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      

   I urge my colleagues in this House to vote against this rule, to vote against this irresponsible tax cut, and to vote to protect the people of America.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. JONES) who could not have made my case more clearly.

   She wants to spend money. The Democrats want to spend it on more government. We want to give it back to the American people. In their entire presentation, she had 10 or 15 new

[Page: H7257]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. MYRICK) my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and also the tax relief bill because I am excited about the fact that we are doing something responsible to help the American people.

   This bill is something that people have been waiting for for a long time, to be able to keep more of their money in their own pockets. And it really is possible to do that today through the surpluses that we are going to be looking at. Over the next 10 years, it is projected there will be $3.3 trillion in surpluses.

   Now, we are not going out on a limb and saying we are going to spend all of that this year. This is a very responsible bill. It is going to be phased in over a period of time. As the money becomes available, then it will be given back to the people.

   But the most important thing we need to remember is 75 cents out of every dollar in this surplus that we are going to be using, this $3.3 trillion, is going to be going back into saving Social Security and preserving Medicare and improving education and our national defense. Only 25 cents of every dollar is going to be given back to the American people.

   Now, this 25 cents is income tax surplus they are going to be paying, money that is more than we need to run the government. So why should it stay here in Washington and be spent? Why should it not go back to the people? They deserve to have that money to use.

   This tax bill is going to provide some marriage penalty relief in the form of people who are married to be able to deduct twice as much money as the individual is so they can be treated fairly and we do not penalize marriage anymore.

   We are going to be putting money into extending the research and development tax credits. That also spurs the economy. It develops new technologies. It provides capital for our businesses in this country. That also helps to provide new jobs for people, which, of course, we are always interested in doing.

   The death tax repeal is something that is crucial. I hear all the time in my district, I am really concerned about how I can leave the farm or how I can leave my small business to my kids because everything is going to be eaten up in taxes.

   It is like we penalize people. The American way is to do well for ourselves, save, try to put a little away for our kids, for the future. And then we come along and say, Oh, no, they have got to pay it to Uncle Sam so they can die.

   The same with capital gains relief. We are going to provide capital gains relief again for the second time. This also spurs the economy and it helps middle-class Americans. It is not the rich that it helps. It helps all of us when we sell our homes and to be able to save some of that money.

   The same with education savings accounts. It helps us send our kids to school and college and put that money away tax free.

   So these are good things that the people at home have been asking for. I am proud to stand here today and support the bill.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I constantly hear from the other side that unless we give the surplus away in tax breaks, the rich right now, the politicians, will spend it.

   Well, is the gentleman so afraid of his own party? Has the gentleman forgotten that the Republicans control this House, they control the Senate, and no money can be drawn except through the appropriations process, which they also control?

   I would think they should have more confidence in their party and know that they could use the money well here.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. TIERNEY).

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

   Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the time.

   Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this rule and, obviously, object to the entire Republican risky bill. It is risky because the Republicans who are putting forth this program are endangering our families, our businesses, and our seniors.

   This scenario that they are going to have $3 trillion in 10 years is by no means assured by anyone. Two-thirds of that is entirely Social Security monies that should go to protect Social Security.

   Nothing in the Republican plan extends Social Security for even one day. Nothing in their plan even addresses Medicare's needs, in particular, prescription drug needs.

   The only way they would get the other third to be able to put for any tax breaks at all is if they design to cut education, cut veterans' needs, cut research and development, cut a myriad of other programs that Americans depend on every day. That is the only way they get the kind of surplus they are talking about. And already they have shown that they have no intention of doing that.

   It is going to be the Ronald Reagan plan again, borrow and spend, borrow and spend until we have trillions of dollars in debt to pay off. And after they have put all of this at risk, who are they putting it at risk for? The wealthy.

   One of the gentlemen from the other side said that we object to certain tax breaks and listed off things that he did not find objectionable if they are put in at the right time and if they are in fact the tax breaks that people are getting.

   What we object to is the $80 billion of corporate welfare, including by now the well-known chicken manure credit, but also breaks for three-martini lunches.

   As the Washington Post said, the details in this tax ban highlight the Republican predilection for constant breaks for multinational corporations, real estate ventures, and other special interests.

