Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the majority has said that if this surplus is not returned to the taxpayers, that the politicians in Washington would surely spend it. I have not heard language like this since it would grab these mad criminals who seem like they want to get caught and they say, ``Stop me before I kill again.'' Who are these politicians in Washington? Who will be spending the money? Now, I know that Republicans have a leadership problem, but still, you have the majority. All we are saying is, take some of this money and pay down the Federal debt. We borrowed the money, and we are asking that you join with us in giving a smaller tax cut and save Medicare and save Social Security. Since when have you been so afraid that the trillion dollars, that one-third of it, two-thirds of it goes to the top 10 percent of the highest paid people in the United States, but what is all this business about you do not trust yourselves, that you have to give it back before you do something crazy and spend it? If you want to have a real tax bill that is going to be signed into law, for openers you try to have it as a bipartisan thing. But if you want a political statement, then God knows that you and the Committee on Rules have worked that out and it has been an ever-changing so- called tax bill. It is hard to know every hour what other changes are being made. And so all we can say is that we may not be on the side of the angels, but we certainly are on the side of Chairman Greenspan who told our committee, who told the Congress, who told the American people, ``If you don't trust the Republican politicians in Washington that they will spend the money, then pay down the debt.'' And he asked that we consider doing that. He also when asked about the 10 percent across- the-board tax cut suggested that we not do this, that it was not in the best interest of our economy and our country. And so whatever you decide to do, it just surprises me that you would have a rule that would make the tax cut conditional on the amount of increase in the interest on our national debt. Now, I know the Committee on Rules are expert in tax law and interest and all those other things. They are expert in everything. But constitutionally the Committee on Ways and Means is the tax-writing committee. And if you cannot do it with Democrats and you cannot do it with Republicans, for God sake, do not turn it over to the Committee on Rules. So if we want to know whether or not the wealthy supporters of your party are going to get an across-the-board tax cut, we cannot even go to the IRS anymore. We have to now go to the Federal Reserve Board Chairman and ask, ``What does it look like for a tax cut for our friends?'' Well, the only thing I can say in justification of doing this in the middle of the night is that I know that you know it is not on the level. I know that this is a salvo for campaign 2000. If my Republican colleagues can live with it; I do not think the American people can. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was about to challenge the figures that the gentleman from Oklahoma was citing and substitute it with the figures from the Joint Committee on Taxation, but now that I see that he is using cartoons to make his point, I assume he is using the comics for his statistics. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid the full reading of the rule, my parliamentary inquiry is that are there any provisions in this rule that restricts the tax cut from taking place based on the amount of the debt, the Federal debt? That is my only question?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to renew her request. Because my reserving the right to object is only to find out whether or not someplace in the rule is the provision that I made inquiry of the Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what they put in the water over there in the Republican cloakroom, but it cannot be that they really think that we are going through a legitimate procedure on this floor tonight with this rule. It is bad enough that the Committee on Ways and Means got the bill already drafted when we got there. I was not disappointed, because my Republican colleagues did not know about the bill anyway. I was hoping that it had come from the Speaker's office, but he did not know about it. And so 2 days later they are still working on it. And I would have hoped that perhaps someone might come and share with us. Not with a meeting, that would be too constitutional, but certainly with just a flyer to say what is in the bill. But, surprise, It is now the Committee on Rules that writes the tax bill. Because in the middle of the night, while they said that we could go on recess and trust them, they went to the Committee on Rules. And in the rule it is Greenspan that determines whether or not there is a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut. I cannot believe it. Whether or not there is going to be a 10 percent tax cut is going to be determined by whether or not there is a debt increase. And who determines the debt increase? The Congress? The Committee on Ways and Means? The Speaker? Oh no, It is in the water that they are drinking. Because Greenspan will then tell the American people, yes, the Republicans promised a tax cut, but, my God, the interest rate went up, as a matter of fact, I made it go up, and now we will have it denied. Thank God we have a President that is going to veto this foolishness, and thank God we have a Congress that is not going to override that veto. What the Republicans have done is started their campaign with this doggone tax bill. They have done it. And, believe me, it is going to be the nails in the coffin that denies them the majority for the year 2000. We tried to work with the other side. We tried to make it bipartisan. We reached out across the aisle. And what I am saying to my colleagues on the other side is this, it is bad enough that they do not leave it up to the Committee on Ways and Means; it is bad enough that they exclude the Democrats and Republicans, but it should hurt the very nature of this institution to know that we have to go to the Committee on Rules close to midnight to find out what else they have put in the bill. Now, I know the Republicans do not want to circulate it, and I know that they are talking about great political statements when they talk about the rule, but why do they not talk about what is in the rule? Where is Chairman Greenspan in the rule? I tell my colleagues this: on tomorrow, and maybe tonight, we will find out what Chairman Greenspan thinks about a 10 percent cut across the board. He testified in front of our committee. He said it was wrong then, it is wrong tonight, and it is going to be wrong when it gets to the President's office.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, so that the Members will have an opportunity to plan the rest of the evening, is it possible to have some guesstimate as to what time the majority will be prepared to return to the floor?

