Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House has ever challenged the eloquence of the gentleman from California, but when you get to the bottom line, we have a whole lot of billionaire bums rejecting their citizenship to avoid paying taxes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with my chairman that the issue today is really how we can better provide incentives for the self-employed. I think if we review the record of exchange here, you will find that it has been the other side that has been trying to defend this tax policy that is repugnant to everything that decent Americans believe in. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by saying the leadership on the other side had decided that it was not really the VIACOM issue that they wanted to eliminate, but they wanted the Tax Code to be color-blind, and I am still working on that explanation.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman has hit the point on the head. We Democrats want to fix it right now and our Republican friends would prefer to study it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me once again agree with my chairman that he was able and had the political power and the votes to effectively make the Tax Code colorblind so that minorities would not have the same opportunity to purchase stations. I do hope that with this political power he and I can work together to make this country as colorblind as the Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think we are here today to do a service that the Congress has promised to do, and, that is, to give our self-employed people an opportunity to deduct their expenses, at least 30 percent of it, for health insurance. I hope that those that are not on the floor really do not believe that signing a conference report whether you are Democrat or Republican to support what we were there to do means that we should forever remain silent on how we have done it. Today we have had so many opportunities to review a situation that exists in our tax law that whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you know it is wrong, it is unpatriotic, it is immoral for someone to enjoy all of the benefits of the United States and renounce their citizenship and then run off to some foreign island to enjoy it. But at least we have agreed and we have taken this opportunity that we are going to do something about it. If we did not do anything at all about it in 40 years, it does not mean that it should not be done. The treasurer says something should be done now and it really ought to be done now. But since my friends would prefer a study, what we have to do is just deal with what is before us today. I think we can all go home proud of the fact that we have given something that really is deserved, the opportunity for a large segment of our population, millions of people who have that entrepreneurship that go out there every day to provide jobs, to be able to get some tax benefits for insurance. I hope the day would soon come without another study that my Republican friends would say that those people who are employed by the self- employed should be provided the same type of incentive.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman my chairman, I signed as a Democrat and I would sign that conference report again, and I encourage Democrats to sign it. That conference report was to provide tax incentives for the self-employed, and I agreed with you in the beginning, I agree with you now. That is and Democrats support. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. That has nothing to do with whether or not we will get an opportunity to vote to allow those who are self-employed to make the dedication. Changing the rule only gives the Members of the House of Representatives an opportunity to raise the revenue to pay for what should be done, and that is to encourage people to be self-insured for health. It just seems to me that when we had American citizens running off to Canada to avoid their national obligations to their country, their draft obligations to the military, we scolded these people for being unpatriotic, as we should have done. What the devil is the difference when we find billionaires, super-wealthy people, taking advantage of America's free market system, taking advantage of our educated employees, taking advantage of their legacy and all of the opportunities this great Republic has given to them, and just when they have been able to make the profit, decide that America is no good? How can we possibly say that we are going to reject this notion because the Democrats in 40 years did not repair it? These people found the loophole, and we are trying to stop it before there is a hemorrhage and we lose billions of dollars. So all we are saying is let us support the self-insured, let us give them the deduction, but let us reverse the rule so we have an opportunity to get the funds, the revenues, to pay for it.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, the reason I support the Mink substitute is because it is about jobs. All I can say is that we did not promise $200 billion to the richest people in America. We did not promise $780 billion. We did not promise a 50-percent tax cut in capital gains. But we do not blame you for doing it. It worked for you. But worse than making a bad campaign promise is keeping it. We cannot afford to give away that type of revenue with the deficit we have. But more importantly, we cannot do it by taking $68 billion away from the poorest among us. If you want people to have jobs, for God's sake, give them training, give them an education, a place to live, give them hope, give them an opportunity to be productive. But you do not cut off a child who did not ask to be born just to show how mean you can be. You do not really just tell somebody they cannot get assistance when there are no jobs available. If you really want a strong America, you do not beat up on immigrants, but give them a chance to become participating and productive so that we can become competitive. There is an opportunity to have a tax cut when we get rid of the deficit and we all move forward together in a more equal way. But you will have it on your conscience by passing the Government's responsibility and say pass it on to the Governors. One day the Governors are going to come back and say we do not have the money and then what are we going to do? This is a great opportunity under the Mink substitute, not for welfare but for jobs. That is what we want. And if you are not prepared for a job you cannot get employment.