[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 3, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4857-H4862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 TAX CUT UNFAIR TO HISPANIC POPULATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, last week, the President signed into law 
one of the largest tax breaks ever for the wealthiest Americans. He did 
so at a time when unemployment is on the rise. Since President Bush 
took office, approximately 2 million jobs have been lost, and the 
Hispanic community has been hit the hardest with a rising unemployment 
rate of 7.5 percent compared to 6 percent for the general population.
  People want to work, but the jobs are simply not there. Instead of 
pursuing policies to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the 
administration and the congressional majority have pushed through a 
plan that includes a tax cut that does nothing to address any of these 
financial problems and worries that are facing millions in this 
country.
  While making false promises to create jobs and stimulate our economy, 
these tax cuts are targeted primarily at large corporations and the 
wealthiest of Americans. Those that are earning $1 million a year will 
see a tax cut of over $100,000. Half of all Latinos in this country 
report having an annual household income of under $30,000. Under the 
Bush tax plan, some of these wealthy individuals will see a tax break 
that equals three times what these families make a year.
  We understand that people who pay taxes deserve a break, but we have 
gone from record surpluses to skyrocketing deficits. We cannot meet our 
obligations to support critical health and education programs. And a 
tax cut this size does not make any sense whatsoever. We have chosen 
also not to pay for the war. We have chosen to put it on the backs of 
not only those that are our young people out there defending our 
country but on the backs of their children.
  We now also find that in addition to favoring the wealthiest of this 
country, the administration's tax plan excludes those who need the 
assistance the most, low- and moderate-income families. Families making 
between $10,500 and $26,625 a year are now, under law, excluded from 
collecting the $400 child tax credit. Those who could benefit the most 
from the tax credit will in fact get nothing.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty comprehending the philosophy that 
brought this about, trying to exclude the ones at the bottom of the 
totem pole. While others enjoy a tax cut, these individuals who make 
under $26,625 will not. The median income in my district is $22,000 so 
more than half of my constituency will not see a cent. For Hispanic 
families, this means that roughly 1.6 million, or 30 percent, of all 
Latino families who otherwise would have been eligible for the tax 
break are now no longer going to qualify. The child tax credit has long 
been crucial for Hispanic families, working families, who are deeply 
affected by the tax burden.
  While 85 percent of Latino males are in the workforce, the largest 
percentage for any ethnic group in the country, many Hispanics work in 
seasonal, low-wage jobs, and the majority of Hispanics do not 
participate in the employer-sponsored retirement plans, nor do they own 
stock. How can the administration argue that this plan helps working 
men and women when working families are the ones that are left out?
  The Latino community may not be one of great wealth, but we are the 
future of the economy and the workforce, and the Latino community 
deserves the respect of our leaders and deserves a fair share of any 
proposed tax relief plan, not just the crumbs left over from the 
Nation's wealthiest few. What we can do is, we will fight to fix the 
wrongs of this tax bill not only for Hispanic families, but for all 
Americans.
  I am pleased to be here tonight on behalf of the Hispanic 
Congressional Caucus, and I am pleased to have members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus with me.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I 
thank the gentleman and the Congressional Black Caucus for also 
participating tonight and discussing some issues that confront our 
community.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman not only 
for being here tonight, but also for the tremendous leadership you 
provide as chairman of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. I have been 
pleased and delighted to note many evenings when I have seen you 
talking about not only health care, but talking about education, 
talking about the needs of people across the board; and I have been 
gratified that all evening we have seen an array of individual 
Democrats take to the floor, and talk about this tremendous tax break 
that we saw just before we left to go on vacation, go to our districts 
over the Memorial Day holiday.
  It is amazing to me that we have heard about Leave No Child Behind 
when we have left millions of children, just with this one act, this 
one tax break for the wealthiest 1 percent, the wealthiest 5 percent, 
we have left millions of children behind, all at one time.
  It is amazing also to hear people who do not want to pay taxes. I do 
not know how in the world we expect to have the kind of country, to 
have the kind of democracy to provide the kind of services without 
individuals paying taxes. Oliver Wendell Holmes supposedly said one 
time that taxation is the price that we pay for a civilized society. 
And then to hear people talk about those who do not pay much do not 
need breaks, or to hear colleagues suggest that because individuals are 
not in a position to pay much in the way of taxes, or as much as some 
others, that they do not deserve.
  We hear talk about stimulating the economy. Whoever heard of 
stimulating an economy by giving back to the wealthiest individuals, 
who could not possibly have a need to spend any more money.
  When I was a kid growing up, my mother used to make soup, and if she 
wanted to stimulate that soup, she would take her spoon and go down to 
the bottom of it and stir things up. When she would stir things up, the 
flavor would ignite and the aroma would penetrate the whole house.
  So it would seem to me if we really want to shake up the economy, we 
would go down to the bottom, provide something for those people, raise 
the minimum wage, put some money in the pockets of individuals who are 
trying to make it. If we do that, then it is clear to me that those 
individuals are going to take the additional money that they have and 
go to the supermarket and buy milk for their children, or you are going 
to find people purchasing Pampers for the babies, or they are going to 
run to the barber shop and get a haircut or go to the beauty shop and 
get their hair fixed. Those individuals are going to put money back 
into the economy. If we have money in the economy, it means that money 
is going to go from one place to the next place to the next place.
  I have always been told that money in neighborhoods is pretty much 
like blood to the body. If all the blood runs out of the body, you are 
going to die. Or if too much of it is in one part of the body, you are 
going to get sick because it is not circulating properly. So if too 
much of the money goes to one segment of the population, then of course 
the economy is going to get sick. If we have a sick economy, as we do 
right now, somebody is going to suffer. It really means that all of us 
will suffer because we have an imbalance.
  But if we have things moving around, if those at the bottom are 
running out to the store to make their purchases, then the guy at the 
supermarket gets

