Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), an outstanding Member of the House of Representatives.

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of my Committee on Ways and Means, is right. There are some Republicans, some Democrats that are emotionally involved with the concept of repeal, even if it does take place a decade from now, but the gentleman should know that a handful of donkeys running with a herd of elephants does not make a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a distinguished Member.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. Spratt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the committee. (Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to note that the gentleman did not mean we need to do it now; the gentleman from Texas means he means to do it 10 years from now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that it is so unfair to talk about repealing the estate tax when we do not even intend to do it for 10 years. It is really misleading. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one can search the Internal Revenue Code all they want and they will find no provision labeled the ``death tax.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), my friend on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I understand the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means' explanation of the bill, it is somehow that he was forced to sit in the back of the plane during the time that Speaker O'Neill was here and Dan Rostenkowski was chairman, and now he is going to get even. As relates to the legislation before us, my colleague says just read it, because he certainly did not attempt to explain it. The gentleman did say, however, that this is basically the same bill that passed the House in the last session. That is very, very, very strange, because the Joint Committee on Taxation said if the same bill was to go into effect this year, it would cost us in revenue $662 billion. Now, I looked at the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut, and already they have spent $958 billion for rate reductions, another $400 billion for marriage penalty and child credit, so I wondered how they were going to fit $662 billion tax cut and estate repeal into the last wedge that only left $200 billion; and they did it. By God, they did it. Mr. Speaker, the only thing is that they are saying that their legislation does not take effect for another 10 years. When you are 70 years old like I am, those other 10 years, that is a long way away; but I think it is the Republican health plan. Do not die in the next 10 years if you want to protect your kids and your estate. Mr. Speaker, why do you not do this; why do you not support the Democratic plan today? We bring about instant relief, at least for most of the people who have estates less than $5 million. And then maybe in 10 years you can come back again and see who is it that you left behind. In other words, we cannot have legislation for estates that leave no billionaire behind; we cover everybody, darn near, except about 6,300 people. So why do you not do the right thing by farmers and business people? If they read the legislation like the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) suggested, you will see that we are on the right side. Read the editorials and tax analysis. They know this is the right thing to do. Do not hold hostage all of the smaller estates only because you want to get everybody instant relief 10 years from now. Give them relief today and vote for the Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, I hope we do have a bipartisan solution to this real problem that we face. I hope that this is not a continuation of what the Republicans call class warfare. I hope we are able to say that we are going to be responsible with a tax cut that fits into at least some type of a budgetary restraint. I reserve the balance of my time to just sit back and listen as to how they are going to get this size 12 foot into a size 6 shoe. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a minute or two to offer a truce to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) on this class warfare and would agree that we could find some meeting of the mind if we could get into the Republican rhetoric some talk about preserving the Social Security system, talking about the Medicare system, talking about prescription drugs, talking about improving education. We have here a bill offered by the majority that talks about repealing the estate tax 10 years from today. When I asked the Joint Taxation Committee how much would it cost if we took last year's bill and put it into effect immediately, they said $662 billion. So I said there is no way in the world for the Republican leadership to maintain the ceiling of $1.6 trillion that the President has put on the bill. If they have already spent $953 billion for the marginal rate changes, another $400 billion for child credits and for removing the marriage penalty, there is $200 billion left. How are they going to get this $662 billion foot into this $200 billion shoe? And they did it; they really did it. They did it by saying if one wants to protect their estate, do not die for 10 years. What we are saying is that the Republican bill might make some sense if that was the only thing we had before us, but we have an alternative that everybody that can read the bill would know that it makes more sense to get instant relief from the Democratic bill for more people and right away. It excludes $4 million estates starting with 2002 and that moves up to $5 million estates at the end of 10 years. The Republican plan would cost us $60 billion a year. It is not class warfare to say how is that money going to be made up; how do we know that the surplus is going to be there; how are we going to protect the entitlement programs that one may not like but they are on the books. We have to protect those people who are going to become eligible in 10 years. In 10 years, the $1.6 billion tax cut goes into effect. The $60 billion that we lose a year on the estate repeal goes into effect. Eighty million people will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare, and this is the time that we expect to get a $5.6 trillion surplus because the CBO says that might happen. They say that 90 percent of the time it might not happen. So let us not say that this is class warfare. I do not have that many people running around my district with $5 million estates; but wherever they are, I would want them protected. I would not want farms lost and small businesses lost because we are taxing the estate. That is why we exclude them instead of opening some of these farms to even more of a tax exposure when we find that the appreciation in some of the property under the Republican plan is taken into consideration with the taxes that they are going to have, and that is the taxes they are going to have and will continue to have until 10 years passes. So, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting this: forget the class warfare and see what makes common sense in terms of 99.04 percent of the United States. Only 2 percent have any liability at all, and we take care of 75 percent of those people, and I ask them to consider the Democrat alternative.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are not just here dealing with the child credit or removing the marriage penalty. I think that is a bipartisan issue that we all have worked on, and we could have worked on effectively had the other side seen fit to attempt to come up with something that is bipartisan. Instead of this, they have, in a very bipartisan way, brought before this floor a $953 billion tax cut all geared toward the top 1 percent, at least half of it, of the taxpayers. The President, who asked for this $1.6 trillion tax cut, he asked for this during the time that we had the prosperous Clinton and Gore years. Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not hear the President of the United States talking in such a compassionate way as he did during the campaign about leaving no child behind. We do not hear him talking about the viability of the Social Security System or Medicare. We do not hear him talking about prescription drugs. He is going around in different communities talking about the sputtering economy and how the stock market is falling, and how he needs this $1.6 trillion to give it a jolt in the arm. Most of us know, who write the bills, that they have not shared with the President that he will not be getting any part of this $1.6 trillion until the next 5 years. And if he is really serious about wanting to do something now, do not depend on the high-rollers to go out and buy that refrigerator or that washing machine, but let it be to the American people who work every day and try to send their kids to school, that are struggling to pay the mortgage. Give them the money now, and they will be able to give this economy the shot in its arm to bring it back to what we did have when we had sound fiscal policy under President Clinton and under Vice President Gore. All we are saying with this motion to recommit is do not give up on the tax cut, but take a deep breath, go back to the committee, and see whether or not we can get $60 billion in the economy now, this year, in the pockets of the people to spend. Then let us try to come together once again as Republicans and Democrats and try to work out something that is not as extreme as the $1.6 billion; that does not totally repeal the estate tax for the rich, but really gets out there for the working poor, the moderate-income people, and give a fair tax break to everybody. We have not given up on Republicans on this side, and we have not given up on our President. The motion to recommit really means let us go back and let us see whether we work out something now to stimulate this economy, and to make certain that the American people have confidence not only in the economy, but have confidence in this Congress.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.