Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. If we have unanimous consent that an error had been made by the conferees and the House Republicans and Democrats would like to correct this error, what would the Chair recommend that we do, since we want to avoid the accusation that this is class warfare, when the working poor have been excised from the bill?

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House consider H.R. 2286, a bill to expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for families that were left out of the recently signed White House-supported tax law.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I approach the floor to alert the House that a substantial number of Members are prepared to see that we do not pass suspension bills until such time as the grievances of this great body are addressed. As most of us know, recently this House passed a tax bill without the inclusion of one thought, one amendment, one idea that the Democrats have had. There comes a time that we have to say, enough is enough, not because we are Democrats, but because we represent people throughout these United States whose interests have been ignored. Six and one-half million low-income working families and 12 million children have been denied the benefits that this House was allowed to believe existed in the tax bill. It was excluded. Why? It was excluded to make certain that the money borrowed from the Treasury would take care of the high-income people receiving relief from capital gains and from interest taxes. We will be heard today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Michael J. Handy, Director of the Mayor's Office of Veterans' Affairs in the City of New York. Mr. Handy died on May 31 from a heart attack. He was 55 years old. Mr. Handy was first appointed to head the Mayor's Office of Veterans' Affairs by Mayor David Dinkins in the late 1980's, and was reappointed to that position by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For Mr. Handy, service to veterans was not a partisan issue. Indeed, he was New York's Veterans' Veteran, having dedicated 30 years of his professional life to assisting the men and women who had served in our Nation's Armed Forces. He had served in Vietnam as an enlisted man in the Air Force. But as his loving wife Edna has pointed out, Mr. Handy's service after the war, and to the very end, was a response to a call that struck him so deeply that it became central to his life. For him, working for and with veterans was not so much a job, or a political office, it was a passion. I first began working with Mr. Handy in the late 1980's when he became involved with the Congressional Black Caucus Veterans Braintrust, which I chaired. Mr. Handy became a fixture at those annual meetings which convened each September during the Black Caucus' Annual Legislative Conference. Mr. Handy was one of the very first advocates for federally assisted housing for disabled and veterans, which culminated eventually in a program to provide such housing, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Veterans' Administration. In his later years, Mr. Handy was a persistent advocate for raising the benefits received by Reservists and National Guardsmen to equal those of active duty soldiers. His voice in that area has been heard in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are pushing such legislation. Mr. Handy, a native New Yorker, was a lively, kind and gentle man whose service to New York City's veterans, including those residing in my Congressional District, I will never forget. He followed his vocation with the greatest enthusiasm, attending every parade, every meeting, every dedication, in the hope that somehow his presence would make a difference for his constituents which numbered more than half a million veterans in the city and nearly 400 veterans organizations. Mr. Handy, in his Director's statement at the Office of Veterans' Affairs, described New York as a city of ``patriotic Americans--men and women--who have put themselves in harm's way to preserve our way of life. We owe those who wear, and those who wore, the uniform of the United States of America a debt of gratitude for their service and their sacrifice.'' Mr. Speaker, we all owe Michael Handy a comparable debt. We thank and commend him. And we pray that you will ease the pain of his loss being endured by his dear wife Edna, his loving daughters, extended family and his many friends.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the President has said in numerous speeches that his policies are designed to ``leave no child behind.'' He has said recently that, ``My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.'' White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated on May 29 about the new tax-cut law (which includes all of the provisions of the President's plan in full or in part), ``This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes.'' Now that the bill has been signed, all of these statements have been shown to be false. Back then, during the debate on this bill, the Republicans assured the press that the final conference bill retained a Senate provision that, while it did not extend any tax relief to millions of low-income working families with children, did at least accelerate the 15 percent partial refundability. The Republicans also claimed that the marriage penalty relief was accelerated for couples. These claims have been proven false as well. The American people were sold a false bill of goods by the Administration and the Congressional Republicans. In the middle of the night, the Republicans passed a bill that over and over again puts the interests of the wealthiest people in the country ahead of those of the ordinary American family. You will hear all sorts of excuses from the Republicans as to why this occurred. The spokeswoman for Chairman Bill Thomas of the House Committee on Ways and Means told The New York Times that the blame lay with the members of the other body of Congress''(W)hen we had to squeeze it all to $350 billion, they weren't talking about the child