[[Page H4858]]

the money and can go and pay down on a house or can get a mortgage. Now 
we have got things percolating. We have got things moving. I think that 
is really what we need to be doing and not talking about this trickle-
down, failed economic theory that we know does not work.
  I mean, once again, coming from the top down and saying that we are 
going to get some investments, after we have had three tax cuts. We 
have had three breaks, three cuts, and rather than stimulating job 
development, we have actually lost 2.7 million private sector jobs 
since President Bush took office. That is 2.7 million private sector 
jobs.
  So what is there that is going to cause one to believe that another 
tax break is going to stimulate the economy in such a way that we can 
create jobs? And so I agree with the gentleman that what we really need 
are policies that work, policies that will stimulate movement.
  I represent a congressional district that has lost more than 120,000 
good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs, over the last 20-30 years. Many 
of those jobs went by way of NAFTA. They went by way of Fast Track, 
went to other places, and now people are unemployed wondering what it 
is that they can do. I just do not have faith in the trickle-down 
theory. It has not worked, and will not work. I do not think there is 
any way it is going to work, and we have to have a new order.

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has done a beautiful job of 
explaining our situation that we find ourselves in, and I want to share 
with Members that one of the things that we also understand in this 
country is that our infrastructure is hurting. One of the good ways of 
stimulating the economy, and we know from the last time we passed the 
transportation bill that there are $300 billion to $600 billion that 
are still needed for the dams that are almost 60 years old. Our bridges 
are in jeopardy, our infrastructure in this country where we could not 
only create jobs, but we could also invest in the next generation of 
kids instead of handing to them the debt that we are creating, but also 
handing them the infrastructure that is decaying.
  We had a bill that would have allowed us to invest in schools. Our 
schools are 40-50 years old, built prior to the microwave, and we know 
that schools need more outlets for computers. There is a need to do 
that, and yet we have chosen not to do that. There is a real need for 
us to look at how we could have turned the economy around by creating 
jobs.
  I had today a lot of contractors that were lobbying up here about the 
difficulties that they are having with construction jobs. Here was a 
great opportunity to invest. Not to mention in homeland security, there 
is a need where our Federal buildings, our State buildings, there is a 
need to look at them from a national defense perspective, to build the 
things that are needed to make sure that they are more secure. They 
need the resources, and we have not allocated the resources in homeland 
security which could create jobs. We need to ensure that our bases 
throughout the country have adequate construction which allows them to 
be secure.
  The gentleman also mentioned the importance of leaving no child 
behind. As the gentleman well knows, we have already left children 
behind. The bill that the President promised, he promised this country 
that his priority is education, is $9 billion behind his funding. There 
is a real need to concentrate on those programs which would have 
allowed that money to be turned around.
  As we cut taxes on the Federal level, I know back home in Texas they 
are cutting taxes, too. Yet the local communities, the local school 
boards, the local counties are having to look at how are they going to 
be paying for securing our cities, what are they going to be doing to 
secure our Nation.
  I wanted to thank the gentleman for making those comments. We have 
misprioritized the tax cut, and I know this administration, their whole 
first year was spent on the priority of a tax cut based on the false 
premise of a supposed surplus that was going to continue for the next 
unforeseeable future. We had it under Clinton, but under this 
administration right after they came, we started downhill, and it has 
continued.