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my dear friends and colleagues, yesterday I was attacked by one of my Republican friends as supporting a corrupt and immoral welfare system, and then he scurried off the floor. This morning, I was attacked by my Speaker for being wedded to an immoral welfare system. But it was not on the floor. It was in a plush hotel in New York City, being dined by some of the most successful businessmen that we have. Mr. Speaker, wherever you are, whether it is old policy or Old Testament or New Testament, leave that beautiful hotel before you come back to your job and visit the lesser among us, visit those who are hungry, some without homes, without jobs, and without hope and see what is corrupt and immoral when we in this House have seen fit to cut from these people $69 billion. Is this to reduce the deficit, is this for our national interests? No, it is for special interests. Let us see who is immoral and who is corrupt.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to support this well thought out amendment to stop welfare payments from going to fugitives who are fleeing. The only thing I ask is, where does the fleeing fugitive apply for welfare?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for the purpose of my support?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of concern about people calling each other mean-spirited and not being concerned about the welfare of children in this great country of ours. But also there has been a restriction that our Republican friends have, and, that is, a contract. That contract seems to be driving people to do things that are inconsistent with what they truly believe. What are they driving to do? The first drive, the jewel in the crown, is to cut back taxes. That is the driving force. That is the engine. Whether it is $780 billion over 10 years or $200 billion that we have to cut back in taxes now, not that we have heard the American people screaming for it, but I assume the wealthy people know what is best for them and I assume you work closer with them. But assuming that you have agreed and you are committed in your contract to turn back $200 billion in revenues, then you have that same strong commitment to balance the budget, indeed, change the Constitution. Once you have reached those conclusions, the tax cut and to balance the budget, the only thing left to do is to cut, cut, cut, cut. And where do you cut? Did you go to the strongest that have been enjoying the subsidies? No, you went to our aged, you went to our sick, you went to our children, and you charged it all up to the lack of discretion of the teenaged mother for making God's child without having a legal contract. How dare we in this body determine what a child should or should not have because of the lack of discretion of the mother? And how do we feel as federally elected legislators in saying we have messed up this program as Democrats, so our responsibility is to turn it over to the Governors, no strings attached? Oops, I made a mistake, there are strings attached. Do not show enough compassion to give cash assistance to anybody that has a child if they are 18 or younger and they are not married. Oops, another thing that had strings attached. If there is another child while you are on welfare, regardless of how it came or the conditions, the governors are restricted from giving cash assistance. Oh, there is another restriction. No matter what the economic conditions are in the locality where the recipient is, no matter how hard he or she tries to get a job, if no jobs are available, then we say the governors cannot give them cash assistance because the time has run out. I tell my colleagues this: If a political pundit had to find out how to win an election they would say go against affirmative action, go against immigrants, go against people who are poor, go against welfare, go against food stamps and make America feel that we have to reform the system. But then again, if you put that in a contract and you win, you can bet your life it is not enforceable, not in this great country it is not.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, the rule governing debate on H.R. 4--the welfare reform bill--was narrowly passed yesterday. I voted no on that rule with a clear conscience because the rule the Republican majority crafted makes certain that we will never debate the fundamental issues raised by welfare reform. Worried about their ability to keep their own troops in line, the Republicans picked 31--minor and generally non- controversial--amendments for debate. From a policy perspective, their priorities are baffling. Rather than debate whether to guarantee a safe foster home for abused or neglected children, or discuss whether welfare benefits should be terminated if the person is able and willing to work but cannot find a job, the Republican majority chose to have us debate ways of tracking down deadbeat dads who have died, and sense of the Congress language that blames single-parents for crime, violence and most other ills of our society. In the interest of full disclosure, let me share with you some of the important amendments that Democrats sought to debate. In each instance, the Republican majority REFUSED to grant our request. A Stenholm (TX) amendment to require that net reductions from this bill be used for deficit reduction. A Matsui (CA) and Kennedy (MA) amendment to guarantee foster care and adoption assistance for any child who is abused or neglected. A Kleczka (WI) and Rangel (NY) amendment to give States the option of waiving the 5-year time limit for any individual who is willing to work, but for whom no job is available. A Kennelly (CT) amendment stipulating that child care be made available for the children of parents required to participate in work, training or education programs. A Clayton (NC) amendment to require that an individual employed or participating in a work or workfare program shall be paid at least the minimum wage. A Hall (OH) amendment to preserve the WIC and school lunch and breakfast programs. A Kleczka (WI) and Kennelly (CT) amendment to prevent States from reducing cash assistance to a family when the child's paternity has not been established due to a State backlog or inefficiency. A Levin and Rivers (MI) amendment to pay benefits to a teen mother and her child only if she lives under adult supervision, stays in school and cooperates with paternity establishment. A Levin (MI) amendment to require all States to report child support obligations to credit bureaus. A McDermott (WA) amendment to require that a State not terminate a recipient's benefits unless it had made available necessary counseling, education, training, substance abuse treatment, and child care. A Torricelli (NJ) amendment to preclude States from providing welfare to a family who has not vaccinated their minor children. A Miller (CA) amendment to require that States continue to comply with national nutritional standards until they develop their own standards that the Secretary of Agriculture approves. A Rangel (NY) amendment to prohibit the use of Federal funds to displace currently employed workers from their jobs. These are issues the American people expect us to debate. But we can't because the Republican majority has gagged us. That makes me wonder, why are the Republicans afraid to vote on these amendments? Are they simply playing politics or are they interested in true welfare reform? The American people can judge.

Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. Mr. Chairman, is it not a fact that the Republicans are not driven to reform the system which Democrats want to reform too but they are driven in order to save the money in order to pay for this horrendous tax bill that you have introduced on the Contract With America?

Mr. RANGEL. It is tax reduction, not welfare reform, and the gentleman knows it.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, during my tenure here in Congress, I have seen and participated in several attempts at reforming welfare. The Democrats have always crafted bipartisan bills and the far-reaching 1988 Family Support Act with its JOBS component is one result of cooperative work between Democrats and Republicans. However, in crafting the Personal Responsibility Act, Republicans apparently do not believe in continuing this bipartisan spirit. Out of the 150 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, only 33 were accepted. And of the 33, only 7 will be offered by the Democrats with the Republicans offering 26 of their own amendments. It is a shame that an issue that will impact millions of low-income and poor families in our nation is not debated in a democratic forum. The Republicans continue to exclude us even after they have incorporated some of the Democrats' ideas such as allowing immigrants who are veterans and fought to protect this country access to public assistance if they fall on hard times. And although some of the Republican amendments attempt to correct the mean-spirited provisions such as letting states give vouchers to teen mothers, vouchers cannot pay rent or the bus fare to work. Critics of our welfare system always divide the poor into two groups: the deserving and the underserving poor. Never before have I seen the so-called reformers exaggerate the underservingness of our poor as I have seen in the past couple of months. The Republicans vilify the poor and uses misinformation to justify their welfare cuts. The typical AFDC mother is seen as an African American teenage girl who has at least three children and is breeding more for money. This gross exaggeration and misperception is used over and over again. The truth is that only 10-15% stay on welfare continuously for five year or more. The rest cycle on and off welfare, finding jobs but never one secure or stable enough to stay off welfare permanently. These people who look for jobs want to work and need help and training so that they can find secure and permanent jobs. Instead, they are described erroneously as undeserving. Republicans also argue that out of wedlock births and single parenthood causes poverty which in turn, fuels a host of all these other social problems like crime and moral decay. Their cause and effect equation is all wrong. What they fail to see is that poverty is the source of social problems, and joblessness is what destroys hope and dignity. We need to train these parents and educate their children so that they are able to take advantage of opportunities and overcome poverty. Welfare reform is about helping and investing in people so that they can become economically independent which is not the same thing as refusing help. The Republican welfare bill will refuse to help AFDC recipients who are looking for jobs, those who are working but need child care, and those who are teen mothers. The Republican bill will deny benefits to: 70,000 children whose mothers are under eighteen; 2.2 million children because of they happen to be born to a family on AFDC; 4.8 million children due to the 5 year cutoff even if their parents cannot find jobs; 3.3 million children because they cannot establish paternity even though they are fully cooperating and the states are slow to officially establish paternity. By the year 2005, an estimated 6.1 million children will be ineligible for welfare benefits. Is this really welfare reform or is it just refusal to help--a refusal to help poor people and children just for the sake of the bottom line or even worse, to finance a tax cut for families making $200,000 a year. There has been talk of compassion and tough love but is it compassionate to tell a family who cannot find a decent job in 5 years that they will no longer get benefits? Is it compassionate to tell a legal alien who has been working and contributing in the United States for over 20 years that he can't get public assistance? Is it compassionate to cut money for school lunches for poor children just to save money? Republicans want to foster personal responsibility in these AFDC recipients but the federal government will be guilty of abrogating our responsibility to the poor families and their children in the United States if we pass the bill. The Federal government should bear part of the responsibility for ensuring that AFDC recipients find jobs or get training to be more marketable so that they can get jobs. This Republican bill doesn't ensure that they are working but rather, counts people who are cutoff from the welfare rolls as meeting work participation rates even if they do not have jobs. In my book, work participation is about people in jobs, not just kicking them off the rolls. Beyond this issue of welfare reform is this role of the federal government. We have a necessary role to invest in our people, in our children and to rebuild broken families. It is in our national interest to make sure that American families can contribute and that their children can grow up to be productive citizens. This so-called Personal Responsibility Act does not invest in our people and help make America more productive. Instead, it denies help to people and cuts funding for programs that feed children and in the long run, the human consequences of this bill will come back to haunt us. This bill encourages joblessness, drug abuse, crime and perpetuates hopelessness. In this case, the Republicans are willing to spend $60,000 a year to lock a kid up in jail but not spend $6,000 to keep that kid in school This bill is not about investment in our children and country but a conspiracy to end assistance to the neediest Americans.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I was called off the floor. I just wanted to make sure from the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Clay Shaw], whether or not the language in the Roukema amendment is the same language we had in the Committee on Ways and Means, which we referred to as the Kennelly amendment.