Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand the concern of the gentleman. But I would just like to share with him that I knew about this problem before I dealt with the Republican leadership; and because so many Members of Congress felt that strongly about it, what we did was went to the leadership and asked our side not to go through these extraordinary parliamentary procedures that they could have gone through in order to show their deep concern about it. When you think about it, yes, there has to be ways that our concerns are met and we have to be able to use the parliamentary procedure to do it. But I ask my friend to really consider what we are doing when communities throughout this country are going to commemorate a life anyway, with or without this resolution. It would seem to me that, even when we have to use the parliamentary cause to emphasize how deep we feel about an issue, that we are sensitive to the communities that are affected, we are sensitive to the daughters that we pay tribute to, and that we just do not use the parliamentary procedures when we have just lost a great American. I would ask the gentleman to reconsider using the life of Betty Shabazz and the memories that are held by so many Americans and the memories held by her children and family as they go through life.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California so much for giving me the opportunity to explain that seldom in the United States do we get a chance to pay tribute to the life of those people who live an ordinary life and yet have done extraordinary things. When the late Betty Shabazz died, having known her husband and her for so many years, I almost thought that she belonged to Harlem and she belonged to African-Americans, and I was so pleasantly surprised when she passed away, as a result of a sad and cruel act of her grandson, that so many Republicans and Democrats came over and offered sympathy to me because we had lost in this country a great American. And so, in August, there will be communities all over the country attempting to say, thank you, Betty Shabazz, for the life that you led, that you lost your husband, he was assassinated, but instead of just weeping and crying, which she did do, was pick your life up, go to school, educate 6 children, and become a role model for Americans, whether they are white or black or Jewish or Christian. And so, as we leave and America pays tribute to this great woman, I would like to have the Congress join in in just honoring a great life who serves as a model for all Americans and people throughout the world.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 183) honoring the life of Betty Shabazz, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank you for interceding in the conference to make certain that a provision was inserted that allows kids who dream about college to get there. The President's proposal finally was given to him in an approved way by the House of Representatives. While all of us appreciate how important education is at the higher level, some of us would not have been able to get to college if it was not that we had the GI bill to get to high school first, and because of the cooperation of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the Speaker and the President, we do have that there. Let me say this, that being bipartisan in my opinion really does not mean that we have given up the principles of our party. It does mean that it was this President that decided that the American people in the middle-income group was entitled to a tax cut. It means that this President thought the people of the United States of America should keep up their education and their technology in order to be a part of this growing international trade which we have been a leader in. It was this President who thought that as we have cut back in the budget, it was the working people that he wanted to give some type of credit for their children, that the ever increasing cost of living was there and it had not been reflected in the tax cut. When we leave here, I know that some of you would say, well, the whole idea started with Ronald Reagan and even though we voted against the 1993 budget, we are in this condition today that we are able to give it because the economy is robust and Ronald did it. Let me tell you, from the bottom of my heart, do and say what makes you feel good. Because when you think about it, some of us truly believe that we are here today because the President had a veto and you want a bill to take home. We are here today because some of us really did not think that we should have a tax cut at all. Some of us were thinking about rebuilding our cities. Some of us were thinking about having an educational system that would be superior to any country in the world. Some of us were really thinking that we should have jobs so that anybody who wants to work could participate in rebuilding America so that we never would be in the position we were in before. But when our President speaks and he calls for bipartisanship, maybe we do not understand it, but the American people understood it, that they are sick and tired of listening to our differences and they wanted economic relief. And so our leadership decided, on both sides, ``Let's go for our principles and make certain we come out with a bill that everyone can live with.'' It is absolutely amazing to see the number of Democrats that find the final work-sheet something that they cannot live with. Thank God most all of them are in districts that are secure. But the most important thing is that what they are trying to say is that if we were in the majority, we would be more than happy than we are today. But we can count, and you are in the majority, and we have to yield to some of your priorities. But because there was principle involved, we did not just say no to you. We went to work and said, ``If we're going to do it, let's do it in the way that people can go home with pride and dignity'' and say that we reached an agreement that we would take care of everybody that we think is deserving. I do not know your districts as well as I know my own. But really people do not run inside my clubhouse asking, How did you do on indexing? And, for God's sake, did you reduce capital gains? I know that many of you have to deal with it and so you are stuck with your priorities. I know that when it comes to providing for child care, where do you find the middle class? It depends on where you come from. You can go up to $100,000, $200,000 and feel good and we do not mind that at all, except you are not going to do it at the expense of hard- working people that have got kids that pay taxes every day. And there is one thing we are going to do, is that when people get up every morning, take care of their kids, get out there and work, and just because they are in lower income brackets and just because we want to give everybody a hand in meeting their responsibility, we are not going to call them any longer welfare recipients because you are with us. When we go back home, we are able to say as a Congress that we did not determine employer-employee relationships the way employers would want it. We are not going to be the people that says that a boss can determine that his payroll taxes are too high, that he does not want to pay Social Security, that he or she does not want to pay for health care, that they do not determine who is an independent contractor. We have a law on the books to determine it. But to broaden it so that those people who do not want the burden of being employers and taking care of the responsibility of their employees, no, independent contracts are out, and we all feel better for it because it was a give- and-take on our principles. We know, we know that whenever we want someone to write a piece of honest literature, to give us a poll or to give us a graph, that the one who pays for that poll and graph that they will get what they want. I just never thought the Republicans could be so creative with their distribution tables. My God, when I looked at that, I said ``How could they even make it up?'' But see, if we forget the last 5 years and just deal with their first years, it is amazing. Capital gains cuts makes money. But stop there because when we get into the next 5 years, all of America are losers. So what we have to do is this, is to be prepared to say to our constituents the President of the United States has spoken. He has demanded, and the American people have supported him in saying that they want a tax cut, they want to end the fighting and they want bipartisanship. We have agreed that we have done it. A lot of people swallowed hard on their side; I regret that they were not given an opportunity to express it, but a lot of people on our side had problems, and they were able to express it. Let us all say it is not a Republican victory, it is not a Democratic victory, but the people of the United States, under the leadership of the President of the United States, with all due respect to President Reagan, are the winners of this battle.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], a leader of our Democratic Party and our whip.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], a member of the committee.

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 2 minutes 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd]. (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie]. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE 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] who has been so helpful in bringing this all together. (Mr. STENHOLM 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 California [Ms. Sanchez]. (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman should be reminded that it was the Republicans that agreed to drop that provision. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price]. (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think that, if the time is correct, my colleagues have double the time that we have. It might be better if we tried two-to-one at this time. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] has 58 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has 34\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. So the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is correct.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the Chair of the Democratic Caucus.