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      

   But it would seem to me that now is the time to be bipartisan. Once my colleagues know this thing is going to be vetoed, at least have a small tax bill that they think that they would be able to work with.

   But just listen to this, because I want to listen to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) from the Committee on Rules, late into the night, the Republicans give away as much as they can to the other body to see that they can get 51 votes so that they can at least pass it.

   With all of this rush, one would believe that they are rushing the bill to the White House. That is the process: House, Senate, conference, White House. Oh, no. They want this bill to turn slowly in the wind at every Republican fund-raiser around the country and to be able to say, ``You see, we even turn chicken manure into electricity. It only costs $500 million. But in our bill, we are the only party to take care of chicken manure for the chicken farmers so that we can get a great charge out of it.'' I tell my colleagues this.

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

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

   Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, as we look at the prospect of some kind of tax increase, God forbid, I am convinced that there is no better expert at putting together a tax increase bill than the gentleman from New York standing in the well. I want him to know that, Mr. Speaker, if we ever, ever on this side were to consider any kind of tax increase, the gentleman from New York is the first person to whom I would look for direction and advice and counsel on doing just that because he is so expert in it.

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California can tell the people that he works with, those shelters, that ``Rangel is coming for you.''

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, they are ready for the gentleman from New York.

   Mr. RANGEL. Everybody wants a tax cut.

   Mr. DREIER. They are ready for the gentleman from New York.

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, everybody wants a tax cut. But some of us believe that we are paying off our debts first.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are in the next five years by a six to one ratio.

[Page: H7255]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we cannot pay off our debts, take care of Medicare, take care of Social Security.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman from New York, keep fighting for those tax increases.

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

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. STARK) a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

[Time: 10:45]

   Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time, and want to remind one of the previous speakers, who suggested that, I suppose he means Democrats who are working for wages, could buy a couple of shares of Kodak. That would cost them about $160 a month out of their paycheck. Or Coca-Cola, I guess he said. Now, the tax bill is going to give this worker $136 a year. The worker already is not able to pay his or her bills, buy long-term care insurance, pay the house mortgage and get the kids to college. So I suggest that it is very disingenuous to gratuitously say to that worker, go ahead and save 160 bucks a month, we will give you $136 a year towards it.

   As a matter of fact, this bill was really designed to help Dr. Kevorkian and the undertakers. Several of my colleagues have already heard from their adult children wondering how we intend to commit suicide so we can escape the inheritance tax .

   Everybody has been bleeding on the Republican side for these poor multimillionaires who are going to have to pay an inheritance tax . Talk about term limits. They have said to the owners of small businesses and the owners of family farms, ``Die baby. Die in the next 10 years, and you can give the farm away to your kids tax free. But if you live, it goes right back up, and we sock you for a big inheritance tax .''

   They change the rules to make funny speeches. We argued here sometime ago about a 60 percent rule, screaming that only the irresponsible people in this House would vote to raise taxes and they needed a supermajority. Well, with this bill they are going to raise taxes, and they have had to waive their own rules.

   One of the more serious issues is that they have really decided to turn their back on Medicare, and they are going to let Medicare destruct. They voted in committee against their own bills.

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the Member in the Republican Party who said that these people should take the money and invest it in Coca-Cola. With the money the people on the bottom part of that chain will get, they will only be able to invest in a six pack of Coca-Cola.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN).

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

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, one word three times, reckless, reckless, reckless. That is what the Republicans are doing. Fiscal discipline guards our prosperity here, and they are turning their backs on it.

   The choice this year is clear. As Chairman Greenspan said, let the surpluses run, pay down the debt, or let the deficits grow again. The Republicans are back at it, letting the deficits grow again.

   And even if the budget assumptions are correct, and those assumptions are wrong, there would be no money left to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has a Social Security plan that would use the same trillion dollars that he is using for the tax cut.

   Look, the choice in 8 or 9 or 10 years would be this. Continue the tax cuts that are in this bill and explode the deficit or let the tax cuts expire and that would be the biggest tax increase in American history, $175 billion a year, if we let this bill be sunsetted.

   The Republicans like to talk about the biggest American tax increase in history in 1993, $275 billion over 5 years. This would be, under their plan, if there is a sunset, a $175 billion tax increase in a year.

