THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2488, TAXPAYER REFUND AND RELIEF ACT OF 1999 -- (House of Representatives - August 05, 1999)

[Page: H7252]  GPO's PDF

---

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

   H. Res. 274

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2488) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce individual income tax rates, to provide marriage penalty relief, to reduce taxes on savings and investments, to provide estate and gift tax relief, to provide incentives for education savings and health care, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered on the question of adoption of the conference report and on any subsequent conference report or on any motion to dispose of an amendment between the houses on H.R. 2488. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply to the question of adoption of the conference report and to any subsequent conference report or to any motion to dispose of an amendment between the houses on H.R. 2488.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER) is recognized for 1 hour.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

   Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274 provides for the consideration of the conference report for H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. House Resolution 274 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration, and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

   The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

   Finally, the rule provides that clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which requires a three-fifths vote on any amendment or measure containing a Federal income tax increase, shall not apply to the question of adoption of the conference report and to any subsequent conference report or to any motion to dispose of an amendment between the houses on the bill.

   Mr. Speaker, the growth in Federal tax revenue has consistently outpaced the growth in income of the American people paying those taxes. For the first time in American history, taxes have reached war era levels during peacetime. Budget projections show taxes at above 20 percent of the gross domestic product for the next 10 years. Last year, and at least for the next few, this ratio exceeds the levels of taxation during 1945, when America was involved in every corner of the world during and after World War II.

   In short, the American people are paying too much taxes. The American people have given the Federal Government too much of their money, and we have to decide what to do with it. We committed ourselves to a certain cost of government in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. Since then, the American people have grown the economy so much they have paid too much for their government, and it is time to give it back.

   That is exactly what the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act proposes to do, make change for the American people on their tax bill.

   On every other bill we get in the mail, for credit cards, the power bill, the phone bill, if we overpay, the company notes a little CR credit on the bill, crediting that amount for the next month. What would we think if businesses one day decided they could spend that overpayment better than we could, and just added it to their income statement at the end of the year? Why would we let the Federal Government do this to us?

   That is what many of our colleagues in the House and the President are trying to do. Just a few months ago President Clinton said, we could give it all back to you, and hope you spend it right, but. But of course he believes that he knows how to spend our money better than we do, and he would rather let the Federal Government decide how to use our overpayment.

   We in the majority believe our constituents have overpaid enough and are burdened every day by oppressive taxes. Let us think about what Americans must pay. First we are taxed on

[Page: H7253]  GPO's PDF
our income, then we are taxed on our savings and investments. Then we are taxed on our business, and irrationally, if we get married, we get a marriage penalty tax .

   If that is not enough, there are death taxes levied on us after we have died. Our tax relief bill begins to change this pattern. This bill entirely eliminates the death tax , which has prevented thousands of Americans from keeping their family-owned businesses or family farms. It provides a 1 percent reduction in every American's tax rate, ensuring that every American who has been overcharged for their government will receive a refund. The bill seeks to expand on the investment that has helped to give us this surplus by cutting capital gains.

   The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act also provides $100 billion in relief from the marriage tax penalty, a tangled web of tax provisions that have punished Americans for marrying for far too long.

   H.R. 2488 expands opportunities for families to save for their children's education or their retirement, and it allows the self-employed to deduct the full cost of their health care.

   In total, this bill provides $792 billion in well-deserved tax relief for the American people. Tax relief is about freedom, freedom to save, spend, or invest, as we see fit. It is about returning dollars and decisions back home to the American people and American families.

   With this bill, hard-working Americans will not have to work as long to pay the IRS. That means parents will have more time to spend with their kids or take care of an elderly parents. They will also have the financial freedom to do the things they want to do. I trust the American people to make these decisions for themselves.

   Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today about how we are supposedly slashing funds for education, social security, Medicare, and every other program in the Federal budget. Frankly, though, if Congress wants to reduce revenues to the Federal Treasury, cutting taxes is one of the worst ways to do it, because every responsible tax cut in the past has increased revenue, not reduced it. The tax cuts passed in 1981 doubled the revenues to the Treasury because they doubled the size of the economy.

