[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 13534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          DEMOCRAT TAX CUT INCLUDES WORKING AMERICAN FAMILIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, when we were here in the House the other 
day to vote on the third tax cut of the President, the majority leader 
stated that we were going to be back and they were going to be back 
with another tax cut.
  Well, we have a tax cut. It is on behalf of working families and 
their children, so I would like to take the majority leader up on his 
offer to have another tax cut immediately following the first three tax 
cuts that they have passed, and bring up this tax cut that he said we 
were going to have, one right after we got back from session. We were 
going to have another tax cut. Not even was the ink dry, but we were 
beginning to work on another tax cut.
  I found it a little ironic that night when I heard the majority 
leader say that, because I thought this was going to be the jobs and 
growth tax cut. Why do we need another tax cut if this was going to be 
so effective? Maybe it will produce the same results the first tax cut 
did, which has resulted in 2.75 million Americans losing their jobs, 5 
million Americans losing their health care, $1 trillion worth of 
foreclosed corporate assets, and 2 million Americans walking out of the 
middle class into poverty.
  But they want to do another tax cut; so, as we say in Chicago, I've 
got you one. That is, I have a tax cut for middle-class, working-class 
families and their children, the Rangel-DeLauro-Davis bill. It focuses 
our priorities on working families and children. It makes good economic 
sense, and it makes good moral sense. It reflects, most importantly, 
our values.
  Now, the President during the State of the Union said that we would 
not leave our burdens to our children, that we would solve our problems 
today. I cannot think of anything that more reflects those types of 
statements, and those values embedded in that statement than that we 
would focus our tax cuts on our children, the children of working 
parents who get up every day and struggle to do right. They do not 
choose welfare, they choose a paycheck.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned, we have to 
reward work. These are the children of working families.
  Now, in 1997, we had a balanced budget, a budget that was balanced 
with our priorities as well as our values. It expanded the earned 
income tax credit, it offered a $500 per child tax credit, and it 
provided 10 million uninsured children of working parents health care. 
It also cut the capital gains tax.
  We also created a tax credit for higher education, and we did it 
while balancing our budget. We met our obligations. We invested in the 
long-term growth of this country's economy. We got the economy moving 
by balancing the budget. We did not hurt the long-term opportunities, 
but we invested in education, health care, and the environment.
  Now this administration has chosen to have three tax cuts. What have 
they resulted in? $3 trillion have been added to the Nation's debt, and 
nearly 3 million Americans are without jobs. What a deal. What an 
opportunity.
  Now, the first excuse for having left 12 million children of working 
parents out of this tax cut was, we forgot. We did not know. That is 
interesting. When it came to closing the tax loophole for corporations 
that use the ZIP code of Bermuda, we did not forget them. We took that 
right out. We said, that does not belong in this tax cut.
  That is $30 billion of lost revenue that American working families 
have to make up. We did not forget them. We did not leave them behind. 
We remembered what ZIP code they were in. We remembered their area 
code. We got them right back where they belonged. Those are our 
pioneers. Those are our rangers, as they are known in some parts of 
this country.
  Now, the other excuse given was, these people do not pay taxes. That 
is funny, because when they get their paycheck their FICA is withdrawn, 
their State income tax is withdrawn, their property taxes they have to 
pay. They pay taxes.
  What is interesting, the very crowd they are criticizing was the 
crowd Ronald Reagan praised when he created in 1986 the earned income 
tax credit. Ronald Reagan was the one who signed this into law. 
President Clinton was the one who doubled it in 1993 and expanded it in 
1997. We worked across party lines to help every child. These are 
America's children. We did not discriminate. We surely do not 
discriminate against the children of millionaires.
  Where are our common values? How do we choose to give such a high 
priority on the depreciation of machinery, yet we cannot appreciate our 
children? How do we make that choice?
  I know the men and women on the other side. They are good people with 
good values. These are not the values their parents raised them with, 
to choose the depreciation of machinery over the appreciation of our 
children.
  I believe that we have a tax cut. Democrats offer one in good faith, 
the type of tax cut Republicans have voted for both in the other body 
as well as in the past. As our majority leader of the House said before 
the last tax bill was voted on, we are going to come back and we are 
going to do another tax cut. The Senate leader said that we are going 
to do another tax cut.
  We have a tax cut. We stand ready to work with them and fulfill their 
obligations to get another tax cut passed, one that works and benefits 
our economy, the children of working families, enshrines the value of 
work, and holds that up; not just rewards passive income, but rewards 
active work.

                          ____________________