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the majority as to what will be the remainder of the schedule for today, specifically as it relates to tax legislation.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. It is the only responsible thing to do. We want tax cuts like anyone else, but the American people want to make certain that we have taken care of the social security system, we have taken care of Medicare, we have taken care of prescription drugs, reduced the Federal debt the best we can, and give an equitable tax cut.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, after listening to the observations of my colleagues, I cannot believe that the majority is serious in saying that they have to take this surplus and convert it into a tax cut because the people in Washington would surely spend it. I do not know whether they can count, and even though it is true that the number does dwindle day by day, but the truth is that they are in the majority. So if basically what they are saying is, stop me before I hurt the country, it is too late. They have already done that. But in years ago, before the Republicans had the majority, a tax bill was not a political document, it was something that we would have for economic growth, to give assistance to the American people. Now we find that, through no fault of this Congress, there is going to be a baby boomer crop coming in 2015. People are going to mature, they are going to be eligible for social security, eligible for Medicare, and we have the ability among us to really take care of that unexpected booming course that we are going to have. But instead of talking about that, these Republicans are talking about putting their foot in the door, as the gentleman pointed out, not just for the next 10 years but for the 10 years that follow that, that is going to go into trillions of dollars. We cannot challenge them because they have the votes. We cannot challenge them because there are no committee meetings. We cannot challenge them because we do not go into caucus to discuss what they are doing. But one thing is certain, that the minority will be presenting a fairer package to the American people, one that includes taking care of the social security system, taking care of Medicare, and making certain that we reduce the Federal debt, as well as target a relief for the taxpayer.

Mr. RANGEL. You got it.

Mr. RANGEL. There is no question, if we were talking about education, if we were talking about long-term health care, if we were talking about day care, if we were talking about removing the pains of the marriage penalty, these things we can and we will do.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. It does not say that the African countries cannot export any clothing to the United States. It does not say that. It merely says that the clothing has to be assembled only with United States of America fabric, only with United States of America yarn and only with United States of America thread. I really think that this is repugnant to everything that we think of when we talk about trade. So manufacturers of clothes ship it across the Atlantic, let them stitch up our fabric and yarn and thread, and they will ship it back and try to sell it for a profit.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for the work he has done on this amendment. It has taken a lot of hard work, and I rise in support of it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to publicly thank the gentlewoman from Texas for all of the work that she has done for the people on the continent of Africa as well as to improve the economy of those of us in the United States of America. She not only has worked hard in the committee and in the subcommittees to make certain that small businesses were the beneficiaries but she has actually gone around the world, especially on the continent, to get a better understanding of the problems and then be able to come forth with the solution to those problems. She has gained the support and the friendship of the people of both sides of the aisle. She is to be congratulated. I support the amendment.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will attempt to conclude this discussion by saying I really think this is one of the finest hours that we have had in the House. We have had serious differences of opinion, but I think the overwhelming thought is that it has been too long that we not recognize the great potential of our great friends in the continent of Africa. A lot has to be said about the leadership provided by the President of the United States, but of course we also have to recognize that the former Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, was one of the first to come before the Ways and Means, under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the subcommittee chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). And together, in working with the committees headed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the leadership that we have had on both sides, working with the representatives of the African countries to be affected, I do not really think that we have ever had a stronger coalition to begin this gigantic first step to bring some equity in the relationship that we would have with those that have been neglected morally and economically. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends and colleagues for their support.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)