Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Jefferson]. (Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just like to say to the gentleman that it is a hurting thing when you are talking about working Americans with children asking for welfare, whether they all are asking for the dignity to continue to work, and sever the benefits that other working families would get.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I am a member of this bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. I have not hired any staff. I have not seen any reports. I know it is bipartisan because the chairman said it was. But if we would be kind enough to release this bipartisan statement so we would know what is in it, I think the American people will have a better idea about our differences. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States, as I pointed out, made an effort to get a bipartisan bill. It is still referred to by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means as a bipartisan bill. The President has reviewed that bill, the President has, the Secretary of the Treasury has. They think that it is very difficult for them to see the goals and objectives that they wanted to have. One of the classic examples would be in the area of education. The President sees the dream of an America, that our economic growth would be based on productivity, and he knows so well that in this area of education is where we are lacking. We have one of the biggest imports into China, American education. Those people are going there, picking up our technology, and through 1\1/2\ billion people, they are able to be more productive. Which area are we going in America? We have the prison population growing, not our education population. We have 1.5 million people in jail, not only not productive, but hundreds of billions of dollars is being paid just to keep them incarcerated. In the Democratic alternative that we are talking about, we take it even further than the President's plan, and say, start in our public school systems, but do not try to do it alone. Bring in our private sector. What will be the jobs demanded in 10 years, in 20 years, in 30 years? Formulate that in a partnership with the schools so that the employees will be able to come from the communities in which they live, and when they graduate from high school, when they graduate from college, they not only would have the pomp, the circumstance, and the diploma, but they would have a job, so they will not be dependent on society. Clearly we have seen a division in our way of thinking. We have an opportunity now to have a bill that is fair for Americans. The President is not going to tolerate that the other party dictate who are working Americans. You can use your formulas, make up your charts, but if you are working, the President of the United States insists that you get the child credit to assist you with some of the problems that you face. The President is not going to accept the capital gains tax indexing. We went out of our way to make certain that we can make it freer for the small business person, the farmer, those people that have special needs. But we cannot afford to have, in the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years, revenue losses that our budget cannot carry. So since we know that the President says that the Republican bill is not bipartisan, it is born politically dead on arrival, it is going to be defeated, let us pick up what we can to make certain that we have an alternative that can go into conference, and invite our Republican friends to learn what bipartisanship is about. We have swallowed a lot on our side. We ask you to really work with us so we can take to the American people not a battle based on class but a bipartisan effort to show that we can work together, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, with the President of the United States for a better America. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1, pursuant to the rule.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman I yield myself the balance of my time. I really think that this President of the United States has singled out one of the most important issues that we as Americans face, and that is whether or not we are paying attention to hard-working Americans as relates to the burden of taxes that we placed on them. Our President saw fit to reach out and to recognize that in the House and Senate, Democrats did not win, but he won, and the Republicans won. To that extent, he thought he was pulling together a group to present to the American people a bipartisan agreement as to spending in the budget and in reducing taxes, and in providing assistance for American education. Somewhere along the line, when it got to taxes, our Republican colleagues forgot the bipartisanship, because to my knowledge, the Secretary Treasurer, representing the President, did not know what was in that package until the chairman released it. Notwithstanding that, there was great hope that during the process of amendment, that we might work out a bill that would lend itself for the President of the United States to say, it is not all that I wanted, it is not all the Democrats wanted, but it is the basis for us to move forward in a bipartisan way. Notwithstanding my feelings about it, I knew one thing was abundantly clear, that the American people did want and did deserve a bipartisan effort. Now when we get to what do we have left here, the President of the United States looked at the package and said, but where is the Democratic part of this? Why did Congress elect to put something in the bill that would be so costly, no matter how much we would want to do it, and I am talking about capital gains indexing, when the President has made it known, at least informally, that he did not think that the budget agreement could afford that luxury. And where would Congress go to get the money to pay for this type of thing? A lot of debate is being had today by my Republican friends in saying, if one does not pay Federal income taxes, one does not get Federal relief. Well, let me congratulate them, because up until yesterday, they were actually calling these people that work every day receiving welfare, and I am glad to see that has stopped, because as mean-spirited as it sounds to other people who work and the people that the President had included, it is so important that when we say tax relief, that my colleagues on the other side do not start a class system. There is one group of people that we should talk about, and that is the working class. I promise that there is no reason for us to call people by class, except my Republican colleagues are saying that if these people do not make enough money to pay Federal taxes, then the taxes they pay for food for their children, the taxes they pay for clothes, the excise taxes, and these are Federal taxes that are put on airplane flights, these are taxes. Why should they be so sophisticated because they do not make that much money that they should understand now that they belong to a different class? The President and the Congress allowed people to believe that when we say $500 for a child tax credit, that we really mean it. And if we can find a way to give to the working people, the people that find that inflation has eaten them up, the people that every time they see an excise tax, it means more to them than it means to people that get the salary we get. We do not care how much a bottle of milk goes up or a loaf of bread, but to many families, these changes in supermarket costs mean how much money they would have for other things. So let me join with the Republicans in saying, let us stop this class war and let us start talking about the people who work and do not put them in different categories. If one is a working American, they deserve the relief that the President wants. I do not know how long we will be able to stick with this bipartisanship. The President is looking for the principles of fairness. The President is looking for his HOPE scholarship that somehow was promised around $35 billion. Somewhere along the line the President thinks that he lost several billions, and that he did not see anything close to what he thought was an agreement. Mr. Chairman, we Democrats, we have stuck together. We have gone to the President, we have provided an alternative, we have stuck with his principles, and one of the most important things is we expand on the education package. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is safe to say, without getting involved in the class war, that there is a difference philosophically between the Democratic program and the Republican program. We are asking that my colleagues join with the President of the United States. We can reject this package today by the Republicans. We can do better with an alternative that we are working with, and maybe if we allow this to go into conference that we will be able to pick out the best from both of the bills and allow us to come forward once again in an effort to be bipartisan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle]. (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I guess bipartisan means liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans but did not include many Democrats, but anyway let us move on. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentleman for clarifying the tax bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] who has been so helpful in drafting the Democratic alternative. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].