Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this whole idea that Democrats do not understand that what surplus we are talking about is not the government's money, but it is the people's money, we understand that. We understand even further that whatever surpluses we are talking about is the hard-working people that pay the Social Security tax and the payroll tax that give us what is the so-called surplus. There is no surplus there. The fact that under the Clinton-Gore administration we have been able to get a better cash flow does not mean that there is a surplus. We owe $3.4 trillion. We pay debt service on that money. It is safe to say that, when we work together and try to reduce our national debt, that that is the true way to say that we are giving back their money by reducing the national debt. In addition to that, it is abundantly clear that many on the other side do not believe we should have a Social Security system. I cannot argue with you if that is what you believe. You do not believe in Medicare. You do not believe in providing for affordable prescription drugs. What we are saying is that, yes, those are the people's programs. We are here as Democrats; and hopefully we can convince some Republicans to work together and not just say it is the people's money. It is the people's country. It is the people's debt. It is the people's Social Security program. It is the people's Medicare program. It is the people's children that need education to make them productive. All of these things belong to the people. We should not take a river boat gamble on what is going to happen 6, 7 years from now and put people in jeopardy for their kids and those people today that will soon become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits. We have to agree that you are coming our way as it relates to child credits and things like that, but you are giving us a little piece at a time. Already we are up to a trillion dollars, and we have to stop you before you hurt somebody. Because we know that piece by piece you will never be able to get this off of the ground. Even the President is against the things that you are going to come up with. Well, how do I know? Well, first of all, it is because I go over and I talk with the President from time to time. He is a very likable chap. He likes Democrats. He likes Republicans. He told us, which I assume he shared with you, that he does not want the tax cut lower than $1.6 trillion, like Democrats want it, nor does he want it higher than $1.6 trillion like some Republicans want it. He wants it just like this. He thinks that this just fits. I am telling the President, get your troops in order and try to get some of that compassion or conservatism on the other side of the aisle; because, Mr. President, this just does not fit. Already we have got $950 billion that has already passed the House, $399 billion we are trying to defeat today, $267 billion they say is going to come up next week. We have health related, education related. We have got research and development, which is going to cost us $50 billion. We have the alternative minimum tax fix, $292 billion. When we get finished with all of this and add debt service to it, $556 billion, Mr. President, the Republicans will be giving you a $3 trillion tax burden which you say is too big. Mr. Speaker, let the Democrats join in and say we are going to stop this majority in the House. We have a substitute that is more in line with what you are thinking about, Mr. President, and the people will have an opportunity, including Republicans, to work in a bipartisan way to vote for the substitute and to stop the majority's bill. Mr. Speaker, then what can we do? Then we can really come together, sit down as Republicans and Democrats, and see whether we can agree to a bill that does not pass on the partisan vote, but a total bill taking in consideration all of the things. Mr. President, in order to make it easier, we Democrats have come up with a bill that we really believe Republicans should consider. It is H.R. 1264, and it would allow for us to look at the entire budget that we have and to divide it into one-third for the tax cut, one-third in order to reduce the debt, and one-third for the programs that the American people and even the President of the United States support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one might think the only thing before us today is the marriage penalty and the child credit. I think to legislators we can take a look and clearly we would see that the Democratic substitute that is before us today is more equitable. It is fairer, and it takes care of the problems that we have been talking about. Let no one believe that by voting for the substitute that they are not voting for not only equitable relief, but they are voting for a child credit that is going to reach the kids that come from families that make less than $30,000, which is not true of the majority's program. But even more importantly than that is the different pieces of the tax bill that is coming to the floor, not as a comprehensive tax program within a budget that we know what to expect, but each week that we come here, we are asked to vote on different pieces. It is this that we do not know how much can we digest since already before the next week is out they would have completed the $1.6 trillion and start moving towards the $2 trillion tax package that they really have. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, who is the final speaker on our side. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his leadership on this issue. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6. As the cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I begin by saying that I am not opposed to providing true marriage penalty relief for all Americans. I support responsible tax cuts for all taxpayers. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and many of my Democratic colleagues of mine who have stated so forcefully today, the Democratic alternative is the only bill on the floor that provides true relief. Americans need a tax cut, and I am in favor of that. But we must have a tax cut that is responsible, a targeted tax cut that really will provide true tax relief during these difficult economic times. As with the bills that my Republican colleagues brought before the 105th and 106th Congress and now in the 107th Congress, H.R. 6 is poorly targeted, too broad and too expensive. This bill will result in spending of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and a cut in domestic spending. This plan reverses the course that we have been on for several years and does not leave adequate money to continue paying down the national debt. H.R. 6 is a bill tilted towards the wealthy people of this country and threatens all the priorities important to hard-working families. It raids Medicare trust funds, and it is too back-loaded that it does nothing to help our economy today. This bill will crowd out the priorities vital to millions of seniors, military families, women and children. It cuts services like COPS on the beat and after-school programs that are so vital for the public schools and for safety of our children. This bill provides, Mr. Speaker, no benefits to American families who need help with child care and housing. I support the Democratic alternative, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill that gives true marriage penalty relief. Mr. WELLER, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would note that we have a bipartisan bill before us today that is being offered as an amendment, a partisan Democratic substitute for the bipartisan bill. I would note that the bipartisan bill will benefit 25 million married working couples who pay higher taxes just because they are married. In fact, the bipartisan bill which received the support of every House Republican last year and 51 Democrats who broke with their leadership to support real marriage tax relief will help eliminate almost the entire marriage tax penalty for almost everyone that suffers it. That is pretty fair. I would also note that the partisan Democratic substitute fails to help children. In fact, they fail to address the need to increase the child tax credit. And we work with the President and his proposal to double the child tax credit, doubling it to $1,000. It is currently $500. It will provide immediate relief this year, an additional $100, so it will be an additional $600 tax credit this year. I would point out in combination with the rate reduction, as well as the child tax credit this will put an additional $600 in the average family's pockets this year.