                              {time}  2015

  It has continued. Now they come back and now they have another tax 
cut, and now we are hearing that they might even come back next year 
for another tax cut.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I have no doubt that they are going to come 
back. That is because there seems to be a feeling, or they have some 
notion, that somehow or another you can get something out of a turnip 
other than turnip juice. If you do not make the right kind of 
investments, put people to work and balance things in such a way that 
everybody can benefit rather than these policies where the rich just 
simply get richer, the poor get poorer and everybody else gets 
squeezed; and that seems to be the approach.
  I am not an expert on economics, but it is crazy to me. I mean, we 
look at all of the places where we need to make investments. Our 
infrastructure. If you do that, people are working. And if they are 
working, then things are being shaken up and can be moved about. If you 
are just waiting for something to happen from on high and say that 
there are these theoretical investments that we expect people to make 
and they may or may not make them, but you know that if people have 
needs and are able to take care of those, you do not have to wonder 
about that. You know that the guy with six children who needs milk is 
going to the supermarket if he has got money. That is not a theory. 
That is an automatic. Or you know that children who need books to go to 
school, if they have got the money, that the families are going to 
invest in the education of their children. And so to me it is just a 
wrongheaded approach. It is an elitist approach. It is an approach that 
somehow or another does not deal with the realities of life, that is 
mythical, that is kind of a now you see me, now you don't. It is sort 
of a shell game. It is a sham. It is not good for the American economy, 
it is not good for the American people, and I think there is no 
alternative except to change it.
  Of course, we know that in order to change it, we are going to have 
to change some of the individuals who are leading it. That is, we have 
got to put some different people in place so that those individuals 
will make different decisions. Yet we get accused of starting class 
warfare. I hear people talk about class warfare. I was studying 
something about political philosophy, and I read something that a 
fellow, Voltaire, supposedly said. He said that the purpose of politics 
as he understood it was for one group of people to take as much money 
as they possibly could from another group and handle it differently. 
That is called the Voltairean philosophy. And when you take from the 
poor who need the most and give to the rich, I do not know what you 
call that. I guess greed would be about the best way to characterize 
it, and I think that is a real problem. And the only way that we stop 
it is to change the way we not only see things but also to change the 
way that we do things. I think we can do that because the American 
people will see the difference. There is an old saying that says, Fool 
me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I do not think the 
American people are going to be fooled to the extent that they will 
allow the same policies and practices to continue because then it will 
be shame on us.
  I think the kind of leadership, though, that you provide is going to 
continue to help us to move away from that and certainly the kind of 
leadership that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) provides 
is going to help us move away from that. And so when I see people like 
you and I see people like her in leadership displaying the kind of 
energy, the kind of tenacity that you display, then yes, there is hope 
not only for this House but there is also hope for America. It has been 
my pleasure to join with you this evening.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis) for joining me here tonight. We have also been joined by our 
leader. I know she has been working all day and just has come from a 
major meeting that she was attending tonight. I do want to thank her 
for joining us tonight. We have been talking a little bit about our 
concerns with the tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

[[Page H4859]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) as chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for calling 
this Special Order tonight. I am pleased to join him and our colleague, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and commend both of them for 
speaking out for America's children, for speaking out for all of 
America's children.
  A couple of weeks ago, we experienced a very sad evening here in the 
House of Representatives. The Republican majority insisted on foisting 
irresponsible and reckless tax cuts on the country that were fiscally 
irresponsible, which instead of investing in our children indebted them 
for years to come. It was not bad enough that they were fiscally 
irresponsible, meaning that we would never be able to pay off the 
trillions of dollars of indebtedness that was incurred; but lo and 
behold 1 week later it was revealed, after the signing of the bill, 
that children of minimum-wage-earning parents did not get the 
additional child tax credit. How could it be that we would say to the 
children of working families in our country that their parents do not 
make enough money for them, the children, to deserve a tax credit? The 
very people in this body who oppose raising the minimum wage say to 
minimum wage earners, You don't earn enough for your children to get 
the tax credit. Think of the irony of that, the Catch-22 of that. Not 
only do those children not get the tax credit but also the children of 
our men and women in uniform, many of whom will not qualify for this 
additional tax credit for their children.
  Earlier this year before the hostilities began in March, I had the 
occasion and privilege to visit our men and women in uniform in Kuwait, 
in Qatar and in Turkey. I saw firsthand their courage, their 
patriotism, and the sacrifice they were willing to make for our 
country. How do we tell them, many of whom have left their jobs but do 
not make enough money to qualify, that their children are not worthy of 
a tax cut, when they are risking their lives for our country? The 
Democrats have a better idea. Democrats under the leadership of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) are offering a package to 
help hardworking American families and a package that will create jobs. 
It will begin to repair the damage, which is a long road from the 
reckless and irresponsible tax package put forward by the Republicans. 
Overall, the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill will provide greater tax relief 
to the families of 19 million children in America, families making the 
minimum wage who are struggling to make ends meet.