   Lastly, this bill is grossly unfair. If the Republicans shed any tears here, they are crocodile tears for middle and low-income taxpayers. Here is what Deloitte & Touche says: A couple with an annual income of $50,000 with 2 children would get a tax cut of $265; a couple with $200,000 would get a tax cut of $2,720; and, look, the millionaire would receive a tax cut of $9,861 compared to the family of $50,000, $265.

   It is not only excessive it is grossly unfair. Let us turn it down.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to that silliness.

   The top 1 percent of all the income earners in this country earn 17 percent of all the income and pay 32 percent all the taxes. The bottom 50 percent of the income earners pay 4.8 percent of all the taxes.

   We now have 40 million American families that pay no income taxes, and that is who the Democrats want to help. They want to turn this into welfare.

   If we are going to cut taxes because we have overtaxed in this country, the people who pay taxes are going to get the tax relief. The top 10 percent of the income earners in this country earn 42 percent of all the income and pay 63 percent of all the taxes. If we are going to cut taxes because it is hurting the economy by taking too much into Washington, the people who pay taxes are going to get the tax relief.

   That is what the Democrats cannot stand, because they want this money to stay in Washington so they can dole it out to folks who do not pay taxes.

   My biggest fear, my biggest fear is that one day they will be back in charge of this House and pass their tax relief that will take 60 percent of America off the tax roles entirely, and we will have a huge bias in favor of more government, more spending and, ultimately, more taxes because most of America is not paying taxes.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. OSE).

   Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I stood in the back of the chamber here listening to the debate, and it is somewhat perplexing. I am trying to figure out what it is the gentlemen and the gentlewomen on the other side object to.

   Is it the reduction in the rates on ordinary income? Is it the provision for the deductibility of health insurance? Is it the credits given for adoptions for special needs children? Are they objecting to these things? Is it the provision allowing for increased savings for the education of our children and grandchildren? Is it the marriage tax penalty relief that the Democrats object to? Is it the increase in the private savings that is so greatly encouraged by the revisions to the IRA and other retirement programs? Is it the fact that the President wants to save 62 percent of the Social Security revenue, and we want to save 100 percent?

   Exactly what is it the other side objects to here? If it is, in fact, an objective of the other side to defeat this bill, then they should vote against it. They should just tell the people of America that they are in opposition to all these things. I encourage my colleagues to do so.

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT).

   Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague exactly what we object to. We object to funding tax breaks for special interests by jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare. That is what this bill is all about.

   They call it the Financial Freedom Act. Well, it provides a little more freedom for some folks than for others. In the words of Dr. King, some people are ``free, free, God Almighty, free at last.'' And at the top of the list are the chicken manure producers. Hundreds of millions of dollars of tax subsidies for chicken manure producers in this country. Down in Texas we have Whataburger. Well, ``What a chicken'' this is. They have given new meaning to ``chicken deluxe,'' to ``chicken special'' in this bill by giving hundreds of millions of dollars of tax relief to chicken manure producers.

   And who do my colleagues think pays for that? I think it is best summed up in this copy of a painting that hangs here in Washington. It is entitled ``Plucked Clean.'' And that is exactly what happens to Social Security and Medicare. They get plucked clean. Social Security and Medicare do not enjoy the benefits of the chicken manure producers. They get plucked clean.

   This $2 trillion figure that they keep talking about, it is not a surplus, it is

[Page: H7256]  GPO's PDF

   Likewise, with reference to Medicare, Republicans do not add an additional dollar for Medicare. They are not funding the long-term solvency of Medicare or covering the much-needed prescription drugs.

   Why is it that every time that there is some tax cut, it goes to the special interests? And if my colleagues need further verification of the fact that Social Security and Medicare are being plucked clean in order to provide tax breaks for the special interests, examine the phony ``trigger'' mechanism in this bill. It will supposedly cut off, in certain circumstances, some of the future tax relief provided by this bill. But the ``trigger'' does not apply to the chicken manure producers; it only applies to the section of the bill addressing tax cuts for individuals. Special interests get the special treatment; individual taxpayers get left out.

   This is wrong. Do not pluck Social Security and Medicare clean to help the chicken manure producers and most every other special interest which has a lobbyist and a political action committee.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to respond to a couple of things.

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that what we are proposing to send back to the American people, $792 billion, the President's budget proposes to spend, not on chickens and not on manure and not on Medicare but on 80-some new Federal programs.