   We are not cutting taxes to reduce the size of government, we are doing it because it is the right thing to do, the honest thing to do, and the best way to manage the people's trust and their hard-earned money.

   Let us be clear from the start, we are not talking about debt reduction because the Republican budget, calls for $2.2 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years. We are not talking about social security, either, because the Republican budget, enforced by the lockbox legislation passed this year, protects every dollar of the social security surplus.

   What we are talking about here is taxing and spending. This bill cuts taxes by $792 billion over 10 years, and the Clinton budget hikes spending by $937 billion over the same period. It is regrettable that the President has chosen to turn this opportunity to refund Americans' tax overcharge into a political game, but I feel confident that the American people agree that their money is safer in their pocketbooks than in Washington.

   I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman ARCHER) and the conferees for their hard work on this historic legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of the merits of this legislation.

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

   

[Time: 10:30]

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER) for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I realize that Congress is nearing the end of a session. I realize that people have been working very late. But this bill is so convoluted I am surprised my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, can keep a straight face.

   They say they want the so-called tax bill to become law, but everyone knows it is dead on arrival at the White House. For that reason, my Republican colleagues do not want to send it over there until after the August break.

   But for some reason, Mr. Speaker, this so-called tax bill is being rushed through the House at breakneck pace. It was handed to the Committee on Rules after midnight last night. Now 9 hours later, it is here on the House floor. Meanwhile, my Republican colleagues are not planning on showing it to President Clinton for another month.

   If I did not know any better, Mr. Speaker, I would say that my Republican colleagues are embarrassed by this bill. They do not want Members of Congress to know what is in it. They do not want members of the press to know what is in it. They do not want the American people to know what is in it either. I cannot say I blame them.

   Republicans want to raid the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and give a huge tax break back to those fat cats.

   Democrats, on the other hand, want to save the surplus. They want to protect Social Security and want to protect Medicare.

   Because, Mr. Speaker, while my Republican colleagues say they do not want to hand out enormous tax breaks to the rich Americans, the baby boomers are getting closer and closer to retirement which will cause Social Security and Medicare to buckle starting the year 2015.

   My Republican colleagues' so-called tax break for the rich is not even much of a tax break after all. It is more of a hoax.

   Any tax breaks people would get under this bill are taken away in 8 or 9 years. That is right, Mr. Speaker, these so-called tax breaks vanish into thin air after 8 or 9 years, and they are back where they started.

   For the first few years, it will look like individual income tax are being reduced. Then in the year 2008, suddenly they shoot right back to where they were before. Long-term capital gains will start to go down, and then, in the year 2008, they will suddenly shoot back up.

   Even the marriage penalty, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, even the marriage penalty will be back before it is fully repealed. So I do not know what it is going to do to the divorce courts.

   Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues are so hell bent on giving tax breaks to the very rich, why do they not go ahead and do it. Why do they not go ahead as their plan would indicate and cut taxes for the very rich while Medicare and Social Security follow path.

   The reason is very simple, Mr. Speaker, it costs too much. This all-you-can-eat tax break smorgasbord is unbelievably expensive. So my Republican colleagues decided to do away with it after the year 2009. That is right, Mr. Speaker. After the year 2009, the tax break buffet is over. Income tax rates shoot back up, debt taxes are reimposed, and the marriage penalty is back where it started.

   Mr. Speaker, if any of my colleagues doubt that this bill raises rates in the years 2008 to 2009, I would tell them to look at the rule. This rule, once again, waives the required three-fifths vote for tax increases. This is the same party, Mr. Speaker, that wanted to put this in the Constitution, and here they are again waiving the three-fifths needed for the tax increase.

   So the tax breaks worth thousands of dollars that my Republican colleagues want to give to the richest taxpayers will fade just as quickly as the hundred dollar tax break nearly everyone else will get.

   Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees that hard-working Americans deserve tax relief. Democrats have consistently stood for targeted tax cuts that benefit the middle class. Democrats believe that we shore up Social Security and Medicare and pay down the national debt while providing targeted tax cuts to the middle class.

