WASHINGTON, APRIL 15, 2004 --

SPEAKER: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY)
[*] RANGEL: Thank you.
Let me thank you, Sheila Cherry. It's a great honor to be here, and I thank you for your leadership and your presidency of this great National Press Club.
I want to thank my friend, Askia Mohammed, also, for the great work he did in putting this together. It's good to be back.
I particularly want to thank the guests that are here today, both the reporters and the readers; my long-time neighbor, Bill Tibbet (ph) who lost his beloved wife, that's been a friend of my family over the years that I've been down here in Washington.
I want to thank my staff, especially Neil (ph) and Dan (ph), who write so many speeches that they never hear said, but they still stick to it.
(LAUGHTER)
I really want to thank the sponsors that help pay for my staff, both my staff from the congressional district that I serve and the Ways and Means Committee. They hardly would want to pay to hear me speak and give a speech, but they're here today.
I especially want to thank those that have served our country in the military, those that have people in Iraq. And a very special thanks for the families that are here today, that either have people in Iraq or who have lost their loved ones in Iraq.
I want to thank the veterans that have served our country, especially those who have served in combat, who realize that serving your country in combat is more than just putting on a uniform or landing on an aircraft carrier or saying "Bring them on," but it's an experience that you never, never forget.
I have selected this subject that the real death tax is a tax on the poor, because, as most of you know, today is the last day that Americans have to file their income tax. And included in that tax is an inheritance tax that some opponents of the system have fought vigorously against.
Three-quarters of the taxes that we collect on the inheritance tax is from people that have estates that's well over $2 million. Nevertheless, the term and the label inheritance tax has been changed to a death tax, as though there's a tax on the death of the individual, rather than a tax on the wealthy that have inherited.
So I looked into the dictionary description of a tax, and it would say that it is a contribution for the support of government that is required from persons or groups or businesses within the domain of government.
RANGEL: And if that is the description of attacks, then certainly by definition I believe that those so-called volunteers into our armed forces, those that place themselves in harm's way for defense of our government, that those who could really lose their lives for making this contribution to their government are really putting themselves in harm's way, putting their lives in harm's way. And where they're gone, what a heavy tax is paid on their lives.
Now, not all people pay this tax. And certainly during time of war this is the first time in our great nation's history that we are giving tax cuts to the richest people rather than sharing the sacrifice which all nations should have to be prepared to do when their nation is at war.
Who is not sharing the sacrifice in terms of the death tax on the poor? Who is it that would know that they never will be called upon to share their blood for this war that we now find ourselves in and our president is so proud to be known as the war president?
Well, it's not the members of Congress that support and declare the war. They're not volunteering to make the sacrifice. It's not members of the White House that says, "Bring 'em on," that's prepared to make this sacrifice. It's not the staff and the chiefs of staff and the CEOs of the great national and multinational corporations that are paying this penalty tax. Most all of them find some way to avoid all taxes rather than just the death tax.
RANGEL: And if you take a look and try to find out, "Who are these individuals that find themselves liable for the tax?" what have they got in common? Well, my dear friend, the congressman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, he did some research of those people who were killed in action. And he finds that 46 percent of them come from rural areas, from towns and countries that have less than 20,000 people in population.
And we also have done some research with the Department of Defense. And we have found that 26 percent of those killed in action are either African-American or Hispanics.
And more and more, we find that immigrants, people who are trying to get a step up economically and in life in this country, find themselves among those who pay this very heavy tax.
They come from communities with the highest unemployment. Communities with the lowest possible wage. Are they patriots? I would think they are, Mr. President. Are they volunteering to liberate Iraq? I think not. Are they seeking a better way of life, as I did in 1948 and my brother before me? You bet your life they are.
And this is demonstrated by the civilians who find themselves making far more than those who have enlisted in the military. Some of them have been discharged from the military and now come back and they're able to make a thousand dollars a day to go into Iraq. Some are security, some are truck drivers, engineers, some involved in the oil industry.
Are they patriots? Do they respect the flag? Yes, I think they are. Did they go there to liberate Iraq or to improve the quality economically of their life? I think they did the latter.
You see, I know these people who volunteer. They are just as patriotic as anyone that you would want to see. But they don't step forward just because they're patriots, notwithstanding the fact that former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in defense of the position that he took against the draft, he said that Rangel just doesn't get it. African-Americans are just more patriotic than other people.
