Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

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, we have a Democrat substitute that really is not in sharp conflict with the Republican bill. Many things we tried and include and did suggest in the brief time we had to work on this bill. Basically, what we have done, though, is to pay more attention to the middle class that really are the victims of the alternative minimum tax than we pay attention to the richest of America who do not find their Republican tax cuts being threatened until 2009. Why did we do this? Is it merely a technicality? It is a very important difference. Yes, we voted on the Suspension Calendar to provide relief for these people, not as much as we do in our substitute; but people have to understand the Suspension Calendar in the House is not protected under the other body's rules. They protected those people that they wanted to protect, those enjoying capital gains and will continue to enjoy capital gains and corporate dividend tax cuts until 2009. Why would they not include right in this bill, that would be protected on the other side, I do not know their political reasons. But I do know this: what we refuse to do is to give tax cuts that would extend the deficit. We do not do that to generations that follow. Nor do we hit the poor who are sick or the kids that want to go to school or the foster kids or those kids that are dependent on money from their fathers who have abandoned their mothers. We do not do it in this season, nor do we do it anytime, because there is a difference in what we believe in. I am suggesting this: if Members support the substitute, you are supporting deductions for State and local taxes, real estate taxes, the deduction for college tuition, the research credit they talk about that we agree is so important, the work opportunity tax credit, tax incentives for the District of Columbia and for Indian reservations, 15-year depreciation period for leasehold improvements and restaurant improvements, qualified zone academic bonds, the brownfields cleanups, and several other important, but minor, provisions. What I am suggesting is that the major decision of those of you who will have to vote is whether or not you want to give $20 billion of tax relief to people who would not need it until 2009 at the expense not only of the deficit but at the expense of the poorest among us; or whether you want to take the good things that we could find in this bill, not increase the deficit and not cut the programs for the poor, and have a Democratic substitute that makes sense to the American people and, hopefully, to the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. There must be some chart around to show how many people were pushed into poverty during that same period of time and our wages have been reduced, but we have it in the back if any of our Members would like to use it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished Member of our Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my distinguished friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) that the Republicans did send a signal to protect the alternative minimum tax. We want to do a lot more. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who can explain the difference between what you want to do and what we want to do in this substitute. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), an outstanding member of this committee who truly understands the problem of the deficit. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have all the respect for the majority leader, and it is true that he knows some of these people that have gone from upper middle income to become higher-income people, and there are other people in this country that have seen middle-income people slip into the rolls of poverty. So in order to have a more well-balanced bill, we concentrated on the middle class by putting the alternative minimum tax into this bill to make certain that when it gets to the body, it is protected and we do not have to depend on just one of those people over there rejecting it for this higher tax cut, which, of course, does not adversely affect anybody, as the majority leader said, until 2009. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) to close on our side, who represents the minority at this historic time.

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. Does the gentleman from California? A parliamentary inquiry is no longer the Speaker's responsibility?

Mr. RANGEL. Well, I just wanted to know how many closing speakers they had.

