Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer). Mr. Speaker, it is really chutzpah to say that it is the Democrats who have changed their policy. It is the Republicans that wanted to get rid of the Code. Pull it up by the roots. Have a flat tax. Have a sales tax. Now they are coming in with another tax bill that certainly does not do that. It is the Republicans that said we had to have fiscal discipline, and they are the ones that are waiving the rules. It is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) that says we have to phase out Social Security over time. So, we are consistent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to respond to our distinguished chairman.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), another distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). No one has worked harder to save the social security system than the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how the time is allocated now, please?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, after last year's tax bill, I would have thought that nobody on the other side of the aisle would ever talk about simplification again. I thought that I heard the end of all of this pulling up the tax code by the roots since you so effectively deep- sixed it for the year 2002. But if the chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means would check last year's tax bills, one thing we did do was pay for it. It did not come out of the surplus. It came out of tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner). (Mr. Hefner asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. RANGEL. I yield one minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute, made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman should apologize for what he has said.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I said why did the gentleman bring the President of the United States into this debate? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. RANGEL. I would like to yield as to why the gentleman had to bring the President of the United States into the debate.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend from Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be robbing from the old folks; it is another thing to have to bring in the President of the United States' embarrassing political position. Now, the President has said he is sorry, and I hope before this debate is over, that some Republicans will say they are sorry for what they are doing to the Social Security trust fund.

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

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 myself such time as I may consume. I want to set an atmosphere here. Yesterday, the President of the United States charged this Congress with being a do-nothing Congress. I would like to set the record straight because, clearly, the President was unaware that it was this Congress that changed the name of the Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan Airport. The President was probably unaware of the fact that this Congress has deep-sixed the Internal Revenue Code in the year 2002. The Congress also, for education, made it possible for poor folks to save $2,000 and not pay interest on it for education. And, even now, the Congress is picking up some good, sound Democratic tax cut provisions. Unfortunately, they are raiding the Social Security trust fund, but at least they are half right in the direction in which they are going. So I just want to say that if we can find some way to pay for these tax cuts, we might be able to come together even on this floor. Now, some Republicans have signs that they pull up from time to time, and I do not think we ought to see this sign anymore, which says that Ms. Chesser, from the Social Security Commission, said that this tax cut would not affect the Social Security fund. Let me tell my colleagues, no Republican or Democrat is going to pull that sign up again today. Because Ms. Chesser said that she answered no, but then she concluded her remarks in a letter that she sent here, which is in the transcript which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I picked up on CNN during her testimony. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) went to CNN. We went to CNN, and we got her full remarks. And so she concludes by saying then, as now, ``The fact that the Federal Government has produced a surplus for the first time in generations provides a unique opportunity to solve Social Security's long-term shortfall. Until long-term solvency is resolved, draining away any part of the surplus would negatively impact our chance to find a bipartisan solution to Social Security's long-term outlook.'' That does not mean that you should not raid the Social Security fund because you may think that what you are doing for election time is more important than the solvency, the long-term solvency of the fund. But having said that, and recognizing that you also raised fast track, I hope that maybe we can get together and see whether we can agree on something so that the President does not allow us to go into this election mode saying that we did not do anything. We have done a lot of things. Some of them were dumb, but we still have time to work together in a bipartisan way to see whether we can give a tax cut but pay for it rather than use the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN 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. Hoyer).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am simply saying that the American people demand fairness, and they will make the judgment in November. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).