  In addition to restoring the child tax credit provision that 
Republicans dropped in the dark of night, the Rangel bill would make 
the child tax credit available to 1.7 million more families by 
providing that those earning $7,500 or more could get the credit.
  And now to our men and women in uniform. Under the Democratic 
package, the men and women in uniform, our package would make sure that 
our men and women in the military are not denied tax relief just 
because they are fighting in Iraq. Specifically, the bill would count 
combat pay for purposes of the child tax credit. Specifically, I 
repeat, the Democratic package would count combat pay for the purpose 
of figuring the child tax credit. Republicans enacted a $350 billion 
tax bill, and growing; and yet they could not find room to make sure 
that our men and women in combat are able to take full advantage of the 
child tax credit. That is downright unpatriotic. I go a long way before 
I would say that about any action. The Democratic provision will create 
jobs and build a strong economy. It is the direction we should have 
gone, and I wish that this House had accepted the gentleman from New 
York's proposal to have unanimous consent to bring it up on this floor 
today and to have the debate.
  Let us get back to those men and women in uniform again, though, and 
their children. Some of them that I visited had left their children 
behind. Other Members have traveled there since the war has ended; and 
they have told me of meeting some in the military, women, who have 
children 2 and 4 years old whom they had left at home because they were 
called to duty. They answered the call and now we are saying to them, 
Sorry, your combat pay does not enable you to get the tax credit for 
your children. I think it is our patriotic duty to them, for this 
Congress to be responsible and accountable for paying our debts. It is 
an act of patriotism to be fiscally sound and to pay our debts.
  So my criticism of this bill is, in the larger sense, that it is 
fiscally irresponsible. We are on a binge of irresponsibility and 
recklessness when it comes to the tax cuts. The sad part of it is, it 
is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker, because if the Republicans wanted 
to have a tax cut that would create jobs, that would be fiscally 
responsible and would be fair, they could have. All they needed to do 
was look to the Democratic package, which is just that, fair, fiscally 
sound and fast acting in terms of creating a minimum of 1 million jobs 
this year. They chose to miss that opportunity and in doing so, I am 
choosing my words carefully, to insult the service of our men and women 
in uniform by saying, It's just not enough for you to get the tax 
credit that other children whose parents make more money than you do 
are entitled to.
  Mr. Speaker, I again commend the gentleman from Texas for his 
leadership. He has been a champion for America's working families; and 
for our children, he has been a champion for the future.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the 
gentlewoman from California for her leadership, and I want to 
personally share with all Americans throughout this country that she 
has been a breath of fresh air to all of us. I want to personally thank 
her because she indicated we wanted to make sure that if we were 
critical about anything, we wanted to make sure we had an alternative 
and we have had an alternative every time. I want to thank her 
personally for the hard work that she has done.

                              {time}  2030

  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield further, and our alternative 
is paid for?
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is right. Not only good alternatives, but 
alternatives that work and that are responsible. So I thank the 
gentlewoman for her leadership and coming out here tonight to join us.
  I want to just share with all Americans that our leader, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), has been right there for us. 
I want to appeal to everyone to listen to the debate that is going on 
on the tax bill, because the debate on the tax is a serious situation. 
Whatever occurs on the tax bill determines what occurs on everything 
else. The tax bill is about the budget. The budget determines our 
priorities. So when this administration first came here in their first 
year, one of their first priorities and their main priority was the tax 
cut.
  So, as we talk about education, as we talk about health care, as we 
talk about the veterans, the reality is that the number one priority 
was the tax cut. Everything else is secondary. So when we had, that 
first year, that $1.3 trillion tax cut based on anticipated surpluses, 
then that started the downturn. That did not create any jobs; in fact, 
it was just the opposite.
  This year, the same. They came at it with another tax cut. It seemed 
to be the only approach to any problem that exists out there is a tax 
cut.
  As we well know, this particular tax cut is also an irresponsible tax 
cut because it is coming at a time when we are still at war, we still 
have not been able to reach out and seek out bin Laden, we still have a 
serious situation in Afghanistan, we have a critical situation in Iraq 
with our soldiers out there, and we still have a situation also that is 
serious in North Korea, as well as other areas.
  So, as we begin to dialogue, instead of solving problems, and I feel 
very strongly that I get elected to come up here to solve problems, not 
create problems, and it seems like there was a sincere effort at not 
dealing with the problems that confront us, but looking at the 
situation and shifting away from those situations.
  For example, I still feel very strongly the number one and two issues 
in this country are education and health care. Now, because of this 
administration, it is the economy. But those two issues have not been 
resolved. We still have a problem with education.
  Although the administration went around campaigning for the 
presidency