credits.'' She concluded, ``(W)hatever we do is not going to be enough for some segments of the population.'' The ``segments'' of the population we are talking about are those people who the President and Congressional Republicans say that he wants to help. We are talking about 11.9 million children (in 6.5 million families) who would benefit from accelerating the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit. These are parents who work hard at low wages and pay high payroll taxes to the Federal government. Another ``segment'' we are talking about is working couples who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. These are working poor families who are often struggling to stay together given the financial pressures on them. A couple with two children where each parent earns about $10,000 has about a $1,000 marriage penalty next year. And yet, the Republicans decided that marriage penalty relief should not include them. The Republicans also left out 8.1 million taxpayers who receive no benefits from the new tax law and yet pay income taxes. This group consists mainly of low-income single individuals and moderate-income single parents whose children are over 16. Not only are these ``segments'' made up of men and women who work and pay Federal taxes, many of the people that are left out of tax relief are the same men and women who just fought for this country in Iraq. The society they sacrificed for has decided to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust fund to give billions of dollars in tax relief to wealthy investors, but has not seen fit to give a tax cut to our soldiers. Make no mistake about it. Nobody forgot to put benefits in because they were sleepy in the middle of the night. This was not necessary because the bill had to cost only $350 billion and it was simply impossible to do anything for these working Americans in the bill. The Republicans in Congress, with the tacit approval of the White House, deliberately skimped and trimmed on the few provisions under consideration to help millions of middle- and low-income working families. Meanwhile, they enhanced provisions for the wealthy and for special interests. They made sure that the average millionaire would receive a $93,500 tax break. They made sure that luxury SUV owners would get a generous tax break if they can figure out a way to make their vehicle a ``business expense.'' They even made sure that the tax cuts for dividends, the so-called elimination of ``double taxation,'' applied to dividends from companies that use sham headquarters in tax havens to get out of paying any tax. These companies that put profits over patriotism get benefits from the tax bill the President signed, but the parents of 12 million children do not. The bill we introduce tonight is designed to serve those people with children that the Republicans talk about but somehow never do anything for. This includes many of our service men and women who are or have been stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea. These men and woman have risked their lives and done their duty at such low wages that the President's tax cut which he claims helps ``working families'' has left them out. The bill would include an expansion of the refundable child credit that was included in the Democratic economic stimulus proposal. It would expand the refundable child credit for the families of military serving in Iraq and other combat zones. It also would include the provision of the Democratic stimulus plan that accelerated the marriage penalty relief in the earned income tax credit that was provided in the 2001 tax bill. The President's bill gave big tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens and funded these tax cuts though borrowing. While we want every child in America to benefit from tax cuts, we do not want to pass the cost of what we do to our children and grandchildren in the form of more national debt. The cost of the bill would be offset by a combination of the corporate tax shelter and Enron-specific provisions that passed the Senate and Mr. Neal's bill stopping corporate expatriation. The legislation we propose has two key sections: Liberalization of Refundable Family Credit Under current law, the per-child tax credit is partially refundable (i.e., paid even if the family has no income tax liability). The amount of partial refundability is 10 percent of taxable wages above $10,000. Under the 2001 tax act, the amount of refundability is increased to 15 percent of taxable wages over $10,000 effective in 2005 and thereafter. This legislation accelerates the 15 percent partial refundability and lowers the threshold for partial refundability from $10,000 to $7,500. It would increase the number of families eligible for partial refundability. The military serving in combat zones receive an exclusion for their pay while serving in the zone. As a result, many in the military will not be eligible for the partial refundable family credit because they do not have taxable wages. The legislation solves this problem by disregarding the combat pay exclusion when computing the size of the partially refundable family credit. Marriage Penalty Relief in Earned Income Credit The 2001 tax act provided three types of marriage penalty relief, an increase in standard deduction, an expanded 15 percent rate bracket, and an increase in the dollar amount at which the earned income credit begins to be phased out. The recently enacted tax cut accelerates the first two types of marriage penalty relief, but does not accelerate the relief in the earned income tax credit. This legislation will accelerate the marriage penalty relief in the earned income tax credit. When the Republicans brought their final tax cut bill up in the House in the middle of the night, I argued on the House floor that the bill did almost nothing for working people while rewarding the wealthiest people in our society who have lots of unearned income. The Republicans accuse me of engaging in ``class warfare'' and expect me to back down. But I agree that it is class warfare. The Republicans have declared war against those who earn their living through work, even when those individuals are serving their nation in the armed service. This legislation shows that in this class warfare, we are on the side of working men and women.