Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, several of my colleagues and I voiced our concerns about glaucoma and its devastating affects to Mr. Stanley Grant. What I will present today is the outcome of that encounter. I am pleased to share with this distinguished body the outstanding work of a responsive and caring citizen, Mr. Stanley J. Bud Grant. Mr. Grant is the President and CEO of the Friends of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus Foundation. His leadership has brought to this endeavor the vision, the energy and the enthusiasm that has led the Foundation to achieve considerable success. As one of the Founding Members of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus, a non-partisan body, I have observed the work of the foundation, first hand, and have watched the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus grow to more than 80 Members. The mission of the Foundation is to serve as the action arm of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus by providing free glaucoma and vision screenings for at risk groups in congressional districts throughout our beloved country. Screenings for diabetes and hypertension, both risk factors for glaucoma, are documented in the family history, with these screenings frequently being incorporated into the screening protocol. The emphasis has been on glaucoma screenings since this dreaded eye disease affects more than 3,000,000 Americans and is a silent thief of sight. It can attack children, but is more commonly seen in the later years. Far too many of our people go blind from this disease without even knowing they had it. The true tragedy is that their sight could have been preserved if they had been screened and the disease caught in the early stages. Picture if you will, the boundless joy that the patient and the staff experience when sight is saved. Since 2001, more than 82,000 men and women from all walks of life have been screened. The early signs of glaucoma were detected in 11,500 individuals. Another 13,000 had vision problems other than glaucoma. Equally important was the fact that 57,000 were given the good news that no eye disease was detected. One outstanding initiative has been the Student Sight Savers Program. Through this project grants have been awarded to 46 medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country. The aim is to expose medical students to a clinical specialty, ophthalmology in their earlier years of medical school. Through this community service initiative, medical students across the country have screened as many as a quarter of the patients. We, thus bear witness to a man and his dream. A dream we shared. He joined with many of my colleagues, and myself in seeking to preserve the sight of our people. He convinced glaucoma specialists, other experts and a team of volunteers to follow his lead. Mr. Grant also had the unwavering and committed support of his wife, Mrs. Eleanor Beers Grant. She not only lent him encouragement, but she became quite active in the affairs of the Foundation. In his indefatigable pursuit, he challenges all of us to match his efforts. He is, moreover, sensitive to the cultural strands of our great nation and the need to seek out and care for those who lack health care services. He has taken his staff on mobile vans into what would be considered inaccessible areas. This great body has honored many a deserving individual. I am extremely proud to offer a special tribute and recognize Stanley J. Bud Grant for all that he has done and will continue to do on behalf of the American people.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. I think the gentleman has answered the question. There is no urgency in this. You just want to give a projected Christmas gift to the very wealthy. So I need some help on this. If I can't get answers from you, I will get someone that can give answers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) to answer some of these important questions, a distinguished and acknowledged expert in this on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) to give a rhetorical response to the chairman's question.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request 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, the gentleman picked a heck of a time to lose his voice here now.