   The Republican tax breaks for the rich will disappear after 10 years; but at that point, Mr. Speaker, after 10 years, Mr. Speaker, the damage to Social Security and Medicare will already have been done.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this conference report.

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

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. FOSSELLA).

[Page: H7254]  GPO's PDF

   (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time and also for his steadfast commitment to fight on behalf of the American taxpayer.

   I think it was the comment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER) that this is about freedom, this debate.

   I think what we are going to have before us, first the rule, and then the underlying legislation, are two arguments. One that wants to strengthen personal freedom, one that recognizes that government has a responsibility to all of the folks that we represent throughout our great Nation. The other side of the argument is we have a responsibility and we also want to take as much of one's money as possible to spend it here in Washington.

   First, let us say what we are doing. We are protecting and strengthening and preserving Social Security and Medicare. There are those who are going to scare seniors, scare women, scare anybody within earshot if they can do it, and that is sad.

   I think the American people are wise enough to understand that the Republican Congress has set aside the Social Security taxes for Social Security. We are strengthening our national defense. We are funding education. We are protecting our environment. That is what we are doing.

   Then the question becomes, what do we do with this projected surplus? Our economy over the next 10 years is projected to grow to about $100 trillion. We are talking about tax relief of less than a trillion, which is less than 1 percent of our Nation's economy, to send back to the people who generated it.

   So if we are committed to continuing economic growth, if we are committed to preserving personal freedom for the people who are working hard every single day, then the question becomes, do we take that projected surplus and leave it here in Washington like leaving candy on a table with little kids around, or do we send it back to the folks who earned it?

   The question becomes, again, who benefits? Well, under this bill, every American who pays taxes benefits. If one is a small business owner, 30, 40 years or two or three generations, one has been building up one's small business and one goes to sell it, and one has Uncle Sam there waiting for his part of the pie, this eliminates the death tax so one can pass that business on to one's family so they can make that small business become a big business.

   If one sets money aside every paycheck to buy a few shares of General Motors or Ford or Coca-Cola or whatever, and then one goes to sell that stock so one can pay for one's child's education, if one has two or three kids these days in college, $100,000 a year practically, and one sets that money aside for 20 or 30 years, and one says, ``Do you know what? When Johnny goes to college, I am going to sell that to pay his tuition,'' capital gains reduction helps that person.

   Frankly, I think we can find a common ground here. The common ground is very simple. With this money that the people from Staten Island and Brooklyn generated, the people from Georgia, the people from California who work hard every single day to keep our engine humming, to keep this economy moving, whether one is a truck driver or worker behind the counter at Dunkin Doughnuts, the fact is, when we give one more of one's money back, the American people benefit.

   Yes, there are those who want to spend all of one's money. Do not believe them. We believe in the American people. We have faith in the American people. We trust the American people to spend their money as they see fit.

   I urge my colleagues to support this rule and stand up for the American taxpayer.

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York trusts the American people to spend their money only for 10 years, though. Then they want to pull it back.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

   (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House and privileged to serve for a long time. I have seen a lot of political things, but I have never seen a sham like the one that we are trying to pull on the American people today.

   There is not a Republican in this House of Representatives that can look their constituent in the eye and say that this bill is going to become law. There is not a Republican in this House or in the other House on the other side that would be able to say that there is an economist that they can find any place in the United States that says we can spend the same money four different ways.

   If we were talking about a $4 trillion tax cut and an $800 billion tax cut to go into effect in the next decade, one would think, with a five-vote margin, one would reach out to some of the Democrats, some of the Democratic leaders. Maybe one might even talk to a Democrat or two on the tax writing committee.

   But this has nothing to do with tax writing. That is why my colleagues had the Majority Whip there, not the tax writing people. I feel sorry for a lot of Republicans who were not able to get involved in it. But fear not, because, instead of their involvement, the lobbyists did the job for them.

   What this is, really, is a rule to have Christmas in August. It is a wish list so that every contributor that one can find listed in the FEC will get a promise that maybe one day if they keep the majority they can keep these things away.

   Because my colleagues know in their heart of hearts that the President and the American people are too responsible to let this happen. So they have a freebie. They got your Christmas list, and they know it never, never, never will become law.


THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents