Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. And so now we have really reached the epic in legislation without Members. I made a mistake. I really thought it was just the Speaker and the Committee on Rules. It is just the Speaker and the Speaker, as a matter of fact. All that must be done is to tell the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) ``For God's sake don't let the members of the Committee on Rules see this. Just come to the floor. Put your name on it. They'll think it was a legitimate process, and we'll have some debate.'' Oh, no. Listen. First of all, we all know this: that these are recommendations made by the President of the United States. In the olden days, it was the Committee on Ways and Means that would really legislate and bring it to the floor because of the Constitution, which says that all revenue raisers would emanate from the House of Representatives, and not the Speaker's office and not the office of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). Second, it does not surprise me that this is the way they would like to deal with the President's budget as it relates to paying for services because, God knows, we will never have hearings in talking about what is in the President's budget. But I understand it all. They are in the majority, and the further away they can get from substantive legislation, the better they can enjoy the comfort that the President's budget and the surpluses have brought to us. I am so glad to see that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the man who possesses more knowledge on taxes than any Member in the House, has come to the floor, and I hope he is yielded to to explain this tax plan.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) because, if this did not come out of the Committee on Rules, what in God's name are we doing here in the first place?

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, all of us are going to miss my friend from New York and the chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is leaving this august body with his charm and his wisdom; certainly he is going to leave a vacuum. But I hope he does not put out the legislative lights before he leaves because since we have had a Republican majority the rules of the game as to how we legislate have dramatically changed. I can understand why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) keeps yielding to the Democrats: Because hardly any Republican is willing to stand up to defend this thing that has come out of the Committee on Rules. But I would like to say this, that there used to be a time in the olden, Democratic days where we had standing committees with chairmen and we had senior Republicans. We used to have something, and I forgot the name of it, but I think it was hearings? Yes, hearings. And we used to have witnesses and experts, and they used to testify. And then along came the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and he says, ``You don't need that. You only need one committee, the Committee on Rules. As a matter of fact, we don't need that. All you have to do is have a meeting in the Speaker's office, go upstairs in the middle of the night, find the most complex tax matters that you want, and forget the eight committees that have jurisdiction because, after all, no committees are meeting unless it is to attack the President of the United States. And then have the chairman of the committee introduce a bill in the middle of the night on a Wednesday and make certain that it comes on the floor when nobody is going to be awake in order to do it.'' The only way that they can do this thing, the only way, the new Republican legislative way, they can do this thing is, first, get a budget, and the budget has to make certain that the first thing to do is get a great tax cut for the wealthy people of the United States. Once that is done, then the rest of it is easy. What is the rest of it? The rest of it is that we will take $101 billion from the committees of jurisdiction. We will not tell them where its coming from. We will let them have the blood on the floor. But we will say, we will say that it should come from health, it should come from education. And, for God's sake, make certain that we do not miss the American veterans. Hit them, and if we miss them, make certain we hit them twice. Now the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has indicated, what a modest man, that the tax laws are complicated. Well, it does not take a profile in courage to come to the floor and say that. As a matter of fact, here is the gentleman from New York's list of complicated tax laws. Did he ask the experts in tax laws on the Republican side to take a look at this? Oh, my chairman is not here, Mr. Archer. Are there any senior Republicans on the Joint Committee on Taxation? Yes, they are talking. There are two of them there. There are two Members. Are we going to have hearings on this, Mr. Solomon? Oh, no, this will not go to hearings. Why? It is too complex for the Joint Committee on Taxation to have hearings on it. The wisdom in legislation is confined now to two areas; one to Speaker, and, God knows, any chairman knows that: Do not have hearings on anything that the Speaker does not want to have hearings on. And the second thing is the Committee on Rules. I really believe that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) was not selected just because of his good looks and his wisdom but because of his name. The wisdom of Solomon shall prevail on the budget and on the taxes, and he will tell us estate taxes, real estate taxes, financial property, Social Security, woe, woe, woe, this heavy tax system. He figured it all out, my brothers and sisters, my Democrats and Republicans: Go home, worry not. There is no legislation, there is no hearings, but, God knows, the Social Security of the United States, that, too, shall rest in the wisdom of Solomon on the Committee on Rules after this is over.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is a little shocking how confused the majority is tonight, that they cannot even find speakers to speak up on this budget. I know that the Republican leadership told everyone they could go home because there would be no votes tonight. I know that they made it abundantly clear that there will be no opportunity to discuss the President's budget, or Democratic alternatives, so I would think they would have a lot of pride in the document that they have put together. Why in God's name, in a document, in a budget that is so important, would we wait until midnight to bring it up before the American people? Why would Members do that? Is there any shame that they would have, with something that is this important, that they would want Members to hear, they would want people to hear, and that we should discuss these things? I know this is an election year. I know tax cuts are popular. Why can we not talk about where the money comes from for the tax cut, who we have to hurt? If we have to hurt the veterans, stand up and say that they get enough. If the cuts are coming from education, and I think that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), he said the used-to-be days of the Roosevelt days, the days of the Depression, where we needed help, we needed Social Security, we needed pension funds, we needed Medicaid, we needed Medicare, we needed aid for education, but we do not need that now. Ronald Reagan brought us a surplus, or was it Bush? I forgot the rhetoric on the other side. Whatever it is, we got this surplus, so now we have to talk about cuts. Democrats want to talk about tax cuts, too. The only difference between us and these rascals is that we like to tell the Members where they come from, and they like to say they will tell us in 5 years. If Members really do not believe that the Federal Government should be involved in educating our young people, providing health care for our kids, for older people, day care for mothers who have to work, why do they not stand up in the daytime and say it? But no, they just cover things, saying, in the bye and bye we will tell you what we are going to do. It is shameful to have a document like this, with no alternatives allowed, restricting the debate that we have on the floor, and tell us that we can debate it at midnight. I said midnight, and someone says it is not midnight yet, and they look at their watches. That is no way to treat a budget that is going to really affect the lives of Americans. I know, with the coupon clippers, it just does not make any difference, but not all of America is going through the good times. Some want their kids to get an education, to get a decent job, to be productive, and they need the Federal Government there. Some people do not believe that the Social Security fund is going to to be there for them, but they did not discuss that. No, those are the olden days, the Roosevelt days. Everyone can take care of themselves without government today. Thank God they have done one thing. No one has to say that all of the Members of Congress are alike, that there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat. I will tell the Members this, before this is over, a lot of Republicans are going to wake up, when the American people see what they are trying to sneak through in the middle of night on them. When they do, they will be calling on Members before November to ask them to stand up and be counted, and say, yes, we want a tax cut, but you owe it to us to say what you have to cut in order to give this to us.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to congratulate Deacon Elmo Cooper for 60 years of service to Canaan Baptist Church of Christ which is located in my Congressional District. Born in Lake City, Florida, Deacon Cooper joined Canaan Baptist Church in 1936 and since that time, has served the church and the community in numerous ways. Upon first joining the church, he was appointed as the Assistant Superintendent of the Sunday School, a position he held for 16 consecutive years. He was ordained a Deacon in 1938 and appointed Chairman of the Official Board in 1957. Though he retired this year from his position on the Board after forty consecutive years of service, he continues to serve as a Deacon at Canaan, with the honor, dignity, and grace he is known to possess. Other affiliations at Canaan include Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Canaan Housing Development Corporation, member of the Canaan Baptist Development Corporation, and Second Vice President of Canaan's Federal Credit Union. Deacon Cooper is an active member of the Louis H. Pink Senior Service Center in Brooklyn where he instructs a Spiritual Enlightenment class. He is a frequently sought after Keynote Speaker for various worship services and religious functions, and is a member of the New York State Deacons' Convention. Deacon Cooper is married to the former Rose Newton and in October of this year, they will celebrate 65 years of marriage. His lovely wife also gives of her time and spiritual talents as she is a Deaconess at Canaan Baptist Church. The Coopers have five children: Joyce Goodridge, Alvin Cooper, Carl Cooper, Carol Cooper, and Myra Kiffin. Deacon Elmo Cooper is one of our community's most beloved and respected leaders. His years of service and dedication have earned him the esteemed honor of Chair Emeritus. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in honoring Deacon Elmo Cooper for his many years of unselfish devotion to Canaan Baptist Church of Christ, and to the community.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Centennial of the oldest social work training program in the nation, I hereby offer congratulations to the Columbia University School of Social Work which I am proud to say is located in my Congressional District. Evolving from a summer program organized by the Charity Organization Society in New York, the School of Social Work has a long and distinguished history of pioneering research, informed advocacy, and exceptional professional training. It is a remarkable accomplishment that social workers have played key roles in every major social reform movement, from settlement houses to labor reform, to the New Deal, to civil rights, and voter registration. Many of the things we take for granted today--Social Security, child labor laws, the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, Medicare--came about because social workers saw injustice, acted, and inspired others. Throughout the century, Columbia's faculty, students, and alumni have worked tirelessly to address both the causes and symptoms of our most pressing social problems. National movements, such as the White House Conference on Children and the National Urban League, have emerged from projects undertaken by the School's faculty and administrators in cooperation with professional and community organizations. The entire nation has benefited from the work of people like Eveline Burns (Social Security); Mitchell I. Ginsberg (Head Start); Richard Cloward (welfare rights and voter registration); Alfred Khan and Sheila B. Kamerman (crossnational studies of social services); and David Fanshel (children in foster care). As your School, and indeed the social work profession, move into their second centuries, they will be challenged to respond to social change, new social problems, family change, and evolving societal commitments. Now more than ever, we will need well-trained and dedicated social workers to work with troubled children and families, organize communities for change, conduct cutting-edge research, administer social programs, and alleviate society's most intractable problems. It is with appreciation and admiration, that I extend my best wishes to the Columbia University School of Social Work on its Centennial, and look forward to its future activity and achievement.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if this bill is going to be vetoed, then whatever we are saying is mute, and we can depend on the veto. By the same token, it is not unusual to waive points of order, and the conferees can do what they think is in the best interests of the Congress and the country, and to that extent I am willing to work with the gentleman and work out these differences of opinion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman and honor and respect the dedication that he has given to the education of our American youth and promise in the future as in the past to try to work more closely with him in a bipartisan manner. I regret that he had so little to say about this legislation before us, but I can understand that, too. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really enjoy working with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. If he sincerely believes that the motion to instruct is outside the scope of the conference, I want to thank him for not raising a point of order. It saves me a little time in debating that and winning that issue on the floor. I also would want to say that I really do hope that we all yield to special interests today, because our young people are very special. They deserve better than what is being offered to them in this bill. If there is anyone on the other side of the aisle that has enough imagination that they can tell this House how the public schools benefit under the bill, then I hope they research that issue and raise that question given the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, nearly all Americans know that the most important issue facing us today is educating our young people to meet the challenges of tomorrow, especially as we move into the next century. It is going to be an era that, with all of the inventions and all of the wonders that we have accomplished in this century, will be absolutely nothing compared to what we have to face in the next century. It is really so painful to see my Republican friends, instead of stepping up to the bar and asking, ``What can we do in a bipartisan way to make certain that our children are not used as ammunition in this great political fight that we have,'' so that at least we know, when the dust has settled, that we have a sound public school system that would train our kids and help our kids to be able to meet these challenges. Instead of that, we have before us a bill that tells people, ``Save your money, enjoy tax-free benefits; and this is what we, as the majority party, have to offer you.'' Thank God we have people that can read in this country, that can see through the farce that is before us. If everything works the way the authors of the bills work, then in the period of a year, those who are fortunate enough to be able to send their kids to private school will have savings of $37. And because they want to make it abundantly clear that this is not restricted to the private sector, there should be savings of $7 a year for the kids in the public school. How short our memory is when the millions of people who came to this country, so many without training, seeking a better way of life, looking for religious freedom, but better than that, wanting to make life better for their children, where we had a public school system that was there for them. Instead of reaching out, trying to destroy the system and substituting it with vouchers and tax loopholes, we should be saying that in this country of ours, every kid should be able to get a decent education. It is absolutely disgraceful to think that we are just giving interest-free money when what we do have in the motion to instruct is an opportunity to vote for that motion to tell the conferees to come up with a bill that would modernize our schools and provide the funds that are there tax free for construction of decent public schools in this great country of ours. What a shame it is that we have prisoners locked up in jails and locked up in penitentiaries that have better quarters than the kids have in our schools. I have visited schools throughout my district and throughout the country where kids cannot be in a classroom when it rains, where kids are in overcrowded situations. And these are the public schools. They may not like them because the common man and the common woman have to send their kids there, but 90 percent of American youngsters go to these public schools. How can they be ignored? And what benefits can they get from this bill? We cannot take the money out of an individual savings account and rebuild a school or provide adequate space for the kids. It is a farce to do this, and it is even worse if we relate it to education. So we have to be appreciative of two things: one, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not serious, and that is good because it means that they do not want to do harm; one, they have allocated the money to pay for this bill with every bill they think the President is going to veto. And so, they are not serious, but it is a terrible, political thing to do. And second, they know that the President is serious about the education of our children and will veto this farce so that the tax burden will not be on the American people. So I ask my colleagues, please, when the appropriate time comes, let us instruct the conferees to come up with something decent, something that would improve our school system; and then we by agreement with our voters, Republicans and Democrats alike, will say that we have differences, but those differences are not so great that we are going to sacrifice the education of the American children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the feeling of the chairman, and I know the gentleman would want to improve the legislation if he felt that he could, and I think if we can see that the House would work its will, that we could do something. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip, to close the debate on this very important bill, and especially to support the motion to instruct.

Mr. RANGEL. Well, Mr. Speaker, the chairman well knows that there was a time that both the gentleman and I thought that we could not accomplish things in conference that we were able to do. While it is true that we had to look at a potential veto that the President had in the last tax bill, nevertheless it motivated us to do things we never thought we would be able to accomplish, and I think the same situation exists here today.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that under the rules of the House that if we did receive overwhelming support for the motion to instruct, and since the gentleman and I have worked so closely together in the past, we could waive the points of order and adopt what is in the motion to instruct and get on with the people's business.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there are not going to be any other speakers on the other side of the aisle, and I would like to close the debate, if there is not going to be another speaker. Is there?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on this side?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. It is true that there is no direct benefit to the private school as a result of this, but it does take away from revenues as a result of the tax credit that can be used by parents who do send their children to private school. And while it is not much individually, collectively, with all of the people that gain the benefit that never asked for it, it runs into billions of dollars. This money could be used for taxi cabs, for private cars, for baby- sitters, for relatives who come in, anything one wants to use it for. Talk about simplifying the Tax Code. This thing ought to be pulled up by its roots, because it allows for anybody with a little imagination that sends their kid to private school to deduct anything that they can think of without a disability for the kid. Books, any kind of books. There is not going to be any audit as to what was done. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) certain nobody wants to speak on this on the other side this time? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the sovereign State of Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the deputy minority whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we think it is very important that we point out that in this bill before the House, there is not one nickel there for the public school system, and in the motion to recommit is an opportunity to have tax-free bonds there to rebuild our schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), an outstanding educator who brings a great contribution in this area.