(LAUGHTER)
Well, Mr. Weinberger, I'd like to believe that.
RANGEL: But I don't think they would like to have this great honor bestowed upon them. There are other things that we wish you would look at if you want to praise us.
But I told you the reason I feel so close to this is because I come from a city where African-American men between the ages of 18 and 46, 51 percent of them are unemployed.
The relationship between those who enlist, those who find themselves in harm's way, those who pay that ultimately death tax, are those people who cannot find decent employment and who want to better themselves.
Why do I know it? Because I go to the armories and I see the National Guards, I see the reservists, I see people who wanted that pension check, who wanted to wear that uniform, who never wanted this nation to forget how much we love them.
And what a tax they pay when they find themselves finding themselves in an informal draft, where they're on the way home, as one of the men here today said, his son was on the way home, and just four days later found out that he has to go back for three or four months.
That's an involuntary draft. What happens when you're called up and you find out that you served your time and yet the Department of Defense says that you have to do extra time? What happens when you find that the reservists, who really were prepared to serve in fighting fires and fighting floods, have lost their jobs, lost their families, and still have to go back two or three times? That is not shared sacrifice.
And I submit that the families that I've seen at the funerals that I've had to attend are those people who are patriotic but wonder when is it all going to end.
The president would have us to believe that it was Saddam Hussein that he wanted to remove, but did we know at the time, when some of the members of Congress voted to support this preemptive strike against Iraq, did we have any idea that in 1997, which some of us learned on "Nightline," that we find a group of people whose names are familiar today that we may not even have heard of before -- Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld -- meeting and agreeing that we had to have a preemptive strike against Iraq.
RANGEL: How did we know in the Congress that they were prepared to remove Saddam Hussein because he was so evil? We knew he was evil because we supported him when he was killing the people in his country, when he was fighting against Iran. And yet it just seemed to me that most Americans really thought that when we had that horrific strike of 9/11 that somehow when the president said Saddam Hussein was the person that we should go after, that we thought that's who he was going after.
How would we have known that in 1997, a group of his friends, supporters and colleagues had already known that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussein? How would we have known that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to be found now and even if he did, with the inspectors that were there, crawling all over, how could he possibly have done anything if they allowed some diplomatic solution to this problem from the international community?
How would we have known that there's still no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida?
Now the president would have us to believe that notwithstanding all of this that in his heart he still believes that they will find weapons of mass destruction. But disregarding that, he would say, but aren't we happy today that we have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein? And isn't Iraq a safer place today than it was before?
Well, I would think in the former that, yes, we would all like to believe that we could have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein without having to pay the price that we're paying today.
And what is the price? And how many lives would Americans be prepared to pay to get rid of this evil man who's killed so many of his own people? And how many world so-called leaders are there that still do the same thing, that we feel that we have a moral obligation to liberate? Are we prepared to spend 100 lives? 200 lives? 400? Or the over 600 and close to 700 that was spent?
Are we prepared to spend over 3,000 young people, have them maimed and in hospitals around the country? Are we prepared to have civilians to go over there, put themselves in harm's way, Americans that are being held hostage and being killed? And how long does it take for us to say that we've won?
Most combat veterans know that when you have a mission and you say it's accomplished, it means that the enemy has surrendered and that you and your comrades are safe. RANGEL: We don't even know today what the enemy looks like, what country he comes from, what flag he carries. We don't even know what it takes to make him surrender. We don't know the culture of people that are prepared to give up their lives, that of their children and their grandchildren because of the hatred they have for the United States. We don't know how to prove to the world that this hatred is indeed misplaced, that this great nation wants peace and liberation for all oppressed people.
But yet, in our European culture, in our American way, we've been unable to reach out to other people because of the blinders that we have on and our unwillingness to recognize that terrorism does not make the United States the only target, it's an international problem that screams out for an international solution.
And notwithstanding the fact that our president believes that this is a Christian country with Christian ideals, someone has to remind him we're not living in a Christian world, and that we have to be able to reach out and respect people who respect God in a different way, to have them to come and join with us to go against a common foe, not the Muslims, not those of the Islamic community, but those terrorists that shatter every moral ground of living together in a civilized society.
We cannot go it alone. We need the help of our friends. How about some of the friends of the president?
