Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we were able to go to C-SPAN and pick up the rest of Ms. Chesser's remarks where she indicated that this tax cut would have a negative impact in the future in bringing about the solvency of the Social Security system. Since there is such a widespread belief that our senior citizens have no idea what we are doing, perhaps we can print up some educational material for the Members tomorrow so that they would know that we only are saying it over and over so that they will see that it is true. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to debate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. I have been hearing for the last 3\1/2\ years that the Republicans had a tax plan that was going to pull up the IRS by the roots, so I have been studying that. I have been studying the value-added tax, the VAT. I have been studying the sales tax. Now they come up with a Democratic bill. It is really unfair to do this at election time. It catches us at a complete disadvantage. The only problem we have, of course, is that we had thought that we had adopted rules in the budget which says that we do not spend what we have not got. Now they are changing the rules on that and they are saying, that is different if it is a tax cut, and it is especially different if it is just before the election. What are we going to believe? Are we going to pull up the tax code by the roots and get rid of it with a simplified code that we can put on a postal card, or are we going to single out special people and give them tax cuts that we would want to give to them after we fix social security first? I suspect that we will do all of these things maybe next year with a different Congress, but it surprises me how fluid we can be in terms of tax policy. So much for deep-sixing the tax code. So much for another attempt to raid the social security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I am glad that the gentleman gave that lengthy explanation there, because I thought for a minute he did not have any reason why we were doing this, but now he has cleared that all up. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. RANGEL. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I would like to take this time to ask my friend, why is it that he only requested 30 minutes when there is a total of 2 hours debate on this bill? In view of the fact that so many Members would want to return to their home districts, especially this time of the political year, it would seem to me that if we started debate now, we could be out of here by 9 o'clock this evening. I am wondering, why are we just debating for 30 minutes? Why can we not just take up the bill and move on from there?

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I, too, pay tribute to a remarkable individual that took the reins after one of our Members left, but she has given 24 years of her life to this committee and to her work and in every policymaking issue concerning trade, she was there from the negotiations of the Kennedy and Tokyo rounds and the formulation of the Trade Act of 1974. She has worked on the trade agreements of 1979, the Omnibus Trade and Competition Act of 1988, and the NAFTA and Uruguay Round implementing bills in her capacity with the committee. These are the many projects, some of the many projects on which Mary Jane has brought her intellectual ability and sound judgment to bear. Her devotion to excellence has epitomized the finest in bipartisan tradition that has characterized trade making policy over the last 20 years. At the end of this session she will retire, but we still know that she will be missed. To say that she will be missed is a gross understatement. We owe so much to her dedication and the fact that she has worked well with Republicans and Democrats. She has enjoyed her job and we all, staff and Members, have truly enjoyed working with her.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I certainly agree with most of the things that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has said, that if this great Nation is going to continue to grow and maintain our economic advantage, we have to remove all of the barriers to trade. Trade is the one thing that our Nation excels in, and we have to make certain that we remain competitive. A piece of legislation like fast track or trade, as I said earlier, or taxes or Social Security, cannot be a pre-election gimmick, but it has to be, indeed, a bipartisan effort, where people who have honest differences of opinion but still want our Nation to maintain its leadership in trade sit down and work out those differences. We cannot afford to allow the world marketplace as it relates to labor to set the standards for the United States of America. We cannot pick a country that has the lowest labor wages, no benefits, no health benefits, and allow industries in our cities around the United States to close and go there to take advantage of that particular economic advantage. No, we must be able to say that when we trade, Americans are going to be the beneficiaries; not just those in the high-tech jobs, but those in the lower skilled jobs have to be protected as well. I believe that our president, as other presidents, should have the right to negotiate trade contracts, and it should not be the House or the Senate that is going to dot every ``i'' or cross every ``t''. But when it comes to Americans losing their jobs, losing their pensions, losing their homes, merely because business has gone, we should be able to tell the president, you do not negotiate any treaty or contract without protecting American workers, without protecting the environment, without protecting human rights. We cannot let the free marketplace dictate the principles we believe in as a country. So I believe that when the president is ready to sit down with us, Republicans and Democrats, we can work out fast track. Nobody is against it because it gives the President authority. People oppose it because it does not spell out the human rights and the rights of workers, which is just as much a part of our prosperity as it is to see that the stock market has improved as a result of the stability that the President has brought. I do not know why these matters are brought up on the eve of elections. I do not know who we want to embarrass. I do not know why we just entertain vetoes. This thing is just too important to allow it to be treated in a partisan way. For that reason, I do not know why it is on the calendar now. I have no idea what the politics is behind it. You certainly cannot have something like this be approved without bipartisan support. You certainly need the leader of the free world and the President of the United States working with you. But I suspect you have taken some poll somewhere and you think this gives you an advantage someplace come November. I hope that you are not right, but I still believe that you should not be taking legislation like Social Security, tax cuts, and God knows what else you are going to try to do before we get out of here, and try to negotiate these things just before an election. It is important for the country, but it is important for Americans, Democrats and Republicans, it is important for the President, and I hope that soon we will be able to work a little more closely together. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield blocks of time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I had thought that my Republican colleagues wanted to go into this election based on their legislative record, having changed the Washington National Airport to Ronald Reagan Airport. I thought you could go and win with that. But it looks like on the eve of the election you are coming back with substantive legislation that, even though you know you cannot win with it, that obviously there is some point to be made, and that is probably why we saw the raid on Social Security, coupled with the tax cut. And, even though it is a loser, who would have thought that you would deliberately come back to the floor with fast track, knowing that you have got another loser? There are certain things that we cannot do in a partisan way. Medicare reform, Social Security reform and trade agreements, they have to be bipartisan. But now that you refuse to include certain protections for the workers and for human rights and for the environment, and the President would like to work and to fashion a fast track bill that does not embarrass us with our trading partners, does not embarrass us with our business community, you insist on bringing this up before the election, not caring how many Republicans or Democrats get hurt by having to vote for a bill that is far from perfect. It would seem to me that if we are concerned about giving the President that authority, the first thing we should do is ask the President, does he want it at this time? It seems to me that if you want the support of labor, you would sit at the table and see whether labor and management can work out something that makes it easier for us to move forward with this legislation. But if all you want to do is embarrass Democrats, always remember that as you throw mud at Democrats, some Republicans too are going to get splattered.

Mr. RANGEL

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, because these Treasury notes, these notes that will be in the Federal Reserve are always redeemable, they are not at risk. And if they ever became at risk in the Federal Reserve Bank, it would mean the Republic would be bankrupt.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).