Mr. RANGEL. I am terribly sorry. I will take it up then when we have the opportunity.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get technical about this. I just want to set the record straight, and that is that we all agree that the alternative minimum tax is an unfair tax on people because it was not planned by the Ways and Means Committee and by the Congress. So, of course, we thought yesterday and we think today that these people, who through inflation were thrown into this category, should be protected. And that is why we were so disappointed that the Republicans, by party line, rejected the Democrats when we were doing the bill in the committee from not being included in the reconciliation bill. Now, we all know that the bill that we passed yesterday on the suspension calendar is not protected like this $56 billion is protected today. As a matter of fact, people should know that it may appear to be a technicality, but the only way that this alternative minimum release bill that we passed yesterday in the suspension calendar is that not one of the 100 Senators over there objects. We need the consent of every Senator to provide the AMT bill with protection. That is not so. If the Republicans were so concerned about these people who got caught into this trap in getting the alternative minimum tax treatment, it would be placed in the reconciliation bill. So I do not think you ought to bring up things when the facts are against you. It is true that you have decided that those people who want relief on capital gains taxes and corporate dividends, even though they do not get hit until 2009, that you are prepared to have the people who get by the AMT this year or next year, rather, in their tax burden to get hit at the expense of those people that are much richer and much smaller in number. So I really think that in this holiday season, we are doing enough damage without distorting the truth. You have had your priorities in terms of protecting the AMT people or protecting the group that is going to be allegedly protected today, even though they do not need any, not today, not next year, and not the year after. So those are the facts, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for affording us the opportunity to at least, in this holiday season, whether we like the bill or not, let truth prevail.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join with the Republicans to send this holiday message to millions of Americans that will be affected by this bill, especially to the fraction of 1 percent that would be the beneficiaries of a substantial reduction in capital gains and corporate dividends. It is true, while this only represents 20 to 25 percent of the bill, it should be made abundantly clear that these benefits would not be effective until sometime in 2009 and 2010. Now, I am here on the floor to try to get people to understand that this tax cut for the rich is really to grow the economy, and I want to make it clear to those people who have lost their jobs and not counted among the unemployed, those that are looking at automobile plants closing and airlines going bankrupt, that basically the economy is good, and it is good because the President told us so. And if they do not think that we are moving forward fast enough, then they ought to really listen to the President as he shares with us the great economic recovery that has happened in Iraq, and if they are just a little patient, things will get better here in the United States. Now, we all know that whenever we give this type of tax cut that there is going to be a tremendous revenue loss, and in the last few days, that revenue loss has been something like $100 billion. But fear not, because we are not charging all of this to the deficit. It is true that as the deficit increases more than history ever expected under this administration, that soon 40 percent of the tax revenues that we get will be going just to pay the interest on this outstanding debt, and that is why our Republican friends believe that we just cannot expand the deficit, that we have to cut spending. Now, they have looked all over to the to decide where to do the cutting. And in this holiday season, I just want to join them in letting people know where these cuts are going to take place. But I do not want people to worry about it because the President says that the economy is booming and the Republicans here say that the tax cuts for the rich is for economic growth. So how can one be against that formula? First of all, if one is a mother trying to raise her children and she got support from the local and State government to go after the father, or whatever the case may be, to get that money to take care of her and her family, not to worry, that this is going to be cut and she will not be able to get the money because under this bill, whether people know it or not, it is for economic growth. Say you are considering using food stamps for your Christmas meal. You find out that the food stamps are going to be cut. Not to worry, because soon there will be economic growth. Maybe you are just a student trying to get a student loan, and you really think that you should get some help from your government because, after all, we want you to be productive and make a contribution to society. Not to worry, these tax cuts are for economic growth. What I do not understand, with all of the opportunity that we have had to take care of economic growth, why do we wait until this time of the season and target the least among us in order to do the budget cuts? It is not as though we do not have $2 or $3 billion in terms of expenses in Iraq, which if you did not know lately, you should know that victory is in sight and we are winning that too. So we do not want you to lose confidence in all of government. If you find out that this bill rewards the richest of the people in the United States whose income is not going to be adversely affected, or their tax is adversely affected for 3 or 4 years, but we have to do something to target the poor today, then you have to have some trust in the Republicans, because they say we have got to have victory in war, we have got to grow the economy, and this is the best thing that ever happened to you. Now, the Democrats are not just saying vote ``no.'' We will have an opportunity for Members to vote ``yes.'' And unlike the Republicans, we thought enough of the alternative minimum tax to include it in reconciliation. What does that mean? It means it is protected when it gets over to the other side, so we did not have to depend on 100 Senators sitting down and not objecting. It is in our bill. All of the good things that can come out of a bill, we have included, including relief for those people that have State taxes. And so, my friends in this holiday season, you may find it very difficult if you are unemployed, if you are concerned about the economy, or the cuts that we have, including Medicaid, which is only a $10 billion cut, but you must trust the majority and the Republicans in this House, because they, like the President of the United States, say the economy is booming. We are going to have victory in the Middle East, and this is going to make it easier for you, if not today, if not tomorrow, then sometime in the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Please.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say briefly, if the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is saying that the alternative minimum tax is in the other body's bill, then he must be saying that the tax cuts that we are talking about today are not in the other body's bill. So it is 3-card Molly. The House Republicans passed both of them, one on the Suspension Calendar that is not protected here, but is protected in the other body; and this bill which provides for relief for the taxes for corporate dividends and capital gains, which is protected in our bill, but is not in their bill. And so what we are doing is shooting dice to see which one will prevail. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman just one question on my time. These very important tax cuts or extension of tax cuts you are talking about, could you share with me as simply as possible as to when they expire, what year?