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

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

Mr. RANGEL. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Well, Mr. Speaker, you can take away our right to go to conference, our right to amend bills, but one thing you cannot take away is our right to vote. We have a game called 3 Card Molly in New York. You never know which one is under the shell. So they have an opportunity to say that they want to help the wealthiest Americans, but they like to give a whole lot of talk to those people who, through no fault of their own, except the ineptness and the inability of the Republicans to correct it, they got caught in the alternative minimum tax. Now, they will scream out that they took care of it on the suspension bill. Well, you do not have to be a parliamentarian to know when you send something to that other side and put it on the suspension calendar, you had better send a prayer over with it because any one guy can stand up and say I object. But when you cover it because you believe in it and put it in the reconciliation bill, it means that is what you really want to do. At the end of the day, when we vote, all we are saying is, we ask the conferees, whenever they might meet, that they are instructed by this House to take care of those who really deserve the tax privilege the most. Take care of those who were not really thrown into this thing because of increased income, but were thrown into the alternative minimum tax that was not supposed to capture them, but they got there because of inflation. In 3 Card Molly, you do not know what is going to happen. But we will know at the end of this vote something that John Lewis knows that they said in the civil rights movement, and that is, which side are you on? What a great opportunity. Take away everything you want. Take away our votes, our opportunity to express ourselves, give us rules that you like to give us. But, on this vote, at the end of the day, people might ask how did you treat the alternative minimum tax? Some people might say, well, it did come up in the House. It was not important enough to put in the reconciliation bill and it was not important enough to allow a lot of debate. We put it on the suspension calendar because it was not paid for and we did not think it would be controversial. And so, with all of the debate, what is going to happen when you get back home is did you protect those that were most vulnerable. Forget about the poor. Forget about the rich that you are giving the incentives to. Just ask, on this one thing, no matter what happens in conference, where was the alternative minimum tax protected? It is protected in our motion to recommit.

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

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. How many names do you want as to why we don't do it again? I can tell you why we don't. We on this side would welcome the opportunity. I don't think that the general public and the voters like to see us fighting each other. But there has not been one issue that the Republicans would allow us to work with them on. And further to that, even when you have your conferences, you know and I know Democrats are excluded from it. So if you and I were trying to work together, I am certain that we could. But you and I don't call the shots around here, Mr. Shaw, and that is unfortunate.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with my friend and the gentleman from New York that the alternative minimum tax was not created to put this undue burden on middle class income people. But I would like to suggest to him as a member of the awesome and powerful Committee on Ways and Means, and former member of the Committee on Rules, that suspension of the rules were not meant for bills like this. I think it takes a little bit of arrogance to put hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts on the suspension calendar, which does not give us an opportunity to see whether we can bring the relief that these taxpayers deserve in a more equitable way. It just seems to me that we had an opportunity to take care of this tax that for many, many years has been threatening the full fiscal load on taxpayers that it was not intended for, but somehow the leadership did not put this in the tax reconciliation bill. It did not include it with their bill to reduce corporate gains tax or the capital gains tax or the corporate dividends tax. Why would Republicans do something like this? Well, maybe it is because they do not really think the Senate is going to take it up. Maybe this is just a fig leaf for not having the courage to say that this thing is going to cost a trillion dollars if it is going to be permanently removed, and as of now, it is going to cost $33 billion. I think the American people ought to know that this is either going to cut deeper into the social programs that the very poor have had taken away from them, or it is going to increase the deficit by an additional $33 billion. In any event, I am more than confident that my able colleague from the State of New York and a part of the leadership of the majority party will make it abundantly clear to us that when we all vote for this, that not only have we got some guarantee that it is going to pass the Senate, but we will not cut any further into the $35 billion that is in the real tax bill that came to the floor. So, Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that we are just going through this for political reasons. The Senate is not going to take it up. The deficit will be increased by $30 billion, but I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill because it certainly has more merit. We never intended for these people to get caught in this, but somehow capital gains and corporate dividends have a higher priority and so this suspension bill will turn slowly in the wind, but I do not know how much support we expect to get from the President or from the majority leadership on this. But we shall see what we shall see. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a very distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee. (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. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for the fine work they have done for these people who got caught in this political fiscal trap. What the gentleman from New York, however, my colleague, does not know is that he is not answering the questions that we are asking. It is not that we do not support this bill. It is why did it not get the same protection as the capital gains bill or the same protection as the corporate dividends bill? Why do you have this bill turning slowly on the wind on the suspension calendar when you could have sent it to the Senate with protection? Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the person that was described by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) as his partner in a bipartisan way, a very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in closing, though, I would also like to point out that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a junior Member of the committee, spent considerable time working with us and working with us through the United States Trade Representative in order to make certain that we reached this conclusion, and I will be supporting this piece of legislation.