[[Page H4860]]

on education, he is going to have to come back and campaign again. I am 
wondering what he is going to be saying, since the same bill that he 
signed is $9 billion behind what he indicated he was willing to shake 
hands on and assure that no child would be left behind. Well, it is $9 
billion behind and it has left a lot of kids behind. Yet their priority 
seems to be the tax cut, and after that we find ourselves in debt and 
in some serious problems.
  Let me share with you as I talk about the debt that I have also 
received correspondence from Raul Yzaguirre, Executive Director and CEO 
for the National Council of La Raza. In his report I want to read a 
couple of items on there, if I can. It is in small print, so I am going 
to have to put my glasses on.
  But in his letter, one of the things that Raul Yzaguirre of the 
National Council of La Raza mentions is that regarding the President's 
signature on H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
of 2003, a $350 billion tax cut package, while the administration was 
touting this measure as an economic stimulus that would create jobs and 
benefit a majority of working families, House and Senate tax writers 
were making room for large cuts for wealthy investors.
  The reality is that it is for the most wealthy of this country, 
instead of earmarking it for small business. Because even if you are a 
strong conservative and believe that the business community needs the 
tax cut, then you would zero in on small businesses. You would zero in 
on those small businesses that really create and help in the creation 
of jobs. Yet the reality is that the majority of those tax cuts did not 
go for the small businesses either.
  Especially let me indicate that he also goes on to say that at the 
11th hour, congressional negotiators excluded families earning between 
$10,500 and $26,625 for claiming the child tax credit increases. So we 
continue to have these difficulties.
  I am glad that I am joined here tonight by a fellow colleague who 
works closely together on health care and has been a leader on health 
care, but I know that he also has some concerns on our tax cut.
  I thank the gentleman for joining me, and I yield to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas. I 
know how hard he works on so many issues, including health care, as 
well as all the issues affecting the Hispanic Caucus. I wanted to say 
again that I really appreciate the fact that the Hispanic Caucus has 
been here on a regular basis leading these special orders under your 
stewardship, because it is really important, I think, that we talk 
about not only how these Republican policies impact the general public, 
but also how they impact the Hispanic population.
  I have to say that one of the things that amazes me about the 
Republican tax bill is how they kept telling us, both the Republican 
leadership, the President, as well as different Republican colleagues, 
that this tax bill was going to be something that was going to help the 
average American, that it was going to stimulate the economy, that it 
was going to put money in the pockets of people so that they could go 
out and spend money and stimulate the economy, create jobs, all these 
wonderful things.
  The first thing we read when we go home and you start picking up the 
papers during the Memorial Day recess after we had voted against this 
bill, because most of the Democrats, including the two of us, voted 
against it because we really thought it was not going to help the 
economy at all or do anything significant to create a stimulus, we read 
about how so many people, working people, people paying taxes, not 
people not paying taxes, people working, were not benefiting in any 
way, were not getting a dime back as a result of this so-called tax cut 
bill that the Republican Party put forward and that passed almost 
exclusively along partisan lines.
  Now what I am getting from some of the Republicans is, oh, the fact 
that something like 12 million children or families with those 12 
million children would not benefit from this child tax credit was 
somehow an oversight, that this was something they did not realize at 
the time, and all of a sudden they realize it. I guess in the other 
body now we have the chairman of the Finance Committee saying he is 
going to introduce a bill.
  Of course, we on the Democratic side have introduced a bill, but we 
had no doubt from the very beginning that this was the case, because we 
knew that the way the bill was put together it was primarily focused on 
the well-to-do, on millionaires, on people who were making a lot of 
money. Now, all of a sudden, we see all these low-income people that 
are not benefiting in any way.
  I saw this survey that was in Sunday's New York Times, and it really 
pointed to two groups. I know this has been mentioned many times this 
evening, but I want to mention it again. There were two groups that 
basically were not benefiting in any way from this Republican tax bill.
  It said that not only were there the 12 million children who were 
left behind because their parents were not making enough, I guess they 
were making something between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, but there 
were also 8 million other--taxpayers who would not receive any benefit 
from the tax cut.
  I just wanted to read from this article in the Sunday New York Times, 
if I could. These are three groups that did an analysis of it, the 
Citizens for Tax Justice, along with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy 
Center, affiliated with the Urban Institute, and the Center on Budget 
and Policy Priorities. They found that 6.5 million minimum-wage 
families with nearly 12 million children would not receive the $400 per 
child increase in the child tax credit contained in the new law. Then 
it went on to say that there are 50 million households, 60 percent of 
all households in the Nation, who will receive no benefit from the tax 
law.
  You understand, these are people that are working, these are people 
who are paying taxes, and they are getting nothing.
  I will yield back, but I just want to say it is not only the fact 
that it is unfair in terms of the fact that lower-income, working 
people are not getting any money, but it is also the fact that the 
gentleman and I know that if those people got the money, because of 
their financial situation being the way it is, they are going to have 
to immediately spend it on food, clothing, whatever it happens to be, 
because they do not have any extra money.

