President's determination to waive the Jackson-Vanik Freedom of Immigration Requirements for Vietnam. This resolution, if passed, would preclude Vietnam from participating in United States trade financing programs, such as those sponsored by the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, and agricultural credit programs under the United States Department of Agriculture. At a broader level, passage of this resolution would seriously undermine the progress in United States-Vietnam relations made in the last 10 years. Since the late 1980s, Vietnam has shown an increasing commitment towards reengaging with the United States, evidenced by greater cooperation with the POW-MIA accounting and on immigration issues. As a result of this progress, beginning in 1992, the United States has gradually normalized relations with Vietnam. This normalization process helped to keep Vietnam on track with its reforms and has resulted in greater cooperation on the POW-MIA accounting efforts, immigration, and economic reform. Most recently, the administration announced that it reached a tentative bilateral commercial agreement with Vietnam. Clearly, our policy of engagement is helping to create a change in that society. Ending engagement at this juncture will end our ability to shape the pace and the direction of this change, including undercutting our ability to promote democratic reform. In fact, as we have seen in our failed policy toward Cuba, a policy of isolation does little to promote the values which we care so much about. A policy of isolation, as we have seen in Cuba, only serves to separate people and prevents us from sharing our ideals and our beliefs. I recognize that our history of Vietnam is a troubled one. The scars of the past run deep, and we can never forget those who sacrificed their lives in service to their country. However, isolating Vietnam will not heal those scars. Perhaps no one can speak more authoritatively on that issue than one of our former colleagues, Pete Peterson. Pete Peterson was shot down flying his 67th mission during the Vietnam War and spent 6\1/2\ years as a prisoner of war. After serving 6 years with us in the House of Representatives, Pete Peterson returned to Vietnam, this time as the first United States ambassador since the Communist takeover. It is Ambassador Peterson's remarkable optimism about the changes going on in Vietnam that I believe sheds the greatest light on what our policy toward Vietnam should be. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and that he be permitted to allocate that time as he sees fit.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would have to agree that the gentleman from Florida is clever, and I do hope we can use his ingenuity as relates to the interstate sale of guns. Because, clearly, we ought to have as much concern about these dangerous weapons as we do about our children consuming wine. Now, in the old days, when I was a kid, kids did not wait 2, 3, 4 days in order to get wine. They used to get outside the liquor store and get someone to go there and buy wine for them. So if they are clever enough to use the Internet to do it, I do not really think that this law is going to catch too many of them. It seems to me, coming from a State that has wineries, that we have a major problem here, and that is whether or not some of my Republican friends want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want to be able to have as much competition in this great Republic of ours that we can. I do not think it can be challenged that we have some 1700 small wineries that are unable to penetrate the larger distributors that we have in this country. They have fine products, but they do not have the money and the know-how to get it into the stores. Finally, technology has given them the opportunity to break through these barriers and to be able to sell their products, subject to State law. Now, we know that one of the things that Congress wants to do is to get government out of the lives of people, especially the Federal Government, and we do not have a lot of attorneys general pleading, knocking down our doors and saying, for God's sake come in here and provide oversight for us. If we are going to start doing this with wine, there is no reason why we do not start controlling competition in books and recordings and in clothing, and taking away the very same technology that is pumping up our economy and allowing people to be able to get their wares to the marketplace.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Very good. I understand. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, I guess that makes sense. But what I am trying to do is to find out whether or not my colleague intends to be the last speaker before I close the debate. Because I have half a dozen people here and I just want to know, with the time being what it is, I have 8 minutes and my colleague has 11, I do not know how to space it.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) to close the debate on the motion to instruct the conferees.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). (Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that does not sound fair. Let me say this. Would the chairman want me to have all of the Democrats speak and then close the argument debate?