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), an outstanding, hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this, I hope, is going to be an evening and a day that we will all remember as legislators. It is true that the majority tries desperately hard to bring these bills up in the middle of the night so that sunshine will never see what it is. It is also true, it is also true that conferences do not mean what they used to mean. It means after a dozen Republicans get together in some room somewhere and decide what they want to do, they then come around and pass out a paper and ask you to sign it. So I have been accustomed to that on the Committee on Ways and Means. But guess what, a lot of Democrats on this side have been saying forget all of this $726 billion and $550 billion and $300 billion. This is all a game they are playing, and they said that this bill was so full of gimmicks, that the Republicans were trying to fool the American people because we said that this was really a trillion dollar tax cut. And my friends over there started booing and saying this was so unfair and that we were just distorting the numbers. Well, there is one person in this House that when he says something, people do not point their finger at him. They say the man makes a lot of sense. He is a straight shooter, and he is respected by both sides of the aisle. Now, I do not normally read statements, but since it involves the Speaker of this great House, I thought it might start off the debate on a high level rather than wait for just the heavy people to come down at the end of debate and start talking about how we should salute the flag and do the right thing. And this is a bill that we have worked on and we have done it within the budget. Now, it says here that House Speaker Hastert told the Congress Daily Thursday that the final package incorporates key features of the House- passed bill and positions Congress to pass much greater tax relief in the near future. The $350 billion number takes us through the next 2 years basically, Hastert said. Hastert, meaning the Speaker of this august body. But it also could end up being a trillion dollar tax bill because the stuff, that is what the chairman was working with, because the stuff is extendable. That is the fight we are going to have, and it is not a bad fight to have. This goes on and says, Congressional Journal, Hastert said the final package is front loaded and will boost the economy in the short term but it includes nearly all of the content of the House's original bill. Now, I do not know how far in debt you guys want to take us, but listen, because this is important stuff. This is history-making stuff. Now, this is what the Speaker said about this bill. That at the end of the day it is not 350, it is not 550, it is not 726. It is a trillion. But guess what? It gets better, to show you just how deep they would want to get us in the hole. I never knew they hated Social Security and Medicare that badly. But at the so-called conference, there was a period of time that I was the only Democrat there on the House side beside the minority leader. The chairman came in later. And so there was opening statements made before the conference report was just passed around to sign. And our distinguished majority leader said, while we are doing this bill and you have done a lot of good work on it and praised the Republican leadership and the House and Senate, he said, before this year is over we will be coming back to pick up the rest of it to make certain we get another trillion. Now, I mention these names because the only thing that they did not mention was that they were going to borrow the money in order to give the rich these tax cuts, and they want to stick the rest of society with paying the interest on the money that they are borrowing at the expense of the Social Security system. I am so happy and pleased that at the end of this day that we do not have to point fingers and say that it is gimmicks that you are doing or you are trying to hoodwink the people because if the Speaker said it, and you applauded it, so therefore I do not have any apprehensions; and if the majority leader came back and said, you are coming back to raid us again and you applaud that, well, thank God for your honesty in what you are doing. And one day somebody is going to ask, when this deficit just grew, when the programs were collapsing, when people were just paying more interest on the debt than all of the programs that we have together, all of the discretionary programs, they may ask, and just what were you doing when this happened, when you shifted the responsibility for paying taxes to the working people that do not have the exclusions that you provided today? So to the Republican leadership, thank you for making our day. I thank the Speaker for being so honest and saying what these people have done; and to the leader, come back again for the next trillion dollars and maybe some day soon the American people can see what you are doing to them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is really great if someone can get in the 15-percent bracket and not have a job. The IRS is really working overtime. But I know you are not really trying to take care of these people. Basically, this is a Republican plan that came long before the gentleman became chairman of the committee. It has very, very little to do with taxes. It is just the Republican belief that the Federal Government should not be in the business of providing service to American citizens, that they should just take care of national defense and to provide the wealth and protection for the investors. And for those people who are less fortunate, they should rely on local and State governments. For that reason, we find this enormous increase in taxes for working people that work in our cities and work in our States. We also find our charitable organizations in