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 gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious time in our Nation's economic history, because for the first time in many, many years, we expect to have a surplus; but we do not know the exact amount that surplus is going to be. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided that they are going to have tax reductions in the budget based on the fact they expect $5.6 trillion. We all know from the Congressional Budget Office that these figures that we are relying on, 50 percent of the time they are wrong, and the question is, what happens if they are wrong this time? We hope that they will not be. It seems as though, if this tax cut is locked into place and the surplus is not there, then the funds will not be there for Social Security, for Medicare, for prescription drugs relief, for education where the President wants to leave no child behind; and we were hoping that if we could find some kind of a trigger mechanism or some way to have a tax cut that we know that we can afford this year, or maybe for the next 5 years and then after that, take a look and see where we are in terms of our economy, where are we in terms of the programs, then not just Democrats, but even this compassionate Republican President would want to see supported. So it just seems to me that if we are concerned about education and making certain our kids are going to be productive, concerned about our old folks getting decent health care, concerned about our men and women in the military, improving the quality of their lives, the question has to be: Where will the money come from? Of course, if we find out that we do not have the funds, there are only two things that we can do: ask for another substantial tax increase, or cut out the programs, the funding for the programs. We do know that there are many people on the other side of the aisle that believe the Social Security System never should have been created, that Medicare is not working, that the best that we should do for education is to give them a voucher. We know that health care to some people, they believe that there should not be a Patients' Bill of Rights. But by the same token, most Americans disagree with that theory, and we should not use reduction of taxes and an increase in spending for defense as an excuse to wipe out domestic spending. So, Mr. Speaker, it might be that the best thing that we should be thinking about doing is instructing the Congress or the conferees to recommit this bill, and to have them come back to see whether we can do something right now to spur the economy; whether we can get $60 billion out there in the taxpayers' hands; whether we can really stimulate the economy now, instead of just letting the rich get richer 5 years from now. We know that this tax cut has nothing to do with the stimulation of the economy, because the President thought about it in the good years. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore had a great economy going. Now that we are bad-mouthing the economy, now that it is sputtering, now that it is looking like it needs a shot in the arm, maybe what we ought to do, not as Republicans and as Democrats, but as Members of the House of Representatives, is to set aside this bill and tell the conferees, let us get something out to the taxpayers this year. Let us get it to the hard-working low-income people, the moderate-income people, and make certain that there is a vehicle out there that we can use. I am certain that staff will have prepared at the end of this debate a vehicle that we can join together and use to get that money out there, stimulate the economy now, and then we can take a deep breath and take a look and see what an equitable tax cut might be. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a very important issue has been brought to the House floor this morning, and one that certainly has to be addressed by both Republicans and Democrats. We do have an alternative, and we soon will be able to debate that, that not only provides a better way to take care of this very serious problem, but fits into an actual budget that no matter what the surplus actually turns out to be, we can have some assurances that this relief will be there. What the majority is doing is not bringing to us the full tax bill that they are talking about, because they know that the various parts of this tax bill just does not fit into the $1.6 trillion tax cut that the President wants. It is almost like trying to get a big size 12 foot into a size 6 shoe. It just does not fit. If we take a look at the illustration that has been shown before on the House floor and think that this pie represents $1.6 trillion, $958 billion in rate reduction has already been spent. Today we are talking about $399 billion that is going to be in the marriage penalty and child credit bill. If we really think they are sincere about $1.6 trillion, then that just leaves $243 billion to be left for the rest of the tax cut. So we are not saying that we are closing out today, that this is it, that they have done what the compassionate, conservative President wants, because we know that we soon will be discussing how we can give estate tax relief. Now, this is going to be really a giant-sized foot getting into a size 6 shoe when this comes to the floor next week. Because even though they may estimate that it will be $2 billion or $3 billion to take care of this problem, those that are looking for estate tax relief should really take a hard look and find out when is that relief expected. I suspect it will not be for a long, long time. The Joint Committee on Taxation was asked to give an estimate as to in the long run what would it cost. They say $663 billion over 10 years. Now, the Republicans have a tendency that when joint committees agree with them, they waive it around; but when joint committees disagree with them, they attempt to ignore it. In any event, it is going to be really educational to see how they attempt to swallow the cost of estate tax repeal as opposed to what we have attempted to do in our bill, H.R. 1264, and that is to make certain that we give relief, except for the .06 people who are extremely wealthy that should be paying some taxes on those estates. But even if we assume that they can wedge in some kind of way relief for estate tax, we have so many other things that cannot fit into this. They talk about fixing the alternative minimum tax. Some of us that come from high-income States have been able to deduct this from our Federal taxes, and this will no longer be able to be done, and that costs us $292 billion if we tried to bring some equity to those people from high-income States.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you very much.