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have so many speakers, perhaps the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means might yield some time to us so that we could allow the Members to speak out.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that Herbert Hoover is still alive and Herbert Hoover is well. The same accusations that were made against President Franklin Roosevelt for the Social Security System we hear today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) making this so personal in sharing the happiness of Shelly and Shad Callahan, and I would like to wish them well. But if they are really looking for a simplification from what is going on in the House and Senate conference, they are in for a nightmare. 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 California (Mr. Matsui).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, few people in the country and a lot of people in the House of Representatives are unaware as to what this procedure is in terms of going to conference. Civics 101 would dictate that the House and Senate conferees are trying to come out in a conference in working out their differences so that we can send a tax cut bill to the President of the United States for his consideration so that it would become law. Yet, Mr. Speaker, nobody in the House or the Senate, no Democrats or Republicans, truly believe that anybody believes the President is going to sign such a bill. This thing rushed through the Committee on Ways and Means in 1 day. And why? Because it was already prepackaged. We already had an offer from the majority that we had to refuse. A similar thing occurred in the Senate. So this evening we meet for the first time. Do we really meet to work out our differences in order to have a tax cut bill? No. We meet to see how Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate can fashion a bill to such an extent that they know that the President of the United States will have to veto it. And so instead of talking as legislators, instead of talking as tax writers, we are having a political meeting to determine the campaign for the year 2000. Chairman Greenspan had indicated that he thought it would be best for the economy for us just to take a deep breath, to do nothing. To just allow hundreds of billions of dollars to pay down our national debt, to give a tax cut for everybody by reducing the interest for everybody. And then we say that after we take a look at this objective suggestion by Chairman Greenspan, we should do what every responsible citizen would want us to do, and that is to find out how much money do we owe? How much money do we have? And why not pay off some of this debt before we move forward? The Republicans would suggest, oh, my God, we have to return this money to the taxpayers because if we do not, we will spend it. Well, I know it is a very small majority that they have, but they still are the majority. They still are the leaders. And unless we have an implosion, unless we have an exodus, it seems as though they will have the majority at least until the year 2000. So what are they afraid of if they are the ones that are in control of the spending? So we just hope that the motion to instruct the conferees is save Social Security, save Medicare, and let the conference say we do not need a political statement, but we are going to come back together, send this bill quickly to the President to get the veto that you are begging for, and then we will not have to debate throughout August what the tax bill would have been, but we can work together not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but Members of the House and Senate to say to America we fixed the Social Security system, we fixed the Medicare system, we fixed the prescription drugs that are so necessary for our senior citizens. Now we will review and see what in the responsible way we can do to reduce the tax burdens on all of America and not just the richest among us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It really puts a damper on American entrepreneurship as we try to transfer technology to the least developed countries that we have in the world. Recently, this House passed the African Growth and Opportunity bill. It was not just out of compassion that we did it, but we wanted to make certain that we have people that are able to be able to be productive, to have disposable income, to have jobs, to have dignity, and not to be looking for welfare and to be looking for foreign assistance. What OPIC does is encourage private investment to have partnerships so that we are able to say that all over the world, especially in developing nations, that our great Republic will be able to have meaningful commercial trade relations. I have been to Africa. I have been there with Eximbank. I have been there with OPIC. I have been there with the State Department. Believe me, OPIC really encourages foreign investment, and we need it now more than ever.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending normal trade relations status to China for another year. I oppose this resolution and call upon my colleagues to vote against it. As events over the past week have shown, the human rights situation in China needs to improve. Increased respect for human rights must be accompanied by political and democratic reforms. But let us not forget that our own country's record on certain human rights issues is less than perfect, as has been noted by such organizations as Amnesty International. Over 1.8 million Americans are in jail, most of them for non-violent crimes and many of them--and this is not an accident-- coming from our country's worst schools. Given our own record, we should avoid hypocrisy in our insistent demands for reform in China. Rather, we should be pragmatic in our efforts and pursue a productive engagement with Chinese society. The only way we can convey our values to other countries is to have a presence there, and to let them see who we are and how we succeed in having a better life. That means that along the way we must also raise our own country's standards and expectations so that we can show by example. Entering the next century, the United States is experiencing a remarkable economic boom. However, as we work to maintain our technological leadership and the growth of 21st century jobs, we should also keep in mind the jobs lost to many of those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum. We must do much more to assist those who need skills and training in order to get new, better-paying jobs, and we must ensure full and real opportunities for all the children in our country. That is central to our task so that we can be a beacon to China and the world and use our policy of engagement to its fullest. The question before us today is what are the best and most appropriate means to achieve our goals. The most effective way to bring about improvements in human rights and political and religious freedoms in China is through continued engagement with the Chinese government and increased contacts with the Chinese people about our way of life. Withdrawal and ceasing to do business with China by removal of NTR status will harm, not improve, the situation. We must also remember that history has shown that using trade as a weapon can work only if there is a consensus among our trading partners that we will work collectively and apply similar policies. I led the fight on trade with South Africa, but the effectiveness of that effort depended on the participation of numerous other countries. By contrast, in the case of our embargo against Cuba, we stand alone. The failure of this outdated and misguided policy has proven that our unilateral trade sanctions do nothing to advance our objectives and only give our foreign competitors an advantage. Too many other countries are ready and willing to fill the vacuum we would leave in the huge Chinese market as a consequence of withdrawal of NTR status. We would merely lose exports and the jobs they create. As also shown by our experience with Cuba, punishing a country through trade does not help the cause of democracy or promote fundamental freedoms. Isolationist policies do not promote the free exchange of ideas. Isolationist policies do not bring leaders to the negotiating table. What isolationist policies do is further separate people. We should also not forget that the benefits of trade--of engaging fully in the global marketplace, including through trade with China-- are considerable for our country. Jobs supported by exports pay 13 percent more than the average U.S. job, and the number of export- related jobs in the U.S. grew four times faster than overall private job growth from 1986-1994. U.S. exports to China have almost tripled since 1990, increasing steadily in nearly every year, and trade with China supports over 200,000 export-related jobs. Market access provisions in a WTO accession agreement with China would further open Chinese markets to U.S. products and services. The United States must not withdraw from the world economy of the next century--a world economy that will be built increasingly on trade, trade and more trade. Our country's economic future will largely rest on educating and training our young people for the world economy of the 21st century--not by turning away from the reality of trade's benefits. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no to this resolution. Continuing dialogue and interchange with China, I truly believe, is the more rationale and better course of action than terminating the discussion.