   The question is do we give it back to the American people or does Washington spend it with new bureaucracies?

   Having said that, I would also like to finish Mr. Greenspan's quote. He has been quoted here as saying that his first priority would be to let the surpluses run. He then went on to say this. ``As I have said before, my second priority is, if you find that as a consequence of those surpluses they tend to be spent, then I would be more in the camp of cutting taxes, because the least desirable is using those surpluses for expending outlays.''

   Read the President's budget. He wants to spend that money.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. WELDON).

   Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill providing tax relief for working Americans.

   For years, I, as a private citizen, saw the politicians in Washington not only spending all of the money that comes in, in terms of the Federal withholding, but as well spending the Social Security surplus, and additionally then spending even more than that. And as we all know, we ran huge deficits.

   All the years that I was working in my medical practice in Florida, I kept seeing the reports coming back from Washington, $100 billion, $200 billion, $300 billion of red ink. Now, I have been in this Congress for 5 years, and I have been very proud to be part of turning things around. We have been able to successfully stop the business of spending more money than what comes in every year and have been able to produce balanced books for the first time in 25 years.

   And then we were finally able this year to do something that I have been asking for and fighting for since the day I arrived, which is to set the Social Security funds aside and to not spend those monies as has been done year after year. Unfortunately, our Social Security lockbox is still being played with by the minority in the other body, but, hopefully, we will ultimately get that enacted into law.

   And, yes, we are beginning the process today of taking some of the money and saying, no, we do not want to keep it in this city but we want to return it back to working Americans. Because, after all, it is their money.

   And what are some of the things we have in this bill? Well, tuition tax credits, so that it will be easier for parents to send their kids to college. We have adoption tax credits for special needs kids. In my State in Florida and every State of this country, there are kids with special needs sitting in the social systems waiting to be adopted.

[Time: 11:00]

   We also have a provision in this bill that would make it possible for people to deduct the cost of having their elderly parents living in the home rather than sending them into nursing homes. And, yes, we have capital gains relief.

   I happen to believe that is the best thing to help perpetuate this robust economy and creating new jobs. Because when we cut capital gains, it is the best thing to cause people to invest money in the economy.

   And, yes, we have a reduction or an elimination of the death tax or the inheritance tax . In my district, it is causing the break-up of family farms, of orange groves, of cattle ranches. These things are being sold off for development or being sold off for agribusiness. And by doing this, we can allow it to stay in the family.

   This is a good tax bill, and everybody should be supporting it.

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. STARK) from the Committee on Ways and Means.

   Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask any of my Republican colleagues if they know how much they are really helping poor Americans? It is only the Republicans who can take a bill full of chicken manure and turn it into a turkey. As soon as the public finds out how to do that, we will solve the homeless-and-the-hungry problem.

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. JONES).

   (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

   In 1998 when I ran for Congress, I promised the people of the 11th Congressional District that I would come to Washington to fight to save Social Security and Medicare, fight for the Patients' Bill of Rights, fight to improve educational opportunity, and fight to continue debt reduction.

   This is my first opportunity to debate a tax conference report. I would not fulfill my commitment to the people of my district if I did not stand in fervent opposition to this report.

   My father, a skycap for United Airlines for 40 years, always said, ``Stephanie, never count your chickens before they hatch.''

   This conference report does just that. It spends a surplus we do not even have. Domestic priorities are crushed. The seniors in my district want to have a prescription provision in Medicare, not a tax cut. The children in my district want to and deserve to go to schools where the roofs are not leaking, the classes are smaller, where they can be linked to the Internet and prepare for the new millennium. They do not want a tax cut.

   The working men and women in my district want assurance of health care coverage, not a tax cut. They want an increase in minimum wage that will be fueled by economy that continues to grow wherein there is no tax cut. Veterans in my district want greater assistance, not a tax cut.

   The proponents of this bill suggest that this cut will put money in the pockets of American people. Working men and women will get no money in their pockets. They are not telling the people that. They are only telling the people that someone will get a tax cut, but they are not telling whom. What they are not telling the people is that the money will come at the expense of Social Security, Medicare, educational opportunities, health care, and that the 10 cents that is put in their pockets will never buy them health care, will never buy educational opportunities, will never give them a tuition credit.

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