Where's our friends from Saudi Arabia? Are they a part of the willing coalition? They don't come to the United States, their leaders, without stopping at the White House, without going to the Crawford ranch, without sharing their sympathy and support for the ideals of the president. But they are part of the willing coalition?
What about our Egyptian friends who receive billions of dollars every year for being our friends, are they helping us out with the culture, with the language and the direction?
I say that we have to make certain that we just don't get uptight because we've been able to get some countries to be there. We need something and somehow, a way to make an appeal to the international community to say this war is a war for all civilized people, and what we don't know as a great nation, as a powerful nation, we are powerful enough, we have enough self-esteem and enough self-confidence to say we need the help of our friends.
RANGEL: We have to be able to say that if we're going to be able to tell Rumsfeld that this is a war that we expect more from him than to say he doesn't know whether we're winning or losing, that he doesn't know whether we're killing more terrorists than we're creating.
I suggest to you with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, when you have the responsibilities of hundreds of thousands of lives in your hand, and you can't tell America whether we're winning or losing a war, that you can't tell America when we're going to get out of this slog, that you can't tell America whether or not we are killing more terrorists or creating more terrorists than we're killing, it's time for you to resign from office.
America deserves better than that.
(APPLAUSE)
I say that when we talk about shared sacrifice, we have to make certain that we're not just talking about the people that wear the American flag in their lapel or who have a bumper sticker saying "Love us or leave us."
When you're talking about shared sacrifice, we have to recognize that if indeed we're going to cut federal taxes during a time of war, it means that we're going to have to cut spending and cut programs.
Why don't we ask the people who really believe in shared sacrifice? Why don't we go to the funerals and ask the families of those who are lost? Why don't we go to the hospitals where we have our veterans and our wounded?
Not too long ago, I was with some of the families who lost their loved ones that complained that they could not even visit Dover, Delaware, when their bodies were returned to the United States.
I was very reluctant to appear with them at this ceremony that they had a couple of months ago, because I respected the privacy and the pain that they must have felt in losing a loved one, so much so that they were going to say that they wanted to be able to go there, that they wanted, when these heroes who are fallen come to Dover in the middle of the night, to make certain that their coffins had a flag on it, to make certain there was some ceremony where we said thank you, some bugle playing "Taps," some honor guard being there, some way for America to say thank you.
RANGEL: And yet we are prohibited from even having the media there to see our heroes come home. I've introduced legislation to remove this barrier.
If it's shared sacrifice, let us be able to see the pain that families are feeling so that we know how far we have to go and the pain that we have to feel for the future.
We also have started in the Congress a caucus for these wounded heroes. I'm so pleased to say that we just started it a couple of months ago, but 60 members of Congress have signed up so that we can see what can we do to say thank you to the families who have lost people, what we can do to provide benefits so that the kids will receive and education and they not face economic distress.
And out of the 60 we have 50 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the bipartisan effort to say thank you, we may not be sharing the sacrifice, but we're willing to do some things for you.
I know that in this war we all don't have easy answers. And I don't know whether staying the course is the way we should go when we don't know how we got involved in this course or where it's going to take us.
But it just seems to me that this was hardly the time for the president to announce that some Palestinian refugees will not be able to return to what they call their homeland.
These are complicated questions we have. But if we're trying to bring a community together to understand that we are the good guys and that they all collectively are not the bad guys, then it seems to me that we have to take our good friends from the region and ask them which is the best way for us to go? How can we talk without offending you?
RANGEL: How can we explain to you that because a terrorist shoots at us from a mosque, that we had to destroy that mosque? How can we share with you collateral damage, that whenever we find someone in Iraq looking for the enemy, that they don't know what the enemy looks like, and when they see their fallen comrades, killed or wounded, that there is something that impels for them to try to retaliate?
How do we explain to them that losing civilians who are innocent and women and children is a part of war? How do we explain to them that we don't know the language, we don't know the culture, we don't know the differences among them?
Is it really that our president has taken a page from the book of survival that we from the streets of Lenox Avenue have learned during our hoodlum days? A hoodlum on the block, when I was raised, that if they found that if one of their friends or their loved ones was attacked and hurt by someone from outside of what they now call the hood, but we called our community, we would want to know who did this to Shorty Bow's (ph) sister? Who committed this act on them?
And someone would say, "Well, we don't know exactly who has done that, but we know what area they came from." And we would ask, "Well, who knows anyone from that area?" And most of us in Harlem would say, "Well, we don't know, they're a bunch of mixed-up people. They don't speak our language, They don't think the way we do."
