Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentleman from Florida in saying that we are going through a period of trying to learn to be bipartisan, and the gentleman and I have a whole lot of learning to do. I think he will agree that the Republicans wanted a tax cut bill and the President did. The question was who wanted one the most. When the priorities came, they sought to make capital gains tax cuts the priority. They sought to make estate tax relief a priority. They sought to make the individual retirement funds a priority. These were the things that people in higher incomes enjoyed. That is why so many Democrats are disturbed. We sought to stay with those for college educations, for those kids that come from working families. We did not call it welfare. We said, if you work hard and you pay taxes, you should get help. So there is still a major difference between the gentleman's side and ours. We join together in saying, the President and the people of the United States want a bill. But it does not mean that we swallow their principles. But it does mean, when we supported our President, we said we are with you, Mr. President, but there has to be some basic Democratic principles there. So the priorities were there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], our distinguished deputy leader.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge], and I would point out the great support that his task force on education has given to improve the quality of the bill we will be voting for.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], a great American, someone that has been so helpful in making certain that we got here on the floor today, and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to join with the Chair in congratulating not only the staff of both sides for working together on this bill, but also including an uncustomary third party that has made this bipartisan effort work, and that is the President of the United States. I think the President made it abundantly clear, and both sides of the aisle agreed, that the American people were fed up with the political fights. So we join together in thanking the staffs of both sides and the President of the United States for making certain that we could get this bill passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for expressing the need for capital gains tax cuts for the working people in America, because I think his statement proves that even though this is a bipartisan bill, there are basic differences between Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (MR. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. (Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], a member of the committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of the New York congressional delegation that we probably have less problems after we leave this floor than any other delegation, because we have learned to work with each other, to respect each other, and to understand each other. The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Sue Molinari, is one of the champions on the Republican side, and yet we do not see it in the elevators, we do not see it when we have our meetings, we do not see it when we get back to New York, we are just people fighting for our great city and our great State. Unlike the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], she was one of the people that I least liked debating with, not because she was always that tough, but she was always smiling, always charming. It is difficult to fire your best shot when somebody is looking at you lovingly. So I will not miss her on the television debates, and I am so glad that she will be moderating, rather than explaining those rough Republican views in such a soft, tender, loving way.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] for allowing his name to be included among the Members of Congress that take this time before we adjourn to pay great tribute to a great American. I recognize that the gentleman's objections had nothing to do with the life of this great woman, and I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is removing that objection.

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.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me tell Members why I oppose this amendment and support OPIC. There is no question that this great democracy of ours has been responsible for taking a lot of dictatorships, a lot of military governments, and trying to make democracies out of them. We have had tremendous success in Africa, tremendous success in South America, and the one thing that makes democracies work is not just a good feeling, but that people are eating and people have jobs and people are doing things. That is what is necessary in order to have a democracy. What is it that really makes a country not look for aid but is willing to be looking for trade? That is where we are looking for economic expansion. It is not just love and affection. We want markets there to sell our goods. If there is no disposable income, if they are only asking for assistance, they cannot buy American goods. Take Africa. The President of the United States finally recognized that here was a continent that was rich with resources that have not been developed. There are people that are skeptical about investing in Africa because they think these new young governments are unstable. Now comes OPIC and says, we will be there with you. We will give the guarantees. Just the President recognizing for trade purposes Africa has more than doubled the investments that are there. What I am suggesting: Why would we shoot ourselves in the feet where the investments have increased when we started having OPIC in Asia, it has done well in Latin America, and now comes Africa's chance at bat to say we, too, need investment. I do not know why when something is working and not losing money, and when the American people go and invest that money, and we know we get our return because our investors normally are buying American-made goods, and if we enrich the people that know that it was America, not France and not Germany that was there for them, for God's sake, do not tell Africa they have the opportunity to enjoy free trade with us and then we encourage American firms not to be there when they need them. I oppose the amendment. The thing is working. Let us continue to support it.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2003. Although I agree with the principles in which we should have some way of enforcing the budget agreement and reducing the deficit, the way this does that, it actually shatters the integrity of the entire House system as we know it, and it jeopardizes the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees as well as the appropriating committees. Those of us that serve on committee, we take great pride, at least we did before the contract violated that, in the ability that allowed us to legislate, allowed us to get the bills passed to the House, and allowed the conferees to decide what to do. In this, we will have some separate body outside of the ordinary legislative process making decisions, so that even if we found that the Medicare provisions were out of whack with what we had perceived, the first thing that is attacked is not the cost that the doctors would cause us, but we go straight to the premiums. Some of us would like to believe that there might be a more equitable way to do it. The same thing applies to Social Security, if that falls short. Instead of trying to see whether we can make it even to enforce the budget, the first thing we go after is the cost-of-living increases and not really trying to see whether we can do something to resolve it. It requires more cuts in the individual entitlement programs, even if overall there is a surplus in the entitlement programs. Of course, if one were to suspect that entitlement programs is the subject or the target to wipe out, then I would suggest this is the way to do it. But knowing that we are merely trying to enforce the budget agreement, it would seem to me that entitlement programs and spending generally should be what we are looking at and not just waiting for one program to fall behind. This bill also would require spending cuts, but the tax increases would not be subjected to this even if the deficit is on the right track. So I really think that it hurts the House of Representatives as well as the Senate in years to come.

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, my motion is to move that the managers on the part of the House conference be instructed to work in a bipartisan fashion in order to avoid this historic piece of legislation from being vetoed by the President of the United States. No one can challenge that our President has gone through great lengths to achieve what is hoped to be a bipartisan agreement as relates to the budget and as relates to taxes. There are sharp disagreements on both sides of the aisle as to how this should be done, and the President has made it abundantly clear that the House bill and the Senate bill, in its present form, would be subject to a veto. It seems to me, however, I think that some of the things that we can ask those that are in conference to look at is to question, where both sides agree that we are seeking to give middle-income tax relief, that calling people who do not make much money but do have tax liability as being welfare recipients, this would not be the climate in which to create a bipartisan agreement. When the President and this Congress says it wants to give assistance to middle-class working people, I do not really believe that Republicans or Democrats have the right to set the income level that says that these people deserve or not deserve the child credit. The second thing is that we did not come into this agreement in order to fix capital gains. It may be a passion with some, but the President has made it abundantly clear that indexing is not a part of what he thinks should be in this bill. It would seem to me, if we want a bill rather than a confrontation, that we should consider removing this obstacle in the bill so that the President can pass it. And last, I think that some support should be given to the executive as he maps out and assumes the responsibility for an education opportunity. All of us recognize that more emphasis is being placed today on our jails, on police, and on penitentiaries than it is on kids and to prepare them for college, to make sure that they are productive, to give them the hopes and the dreams and the jobs that are necessary so that we can move our country forward. The President feels very strongly about this, and I would encourage the conferees to try to work with the President to make certain that the educational mandates that he has there would allow him to be able to sign the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the committee, for confiding with me his willingness to be flexible and me just going to conference, I think, would already display the flexibility that I have in trying to reach agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time for closing purposes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the Democratic minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)