[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      SUSPENSION OF FURTHER TAX REDUCTIONS UNDER THE 2001 TAX ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 29, 2003

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will 
ask a simple question. Do Members of Congress feel that the threats 
posed by Iraq, North Korea, and terrorism are sufficiently real that 
all Americans should bear some sacrifice in responding to those 
threats?
  Our Nation in times of war always has responded by requiring 
sacrifices from all segments of our society. Individuals in our 
military are asked to bear the highest sacrifice. They are forced to 
leave their homes and risk their lives overseas. Those fortunate enough 
to remain at home during the war have been asked to support the 
military through rationing, increased taxes, or diversion of government 
resources from domestic programs.
  The President's rhetoric about the seriousness of the risk posed by 
Iraq and terrorism is inconsistent with his actual program. He places 
our military at risk but does not ask all other segments of our society 
to sacrifice for the cause. Only the poor will be forced to sacrifice 
through reductions in the domestic safety net. Other segments of our 
society are promised tax reductions, not sacrifice, with the greatest 
tax reductions enjoyed by the wealthiest segment of our society.
  The Department of Defense surveys clearly indicate that both active-
duty and reserve members of the Armed Forces are primarily from low-
income families. The fact that only one member of the Congress has a 
child in the enlisted ranks of the military is stark confirmation of 
the accuracy of those surveys. However every Member of Congress, by 
virtue of their congressional salary alone, will have sufficient income 
to enjoy large tax reductions under the Bush Administration policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I am introducing today will not 
increase taxes on any American above the level that is currently in 
effect. It simply suspends all further tax reductions under the 2001 
Tax Act until the President certifies that the situations in Iraq and 
North Korea have been resolved, there has been an adequate response to 
international terrorism, and no member of the Armed Services is 
involuntarily on duty because of those situations.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the sacrifices required by my 
legislation do not meet the standard that this country has required in 
the past. It will not increase taxes, it will simply defer future tax 
reductions. Our seriousness about pursuing action overseas will be 
highly questionable if this Congress does not require that small 
sacrifice from those so fortunate to be able to stay at home.
  I recognize that some will attack my legislation as being ``class 
warfare.'' I would respond to that criticism by pointing out that all 
future tax reductions under the 2001 Act would be deferred by my 
legislation, including the limited benefits promised to lower income 
individuals. I recognize that the wealthiest segment of our society 
would have the largest benefits subject to deferral. However, that fact 
is not my doing, it is a simple reflection of the unfair nature of the 
2001 Act.
  The administration and many Republican Members of the Congress have 
vociferously attacked the legislation that I introduced earlier to 
reinstate the draft. It is clear that they do not believe that their 
cause in Iraq is of sufficient importance to risk the lives of their 
children. Now I am asking whether it is sufficiently important to 
sacrifice tax benefits promised in the future.

                          ____________________