But we would say, "Well, we have to teach them a lesson." And maybe, just maybe, someone in the neighborhood would have had a meeting with some people, and they would have selected a wrongdoer in that community, someone that spoke against us, someone that was a loud-mouth, someone that we didn't like, but someone that we didn't know whether was connected with this or not.
RANGEL: And maybe one of the leaders of the hoodlums would say, "We don't know who did this, but we ought to teach them a lesson. And we know there's one evil person over there, and we destroy him and his community and his family, maybe the rest of them will know that our neighborhood is not prepared to cut and run, and we can teach all of them a lesson."
In the bottom of my heart I don't want to believe that that is true. I don't want to believe that we knew what we were going to do and 9/11 was just an excuse to do it.
But even more importantly, if we had made a mistake -- and I wished I could help the president when he was searching to find out whether he had made any mistakes that he regretted, I only wished he had asked me.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
But having said that, there is so much time, Mr. President, to change the course, to reach out to our international friends, to say that we want to bring peace to this world, to say we may have gotten the wrong guy and he's evil, but we cannot continue this slog.
And we have to know, Mr. President, we indeed are entitled to know whether we're winning or losing.
On this April the 15th, I want you to remember, because I truly believe that one day when we're losing so much of our civil liberties, when we're putting the lives of so many good people in jeopardy, when Reservists are being called up, when National Guards people are going, when grandparents are being called to serve their country in this jaws of hell, that just maybe one day someone may ask you, maybe a child or maybe your grandchildren, "When all of this was going on, just what were you doing? Just what did you say? Were you active? Were you concerned?"
And I hope that maybe, just maybe, as you listen to so many people who believe that too few are paying this high penalty of a death tax, that you would be able to say that you may not have been able to do anything every day, but in November, you tried.
RANGEL: God bless you.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Thank you, Congressman Rangel. We have quite a few questions for you. We'll try to get as many in as we can. The first one is: How much does the Iraqi war cost us per week, and what is the Ways and Means Committee doing to raise this needed revenue?
RANGEL: Well, the Ways and Means Committee, under the distinguished leadership of Bill, uh...
(LAUGHTER)
Thomas...
(LAUGHTER)
RANGEL: ... they're not in the business of raising revenue. They're in the position of reducing revenue.
The Republican leadership really believes that the best nation that we have is one that pays the least amount of taxes and does the least amount of services thinking that local and state government have this responsibility.
So not withstanding the war as local and state governments, really, have to raise the money to pay for services they no longer receive in health and education and housing, we find that taxes are being increased, the most regressive tax being the sales tax and of course property taxes.
And so the Ways and Means Committee are not raising the revenue. And, as a matter of fact, the Internal Revenue Service has reported that only 30 percent of our corporations are paying any taxes. But most of the enforcements are for lower income people and not those in the higher income brackets. So I think only a change in leadership can bring about a change in policy.
QUESTION: You mentioned your bill regarding Dover Air Force Base, what is the progress on that bill to allow military families access to Dover Air Force Base. This is asked by a military father.
RANGEL: Not much progress, but the fact that we have dozens of people that are signed up and even more than that on the caucus to honor those that have lost, even more of that on the draft legislation, it just means that when the time comes that most Americans believe that we've had enough and we're moving to a different policy, the legislation, bipartisan legislation will be there for them.
RANGEL: We shouldn't have to legislate a draft. It should be the moral thing to say that if putting people in harm's way is a part of our national policy to safeguard our national security then only a small section of those from low-income groups, they're not the only ones that should have to make the sacrifice.
QUESTION: Your proposal to bring back the draft now sounds better now that our troops are stretched so thin in Iraq, is your proposal now being given more serious consideration?
RANGEL: Two things. The Department of Defense has activated a program to recruit volunteers to serve on the Selective Service Board. And they have announced that they're reaching out hoping they won't have to draft people with computer skills and the knowledge of the Arabic language.
I would hope that people understand that my support of a draft doesn't mean that I want to disrupt the lives of our young people. With the over 30 million youngsters that would be eligible, men and women between 18 and 26, only 1 million of them could possibly be selected for the military. But how proud all of them should be during the time of national emergency that they will be able to serve our great country in our seaports, our airports and our schools and hospitals and able to say for two years that they've served this country.
And so I'm hoping as we here people edging toward a national public service, as we find the families of the reservists and the National Guard saying enough is enough, as we find retention and recruitment being more difficult that we have to understand that we need to expand a lot of those people who are going to serve.
QUESTION: For many young people in minority communities, the military is a way up and a guaranteed education. Given the nature of guerrilla warfare today, do you still recommend military service?
RANGEL: Well, I came out of the military with more self-esteem than I really needed, but...
(LAUGHTER)
... I really thought the Purple Heart and Bronze Star would make a way for me. What I didn't realize was that I didn't even have a high school diploma.
RANGEL: So I owe a lot to the G.I. Bill in terms of getting my degrees, but that's a hell of a price to pay for education. And I don't believe that anyone, whether they're minority or coming from a poor, rural area, should have to put themselves in harm's way to get a decent education in our great country.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: You say that rural, poor and inner-city minorities are carrying the heaviest burden of war. That may certainly be true among Americans, but what of Iraqis and others in the region. Several hundred Iraqis have been killed in the last week alone, are they invisible?
RANGEL: No, that's collateral damage. That's what they would want us to believe. It's easy for us to find these atrocities cut off from our daily lives. But I truly believe that our real enemies, the bin Ladens are so happy that we're in Iraq so that they can have us portrayed as being those that are taking lives rather than those that are liberating.
It's hard to talk about the lives that are being lost not just the Americans, but the Iraqis. It's hard to think that on June 30th we have no clue who we're turning the government over to. But the president has a commitment to do just that.
Mr. President, stay what course?
QUESTION: For families with multiple children deployed in Iraq, if one sibling dies, should the U.S. send all other siblings back home?
RANGEL: I don't think the sibling should have been there in the first place. And I think that President Kennedy once said that sometimes your party and your country asks too much of you. I think that just the milk of human kindness when anyone loses anyone there that we should find some way to say enough is enough for this family.
RANGEL: I'm prepared to say enough is enough for this country.
QUESTION: With regard to the war on terrorism, how should we try not to offend nations such as France, Germany, Russia, China, et al?
RANGEL: I don't think our business should be trying not to offend. I should think with our European friends that we should be able to explain to them with our centuries of history of working with them that we know we can't go it alone, that they're just as vulnerable as we are, and that we're not asking for permission to protect our great country. And indeed if we ever find ourselves in imminent threat, before we even go to the international community, we should strike, even if it is a preemptive strike, if that be.
But when we don't have that evidence, but the threat continues, it's not a question of offending them; it's making them partners. And that goes for Europe, Africa, Asia, and the entire world. We should be smart enough and strong enough to be able to share the responsibility for getting rid of these people who have no respect for human life or civility.
QUESTION: What exactly do you propose the U.S. do about Iraq? Immediate, unilateral and total withdrawal of troops and U.S. civilians?
RANGEL: No. U.S. civilians, they're there to make a dollar, and I suppose that's where democracy and the free market system has to work its will. As far as our troops are concerned, we're in there, and it would be foolish just to think about pulling them out.
But the question is: How long will they have to be there? I don't think the answer is: as long as it takes and not one day more. There has to be some kind of plan. There has to be some timetable. There has to be people that we're talking with.
Clearly, if Democrats and Republicans aren't talking, our nation finds itself in a difficult position to try to establish some communication with the international community.
RANGEL: And it just seems to me that it makes a lot of sense that where we need the most support is where we know the least.
If the CIA and the FBI can't find people that understand the culture and the language of this region, my God, we are in serious trouble. We've got to learn fast what they're talking about, what they're thinking about and how they can support the terrorism that some of these countries are supporting.
The president takes the approach that we're going to bomb and shell anyone gives safe harbor to them. Well, I would believe that if we could bring summit of the world leaders together and to ask for their support in having an international strategy, which includes our friends from the region, that we would have one step forward in trying to figure out how long we have to stay, what is the plan, how we can calculate success and avoid creating more terrorists than we're killing.
QUESTION: Do you think President Bush backing Israel's Ariel Sharon on settlements will help bring peace?
RANGEL: Not at this time. This was one hell of a time to tell the Palestinians that some of them will never even hope to return to their homeland.
Whatever the strategy in the long term may be, internationalists that are better informed than I would have to respond to that. But at a height where can not find when he's ever made a mistake and how he could ever correct it, I think that yesterday should be a clearer thing for his memory in case the question's asked again.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Turning away from foreign policy into fiscal policy, is there really any way to lower the national deficit without raising any taxes as the Bush administration claims?
RANGEL: Well, the Bush administration has cut taxes by trillions of dollars and attempts to make these taxes permanent. And somehow they believe that if some of us in Congress can say enough is enough that and that after 2010 these tax cuts would not be permanent, they would try to say that's a tax increase.
RANGEL: All some of us are saying is just let's hold it. If we're getting involved in trillions of dollars worth of debt, if we're depending on foreign investors that if interest rates go up, we're going to be in much, much more trouble than we are now, if we find just paying interest on our debt closing out most of our discretionary programs, this is not the time to be talking about a continuation of the reduction of taxes.
We have to stop, review where we are. And if there's anybody that's entitled to additional tax cuts or tax cuts in the first place, it's that ever shrinking class of people in the middle class who finds it so difficult in carrying the additional burden of local and state taxes that we should be talking about giving them a break.
And for those who God has blessed by giving these dramatic tax cuts, let them continue the blessing and share this with some of the people less fortunate.
QUESTION: If you became chairman of Ways and Means, what would be the principal elements of the first major tax bill you would lay before the committee?
RANGEL: Well, I would first talk with Speaker Pelosi on this.
(LAUGHTER)
And then I would like to believe that this tax code that so many Republicans have said should be torn up by the roots -- and yet we've doubled the pages to 1,200 -- I would say let's talk about tearing it up from the roots. Let's take a new look at our tax structure. And let's make certain that there's an equitable distribution of the sacrifices we have to make fiscally.
And I think the first thing I would do is what I answered before, and that is stop the continuation of making this cut a permanent cut without reviewing the equity that was involved in making the decision that we made in the first place.
QUESTION: If the Senate deal holds and it passes the FSC/ETI bill, also known as the jobs bill, will it propel the House to action?
RANGEL: That's strange, I don't know where that label came, the jobs bill. I guess you might even call a preemptive strike in Iraq the peace bill.
(LAUGHTER) It just depends on -- we already call it the liberation bill. It all depends on how much imagination you have.
(LAUGHTER)
RANGEL: The foreign sales investment is a bill which we have been forced to take up because the World Trade Organization said we're in violation of the international tax laws, in that we subsidize our exports. There's about $40 billion of so-called subsidies that would be saved if we just abide by this international decision. Already, a $4 billion tariff penalty is being placed on us by the European Union.
And so it seems to us that at some point in time, when our exporters will be suffering this penalty because of the failure of the Congress to act, that we will be moving toward a solution of the problem.
Mr. Thomas, who I have to admit is smarter than most people in the world, had come up with the solution that we should take the $40 billion tax cut and take it away from our exporters and double it and give it to those people who've seen fit to remove the jobs overseas. He was unable to get enough people to support this.
And Republicans and I, including the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, have been able to get a substantial member of Congress to say you don't reward people for leaving the United States. If there's going to be any incentives, let it be to the corporations that's going to create the jobs here in the United States of America, and not those who seek tax haven abroad.
The Senate has taken an approach more closely to the Crane-Rangel bill. We haven't seen what they intend to do, but there's no question that they can call it a jobs bill because it provides jobs here. But I can see that Mr. Thomas might call his approach a jobs bill, albeit it would be jobs for people overseas.
QUESTION: Can we get special interest benefits that would exclude income tax payments by large corporations currently embedded in the transportation bill out?
RANGEL: Not this year.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: A large percentage of very profitable very large corporations pay zero taxes. How do you fix that when corporate lobbyists are so powerful?
RANGEL: Well, they're not powerful. In many cases, they're drafting the tax laws and certainly they drafted the Medicare prescription drug laws.
I think that we have to have to have more openness in the Congress. We have to have something that some of you may remember, open hearings. Remember when we used to have hearings and subcommittee hearings.
You remember amendments where if you have one lobbyist that wants it one way that there would be another lobbyist that would want it another way. You had amendments; you had open debate.
It's not that I feel excluded in the Congress. Most of the people there have been very nice to me. But when the speaker of the House appoints you to a conference and the chairman doesn't tell you where the conference is being held...
(LAUGHTER)
... it seems to me that it's not only unfriendly, but it's unconstitutional.