  What better way to stimulate the economy? If you are not even looking 
at it from the point of view of trying to help out people who are lower 
income, but just from the point of stimulating the economy, would that 
not be the best group to give money back to, because they would 
undoubtedly go out and probably use the money to buy something that 
would stimulate the economy.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is what I find very difficult to comprehend, is 
if you really want to stimulate the economy, then you would put it in 
the hands of those individuals that would, as soon as they get it, 
spend it. There is no doubt that these are the type of individuals that 
would go out there and buy a pair of shoes that they need, buy 
additional groceries they might need, that would be getting additional 
items for the house.
  These are not people that are going to receive $400 and, like the 
wealthiest and others who are going to receive a lot more, that will 
just decide to keep it there and not spend it.
  So we question this, and I think all the economists do, and I was 
even looking, prior to this, even Greenspan talked about the fact that 
he did not think it was a good idea to do this. Yet the administration 
chose to go and do that anyway.
  So I think our economy is in deep trouble, and I do not foresee it 
getting any better. In fact, I was trying to figure out why would they 
be doing that. The only thing I can figure out, at a time when we are 
at war, that they are really basically wanting to put us on a real spot 
in terms of some of the programs, and it does put us in trouble funding 
the educational programs that are needed, the health care needs of our 
constituencies and our seniors, the needs in terms of our Medicare and 
Social Security recipients. Because I know that there is a real push 
there to try to privatize Social Security, and I know there are 
investment bankers that are looking to get their hands into that.

[[Page H4861]]

  So that really concerns me, that there might be other motives 
involved in the process.
  Mr. PALLONE. If I could ask the gentleman to yield further, there are 
so many levels on which you can point out this Republican tax bill 
really does not make any sense.
  First of all, it is the idea, as the gentleman said, where the 
gentleman suggested this is all deficit spending. None of this money is 
there in the Treasury. This is all deficit spending, and it is borrowed 
from Social Security and Medicare trust funds primarily. So it 
jeopardizes our retirement and health funds for our seniors in the 
future.
  In addition to that, by putting the Federal Government further into 
debt, you put an even greater drain than the economy. So there is 
nothing at that level that would help the economy.
  Then, as the gentleman points out, if you are primarily giving this 
money back to high-income wage earners or people, it is not even wage 
earners, because a lot is going for the stock dividends, people that in 
many cases are investing in the stock market. We have nothing in the 
bill and certainly the Republicans were not going to suggest we were 
going to put anything in the bill that would say those people have to 
reinvest the money in the economy. They could easily go and invest it 
abroad, for all we know. We have no reason to believe those kinds of 
investments by high-income individuals are necessarily going to lead to 
any kind of job creation.
  But then you get to the unfairness in terms of leaving these people 
out. To me it is just amazing.
  I just wanted to say one thing, and that is that in yesterday's 
Washington Post they had the editorial many of us have read tonight 
that says ``Children Left Behind.'' But the one thing it really does is 
totally belie the idea that somehow the Republicans in either House or 
the President overlooked this with this child tax credit, because the 
Washington Post editorial says:

       Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or 
     the unfortunate result of an unreasonably tight ceiling. 
     Adjustments had to be made, a spokeswoman for the House 
     Committee on Ways and Means said, as if those on her side 
     would have preferred otherwise.
       In fact, the administration didn't include the provision in 
     its original proposal, the House didn't include it in its 
     version and the Senate Finance Committee didn't include it in 
     its original package.