deep trouble as the Federal Government will be providing less assistance to them in Medicaid and Medicare. And even our heroic veterans who come home will find that the benefits will be sharply reduced for them. Leave No Child Behind? Take a look at the budget and see how many people are left behind. We know that some of these programs have been described as ``third rails.'' We do not want to touch them. Leave Social Security alone. But at the end of the day, when we see that you borrowed all of the money that you can and that our great Nation is now paying interest on the debt that you have caused not only tonight but you promise that you will come back again and again and again and we will find ourselves in more debt, we will be okay, those of us in this Chamber. But what about our children and our children's children? Do we not owe it to them to at least provide the same type of America that our fathers and grandfathers provided for us? What happened with the surplus that we have? How did we have such a tremendous swing from $5 trillion there with our hopes and our dreams where we could do something? What do you leave us with now? A deficit as far as we can see, programs that we will never be able to initiate? And what will you say? The money is just not there? You say that this tax bill is going to create jobs. Why do we not pull the Record about what you said the last time you came with a $1 trillion tax bill and find out where are the jobs that you promised then? We know there is a philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. We believe the people should be served, and not just the investor class. Is it class warfare? You bet your life. But you declared it against the working people.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is a whole lot to this bill I did not see, but if that wife is going to benefit from the marriage penalty and she is not working, this is an exciting tax bill. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman from Louisiana. It certainly did go down because they stole the money out of the Social Security trust fund in order to make it go down. So he scores there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the head of the Democratic Steering Committee.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the graciousness of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and congratulate him on the sincerity with which he accepts the motion to instruct the conferees for creating the atmosphere so we can have discussion on what is happening here. This is a motion to instruct the conferees; and to people who are not aware of it, there is an assumption that there is a conference, a conference that involves Members of the House and the Senate appointed by our great Speaker to resolve the technical differences in a bill from the House of Representatives and the Senate, for us to be represented, Democrats and Republicans alike. And the distinguished chairman of the committee says that he will accept our recommendations that were drafted in parliamentary language to report neither an increase in the Federal budget deficit nor an increase in the amount of the debt subject to the public debt. Now, while he is saying that this is his conduct in the conference, all of last night and this morning we have heard that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has already reached agreement with his Republican friends in the Senate. I do not know who is going to be appointed as a conferee, but it is abundantly clear that they have reported to the press that they have already decided what they are going to do, and so the whole idea that democracy is taking place here has really been shattered by the fact that the Republicans have yet to come out of the dark room that they have been in to share with us where will the conference be. I do hope that we understand this, that the eloquence with which the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means described how repugnant the deficit is to him, that he only found it difficult to live with because it was caused by Members of Congress' propensity to spend money for programs. I really think that is the key to the whole thing. He has no problem in creating the deficit for tax cuts, but his problem is when we are spending it for education and housing and Social Security and Medicare and prescription drugs. That is where he draws the line. It seems as though while the papers are concerned with whether the negotiators, and that is what is referred to on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, not the congressional conferences taking place trying to resolve differences, but what he and his Republican counterpart have decided that they are going to do for long-term economic gain, something similar to what they did several years ago when they said they had a program to create jobs, and it turns out that they had a program to increase deficits. So here we are today saying that they have agreed on a $350 billion tax cut when everyone inside the Beltway and in the House and Senate knows that they have agreed to a trillion dollar tax cut and a trillion dollars in borrowed money; and the fact remains that for the next decade the interest that we will be paying on the money that has been borrowed for tax cuts will be more than the money that we ever will be paying for discretionary programs to provide assistance for Americans. So now that they have come out of the dark room and agreed that they are going to do the best, I can tell Members this: no matter what they come out with, it is the American people who are going to pay the price for this dramatic shift as to when did we start borrowing trillions of dollars in order to reduce the taxes on the precious few already- blessed people with high incomes that will be the beneficiaries of it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. I am anxious to be recognized by the Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think I should be recognized by the Speaker.

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

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