I think we have to restore, not only civility, but the rules in which the Congress used to apply this.
There's nothing wrong with lobbyists as long as they stay in the lobby and not in the leadership's office.
QUESTION: Several questions on Haiti, and the first is: Questions have been raised about the U.S. role in the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, what if anything do you plan to do to look into the matter?
RANGEL: What are the others?
QUESTION: The second is, what's the big deal about the loss of an unpopular democratically elected government in Haiti? Doesn't the U.S. get a long quite well with the undemocratic governments of Pakistan, China, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia as well as the brutal regime in Uzbekistan where we have an important military base?
And the last is why does the Congressional Black Caucus believe that it was the United States and not the Haitian rebels who forced President Aristide from office? Do you really think that with the rebel forces entering Port-au-Prince, Aristide would not have been killed if he had not been spirited away by American forces?
RANGEL: OK. I think the last question really answers it.
There is no question that the felons, the convicts, that those people, those Haitians, part of the military, that was forced to flee Haiti under the leadership of then-General Colin Powell, that found themselves in exile as fugitives from justice in the Dominican Republic, who somehow found uniforms, new uniforms and U.S. weapons in the Dominican Republic, that illegally entered the Dominican Republic and were responsible for the killing of so many people, the release from jail of so many criminals, the attack on the capital, the moving toward the home and the palace of the existing president, that these people would have and promised that they would kill President Aristide.
At the time that this was going on, the president of the United States and Colin Powell told me and many other members of Congress that notwithstanding the disdain, dislike and disappointment in President Aristide, that he was the duly elected president of Haiti. And they would recognize his presidency into the year 2006, and that they were prepared, directly or indirectly, to support opponents that would be prepared to have open elections and to defeat a president they did not like.
They convinced the leadership of CARICOM, that is, the Caribbean community, led by Prime Minister P.J. Patterson of Jamaica, to get involved in the dialogue and to come up with some plan that America and the French could agree upon.
That plan was that they would collectively pick some Haitian to be prime minister, that other members of the opponents would be included in Aristide's cabinet, and that there be elections in 2006.
Aristide agreed to these conditions. And the rebels did not. And the political opponents did not. And somehow in the middle of the night, when Senator Tom Harkin and I were talking with Colin Powell, they somehow were convinced by the French government that they were not prepared to stick by the agreement that they had with CARICOM, but that they would agree with the rebels and the opponents that Aristide had to go.
Yes, indeed, it is true that the rebels would have killed Aristide and his family, as they looted and destroyed his house, if our government did not provide safe haven and provide the plane to take him to a country which he never knew he was going.
RANGEL: Under normal circumstances, when a rebel force takes over a democratic government, that is called a coup d'etat. The only thing that distinguishes a coup d'etat from this situation is that there was a signed resignation by President Aristide. This resignation was requested by Ambassador Foley before the safe haven and the transportation was provided.
On two or three occasions it was demanded. On the last occasion, it was given. And you don't have to be a first-rate law student to know that a signature of a resignation under fear of not being able to save your life and the life of your family, is coercion. And the resignation does not really take the test of being legal.
For that reason, the Caribbean nations felt that the United States had broken an agreement with them, and they're seeking some help in the United Nations to make certain that the coercion was not a part of the agreement that they've had.
Colin Powell now says that he sees no reason for the investigation. I can understand his position, because he was a part of supporting the rebels in getting rid of the president.
The more serious question is: What do we do now?
We can't afford to rely on the rule of law. We've already destroyed that. And I think the last question shows that in some cases, whether it's Venezuela or other countries, we have no respect for it.
But we have to recognize that the people of Haiti need help, whether under a coup government or any government. We've let those people down for decades. And now, notwithstanding the fact of how Aristide left, we should be prepared to fulfill some commitment and to help these people restore the democracy and health and get some jobs going for them.
QUESTION: Congressman Rangel, thank you for coming and speaking with us today.
And I'd like to present to you this certificate of appreciation...
RANGEL: Thank you.
QUESTION: ... for being here.
And I'd like to also present you with the much-coveted National Press Club mug.
(LAUGHTER)
RANGEL: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank all of you.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: This is the final question. I don't think it's a suggestion. You are a very youthful looking 74 years of age. When will you retire?
(LAUGHTER)
RANGEL: I would retire when the job is done and not one day sooner.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank Congressman Rangel for coming today.
END