Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised that my Republican friends on the Committee on Ways and Means, the tax writing committee, have distanced themselves so far from this bill. This is a tax bill. No one challenges that this is a tax bill. My Republican friends are saying that this code is so complicated, so unfair, that it ought to be pulled up by its roots. And yesterday it said after we get rid of President Clinton, we will get rid of the code, which is good talk before an election. But if the code is so complicated, why would the Republicans add this fertilizer to the roots that they want to pull up? This is supposed to be an education bill? What does it say? The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), my good friend, never even talked about that. He talked about all of the fine efforts that we have to make to have our kids to read. Mr. Speaker, let us talk taxes. Let us say what we are going to do for the American parents here. Because the gentleman and I agree that one of the most important things that we have to do to maintain America's competitive position is to educate our young people so that they will be able to meet the challenges of the next century. So while all America is paused waiting to hear what is the Republican plan to better equip our children, they send a man who knows how to educate our children, who chairs the committee, who really sincerely has proven over the years his dedication for educating our children, they send him to this floor with a tax bill. So let us see the merits of the tax bill. Mr. Speaker, if an American child has an income less than $150,000, this bill allows an account to be opened in the child's name. If the child has friends, relatives, corporate figures, or anybody that loves this poor child enough, they can deposit into an account up to $2,000. There is no provision in the bill of what happens if you do not make the $2,000, but that is not important, because the government does not give you the $2,000. The government gives you a tax-free status on the interest. So if you are lucky, you can make, out of this bill, anywhere between $7 a year upwards to $37 a year, depending on your accounting system. For those who do not want to complicate the code, what does this all mean? It is an educational bill. It means that, out of the $2,000, you can use this money to further the education of your child. Let us take a closer look at the bill and find out. Is education schools, the renovation of schools, the construction of schools? Does it mean adding teachers to the school? Does it mean buying books and equipment for the school? No, no, no, Mr. Rangel, this is a tax bill. What do you expect in a tax bill? Oh, I got it. The bill says that you can deduct and pay for, under this, if you have a tutor for your child, or, if you do not have a tutor, if anyone is teaching your child, or, if you do not have anyone to teach your child, baby-sitting can be considered a part of instructing your child, or it could be transportation for your child to school. You could pay for the school bus. You could pay for the cab. You could pay for the scooter bike to get there. There are other provisions in this bill that perhaps make a lot more sense, and that is that you can buy books. You can buy tablets. You can buy pens and pencils for your children. I do not know whether the rest of the family can use these things, because, after all, this tax legislation means that these things have to be bought for the child. So we have to make certain that you have the school equipment on one side and what the parents would use on the other side. If you want to get a television set, because you can get a lot of education on TVs these days, they have got educational channels, I suspect we may have to get an opinion from the Internal Revenue Service, that is, before you throw that out with the rest of the tax code, to see whether you can buy a TV. It is disgraceful. It is embarrassing. It is a terrible hoax to play on the American people to have education associated in any way with this bill. Let me tell you one of the reasons is because nobody has given any thought to this thing. Has this thing gone to any committee for consideration? Did we not have hearings on this? Were there teachers coming down saying, for God's sake, pass this so that I can educate the children, or were the parent-teacher associations marching around the Capitol saying pass this education initiative? My God, even the Republican National Committee is not supporting this. But it is closer to election time. Legislation is more designed for bumper stickers than it is to be passed into law. So the President, in his wisdom, will not allow the Internal Revenue Service to have to add this to the complicated code which my colleagues want to pull up by the roots. The President will spare my colleagues the embarrassment of having to administer this bill. However, there are bills here that have been passed that make a lot of sense. In my motion to recommit, I am going to ask that we give an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, to do something constructive; and that is to ask the committee to go back in and to commit themselves, not to tax laws, but to education, to rebuild our schools, to vitalize our schools. We need $172 billion for the new schools and to bring back our decrepit schools. So let this be the last time before election that we try to get bumper-sticker type of legislation. When you say education, look somewhere and, instead of just bringing the distinguished gentleman here who has dedicated his life to education, if it is going to be taxes, bring the chairman from the Joint Committee on Taxation, and let us talk about this bill and how effective it is going to be. Other than that, I want to see whether anybody else wants to stand up and support this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

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

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 the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our distinguished minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has dedicated her political career to improving the quality of education for our young people. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to agree with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and say that he is right, that the cost of this bill is not taking away from appropriations for the public schools. This is not an education bill. This is a tax bill, and he is right, it does give tax cuts to those people that have enough money to deposit in a bank account. And I have to admit that the chairman is right when he says that we are driven by special interests. That special interest are those very special children who need so badly to get a decent education. And so, once again, I agree with my chairman. But perhaps we do not end up at the same place, at the same time, with the same bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford). (Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. RANGEL

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

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

Mr. RANGEL

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Members have heard how we have tried to come together and work together with the diversity that we have in the Democratic Party, in hoping that if we were going to have meaningful legislation, that no one party can do it, it takes Republicans and Democrats coming together and doing what is best for the American people, not just someone just singularly saying that they are going to deep-six the Code. In our recommittal, we say that it has to be fiscally responsible. We do not want to have the reputation of closing down government. We say that it has to be fair. We say that it has to emphasize simplicity, and it has to encourage economic growth and competition. We have certain things that we think are so important in the Tax Code that we hope that Members would vote for what the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) has contributed to, and that would be the Boyd- Tanner-Rangel-Stenholm recommittal motion.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, under the rule, only one Member may offer the recommittal motion. But in the spirit of trying to have broad-based support for what we are going to do and to make certain that we did not have this frightening idea where the original legislation said that they should do the right thing by having a bill, we say they do not repeal it unless they do the right thing by having a bill. But we Democrats all do not think alike; and, so, what we have done is try to work together now to see what we could work with so that if we were the majority, we would be able to come to the Republicans and say, what can we do as a Congress for the people of the United States, not what we can do for the Democratic Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), my cosponsor.

Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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