                              {time}  2045

  The only reason there was something in here to provide this tax 
credit for these people between $10,000 and $20,000 was because Blanche 
Lambert Lincoln, a Democratic Senator, a former Member, former 
colleague here in the House, insisted that it be put in on the Senate 
side; but then of course the Republicans took it out. So for anybody to 
say that they did not know what they were doing, it is purposeless.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They knew full well, because they had initially 
submitted the over-$700 billion tax cut, and then they settled on that 
other.
  But what concerns me is that in the process of having this so-called 
oversight, I am wondering how many other oversights we might have that 
we are still not aware of.
  I know that there were a lot of special interests out here walking 
the halls and looking at loopholes they were looking for in terms of 
their own special interests, so I am just concerned about what other 
oversights we might have for some of those special interests that were 
roaming the halls during that time that were looking at that tax cut.
  It really bothers me, and also in a way it kind of irritates me to 
think that someone would stoop to that low a level not to consider 
these individuals that are hardworking Americans that are out there 
making $26,000 or less, but still hardworking. So would their kids not 
qualify for that child credit while someone else's would? It is 
incomprehensible.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think that Senator Lincoln said that half 
the people in her State fell into that category. In New Jersey the 
average income is higher than that, obviously, but there are still 
going to be people in my district that are not going to get the credit, 
there is no question.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In my district, it is even more than half. My median 
income is about $22,000, so more than half of my constituency is not 
going to benefit from that. Yet we see the data in terms of those that 
are making $1 million, how much of the hundreds of thousands they are 
going to be benefiting from, not to mention in terms of their 
investments.
  So this is no way in terms of stimulating the economy, and this is no 
way in terms of being responsible. At a time when we are at war, we 
ought to be paying for the war at the present time. We are not. Not 
only are we asking our young people to go fight the war and go defend 
this country, and they are ready to do that, but we are asking them to 
pay for it and getting their kids to pay for the debt in the future. 
That is not right, and that is not American.
  So we need to continue to talk about these issues. I know that the 
gentleman works real hard on health care, and I know the gentleman 
wants to find a solution to health care. The gentleman is the type of 
elected official and public servant that comes out here to seek 
solutions to the problems that confront us.
  Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield, the problem we are going to 
have now is with the second wave of Republican tax cuts. They are 
talking about even more. So much is being borrowed from the Medicare 
trust fund, and it is going to put it in such jeopardy for the future 
that it is just going to be that much more difficult to provide any 
expansion for Medicare, like a prescription drug benefit, for example.
  I am really fearful that what we are going to see in the next few 
weeks that the Republican leadership is going to come here and say, now 
that we do not have any money in the Medicare trust fund, we are going 
to have to start coming up with innovative ways of saving dollars.
  That is when they start talking about vouchers and telling seniors 
that they have to take a voucher and go out and buy their own health 
insurance and privatizing Medicare, with the excuse that there is not 
the money left in the future. The reason the money is being drained is 
because of these tax cuts.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Exactly. And I think that as we look at especially 
next year, which is an election year, I can already see the 
administration going out there. I would like to see what he is going to 
be saying, responding to the fact that he promised our seniors a 
prescription drug coverage, and we still have not seen one that is a 
responsive approach.
  I would like to hear what he is going to be saying when he talks 
about the quality of care in this country, when we have one of the best 
care systems in the world; and yet it is not affordable, and it is not 
accessible. I can already see them blaming the debt on the economy, 
when in reality they have created the economy and they have created it 
with irresponsible tax cuts.
  Mr. PALLONE. They are already talking about a prescription drug plan 
that forces seniors, if they want any kind of prescription drug plan, 
to go into an HMO or some kind of private organization. It is a measly 
benefit even if you opt to do that. The reason is because they do not 
have the money because of all these tax cuts.