Mr. RANGEL. The tax cut that we are talking about is the $20 billion in capital gains and corporate dividends. Does that not expire in 2009? Don't get rattled.

Mr. RANGEL. It is just a simple question. Because there seems to be some degree of urgency in this and unless it is a projected gift, then these things don't expire this year or next year.

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am so glad to hear my friend from Florida talk about the economic growth that we can expect by making certain that the capital gains tax cut and the corporate dividend tax cut do not expire. What bewilders most people is that this does not expire until 2008. Nobody would be adversely affected until 2009, and unless the gentleman does not believe he will be in the majority in the next few years, I do not see why he would have to say that people who are out of work, who are looking for work, who have lost their pension should believe that this tax cut that will continue to 2009 is going to help them. But maybe the gentleman from Mississippi, who understands that not many of his constituents are going to understand this, might clarify some of the problems we have. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who really knows what economic growth should be.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I had an old law professor, and he once told me, if you don't have the facts going for you, raise your voice. I never understood it, but I do now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to share with us what economic growth means to him under this bill.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, having only one speaker remaining, until the other side reaches that point.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the conclusion of this debate, and I want my colleagues to know that if you are looking for some of the things that are worthwhile that are in the majority's bill, we have an opportunity in the substitute to take care of it. But if you really believe this is the time for America to give a $20 billion tax cut to these people who will not be affected until 2009, why would they want to give this incentive to less than 5 percent, 1 percent of the richest people that we have in our country, and do it in this Christmas season? So you have an alternative. You can take care of the wealthy in years ahead, since this does not expire this year, or you can do what they have not done and that is to take care of those people who find themselves subjected to an alternative minimum tax only because the majority has not seen fit to give them relief in a decade. And so as this number has increased, instead of taking care of them in the bill that is before us, they have decided to just send a message over there to tell the Senate if you would like, by unanimous consent, and if no one objects, then you can take care of the AMT problem. We do not do this as Democrats. We take care of it up front. We take care of the military, we take care of those people from Hurricane Katrina, and we take care of the job credits that are important. We take care of those things that are important in our substitute. In this holiday season, we really do not believe that you ought to take $10 billion out of health care for the poorest people in this country. We do not believe that you should, in order to pay for this bill, that you should cut food stamps. We do not believe that students that have been getting help from this great government of ours should be adversely affected to pay for this tax cut. So we ask you to really consider in this holiday season these families that have kids in foster care, these families that are having their benefits not being received because we are letting them down. You just weigh this and ask, is there any equity involved in this? If you want to give these tax cuts, why do you not wait until the thing expires? Perhaps we will have a new Congress. Perhaps there will be new equity. Perhaps it can be discussed. Perhaps the committee members, Democrats and Republicans, would come together and find out not what is just good for the wealthy, but what is good for the strength of this great Nation of ours. One of the greatest threats to our national security is poverty. One of the greatest threats to our national security is the inability to get an education. The people who died in Hurricane Katrina did not die because of their color. The hurricane was color blind. But they died because they were poor. Why can we not invest and make certain that all Americans, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, can this holiday season say Congress did the right thing and not the political thing?