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The reality was that their first priority was the tax 
cut their first year, and this year, and possibly next year. Their 
priority is the tax cut. After the tax cut and after the budget is 
gone, there is no need to talk about anything else, because that is the 
priority. It was not about solving the problems on education, solving 
the problems of our seniors in Medicare and the problems we were 
encountering there, solving the difficulties of prescription drug 
coverage; but it was all about tax cuts, which tells me that their 
priorities are not in terms of solving problems out there, but to 
basically look in terms of how they can benefit those that provided for 
their campaigns, the wealthiest of this country.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman for all that he did 
tonight. I notice that the leader joined him at one point, and we had a 
number of Members who did the 5-minute Special Orders on this issue of 
the child tax credit.
  Again, it is not because we want to beat up on our colleagues on the 
other side. This bill has already passed. But I think we have to point 
out the shortcomings of this legislation, because it is, as the 
gentleman says, the foundation for the whole Republican agenda here in 
this Congress.

[[Page H4862]]

  It is going to wreak havoc, I think, not only with the economy, but 
with any kind of effort to provide for health care or shore up Social 
Security or any of the other things that I think are so important 
domestically for this country. I just want to thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming out here 
tonight. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
for being here with me tonight. I want to also thank the leader for 
being here tonight.
  Let me share a couple of statistics that I have. One of the things 
that I would like to share with Members is just some data out there. 
The total job loss since President Bush took office has risen to a 
staggering 2.5 million private jobs, while cutting taxes for the rich 
and not extending the unemployment insurance.
  The median Hispanic household, I will share that, being chairman of 
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, will receive about $30 as a result 
of the Bush tax cut, $30, in comparison to the others.
  So we have some real startling statistics that basically reflect that 
the reality is that this tax cut is a real irresponsible tax cut when 
there is no money there, when we are not paying down our debt. It just 
does not make any sense for us to be doing that.
  I also wanted to share that at the same time that we are deciding to 
make the tax cut we are not being responsible in meeting the needs of 
our veterans, meeting the needs of our seniors in prescription drug 
coverage, or meeting the needs of Medicare. I am just going to wait and 
see what this President says when he is coming up for reelection next 
year.
  Today, and I want to share with the Members, because we had an 
opportunity to hear some testimony in our Committee on Veterans Affairs 
from Dr. Wilensky, who did a report. She assured, or indicated, that 
the reality was that the present situation ``is not acceptable,'' 
referring to our veterans programs.
  One of the realities with our veterans programs is that depending on 
where they live throughout this country, they might not have access to 
the quality care that is available in other areas of the country, so we 
have what we call disproportionate forms of care in the VA. There is a 
real need for us to provide additional resources.
  This particular report talked about the fact that the VA had not 
prioritized and was not meeting the needs of our veterans, because at 
this particular time our veterans, those World War II veterans and 
Korean War veterans and our Vietnam veterans, are reaching that age 
where they need us. The demographics show that there is a need for us 
to come up to the plate and be able to provide those resources. Instead 
of doing that, we are just doing the opposite, not coming up to the 
plate, cutting taxes instead of putting those resources with our 
veterans where they need it the most.
  I also want to share that we are also beginning to cut our nursing 
home care for veterans and put caps on that. We continue to have 
problems with homeless veterans, which is an atrocious situation that 
we ought to be working to solve. Instead of the tax cuts, we ought to 
be considering that. In fact, instead of providing the $2 billion for 
health care for the Iraqi people, we ought to be looking at those $2 
billion for our veterans services.
  When veterans are out there fighting and defending our country, a lot 
of them will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders. Even New 
Yorkers and the people in the Pentagon and throughout this country 
after the terrorist attack, we really need to look at resources in the 
area of health to help these people cope with post-traumatic stress 
disorders.
  I would attest that especially for the people at the Pentagon and the 
people in New York, there is a real need for us to reach out to them. I 
know that a lot of them might be going through nightmares and those 
characteristics of what later on might be defined as post-traumatic 
stress disorder. So we cannot take that lightly.
  Events such as this, and our soldiers as they encounter and get 
engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout this world, 
they will suffer from those engagements in a lot of different ways. We 
have to be there for them, and we have not done that.
  When it comes to homeland defense, we could easily have put some 
resources there that would have created and helped stimulate the 
economy, because our States are hurting. We need money in homeland 
defense. Our first defense is going to be those local firemen out there 
throughout this country, those local policemen throughout this country, 
those local health care providers throughout this country. I think it 
is important that we provide them with the access resources they need.
  Homeland defense also has needs, especially the Coast Guard. We have 
been negligent in not being responsive with our Coast Guard. They need 
additional resources. The INS and the Customs people also.
  One of the things terrorists would want to do is not only instill 
fear in us, but also create a problem in our economy. We have to create 
a balance between security and trade. I represent the Mexican border, 
and we have to make sure that we continue to have trade. That becomes 
important.

                          ____________________