   They spend nearly a tenth of their breaks to favorite corporate America. $24 billion over 10 years would benefit multinational corporations. It is a break for foreign oil and gas income that would cost the Treasury more than $4 billion.

   This is in fact a plan, as the President rightly said, that is risky and plainly wrong. Even Mr. Greenspan says that this is not appropriate in timing and in substance on this particular deal. They are going to raise interest rates over the roof. The American businesses and families, when they pay their mortgages, are going to suffer.

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

   Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KASICH), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, reversed the President's 1993 budget to bring us the surpluses.

   If we will recall, by 2001 and 2002, the President's 1993 budget agreement predicted a $300 billion and $400 billion annual deficit. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KASICH) has turned that around.

   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KASICH).

   Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I think we should not miss the big picture in this debate. The debate in America today is about where power ought to be. Should power lie with the government and with big institutions in this society; or, conversely, should we attempt to strengthen the individual in America, the family in America, and the community in America.

   That is the debate here today. The single biggest manifestation of empowering individuals and families in America is to give them a tax cut. Well, we ought to also give them school choice and individual retirement accounts, the opportunity to have more control of health care.

   But fundamentally, the single greatest manifestation of the transfer of power and the building of the individual is when the individual has more money in their pocket and that individual could then share it with those in their communities or with their family members.

   The fact is the next model is not about running America from the top down with big bureaucracies, whether

[Page: H7258]  GPO's PDF

   The model that I believe we ought to operate with into the 21st century is the fact that power should flow from our families and our communities and from the individuals who make up those families. They ought to be strengthened in America. Because once they are strengthened, then they must assume responsibility.

   But in America today, we are all worried about Littleton, we are all worried about being islands unto ourselves, we are all worried about the fact that we tend to have to go it alone today in America.

   We must break that model. We have got to recover what has made this country so great, and that is a virtue system that says to individual Americans that they have a responsibility not just to themselves and not just to their families but to people who live in their neighborhoods. Because we are all connected.

   The reason why we must transfer power to people is because with that power and with that freedom comes a set of responsibilities. The fact is that if they can have more money in their pockets as a family, then they can assume more responsibility for those around them.

   Maybe we can begin to end the frustration and the cynicism that so many Americans have today. Because the choice in the 21st century is really are we going to eat the last piece of pizza or are we going to look out for those who live near us and around us and those who are in our families.

   My colleagues, do not mix the issue here. Power is a zero-sum gain. If government has more, the individual has less. If government has more, the individual will be frustrated, more cynical, more road-blocked.

   What we need to do is to set Americans free, more freedom, more power, more responsibility to connect ourselves again to one another, to connect our hearts and our souls together so we can shine up America and restore its vigor.

   Support the tax bill.

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE).

   (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just had the opportunity to visit with a number of seniors who are visiting the United States Congress today. I came back to the floor because I thought this was an important debate on their behalf. And even as I listened to my good friend who chaired the Committee on the Budget talk about power and its distribution, I was disappointed that he did not give us the facts about a tax bill that I plan to enthusiastically oppose.

[Time: 11:15]

   The corporate welfare in this package is enormous. The power is being transferred from the people who work for a living to the large corporations who take their money for a living.

   One lobbyist was quoted as stating, ``We got the sun, the moon and the stars in this tax bill.'' Another lobbyist was joking and said, ``We've been trying to get these cuts since the beginning of dawn.''

   It made me reflect upon who really is in charge in this country. If I have to cast my lot anywhere in the United States, it will be with the working people, the senior citizens who understood what the Depression was all about, understood what making ends meet is all about, and they realize that when this tax bill is passed, the mortgage rates on their children will go up $100, the interest rates will go up $100, the ability to secure a loan, to do things like send their children to school and college and remodel their home will be enormous. They understand in 1981 when the Reagan tax cut came in, there was nothing but devastating financial days. We in Houston, Texas collapsed, bankruptcies were at their highest amount, homes were foreclosed on.

   I beg my colleagues on the Republican side, stand with the working men and women, the senior citizens who understand, the people who want to educate their children, good health care, good environment. This is not taking your money. This is bringing down the deficit. This is bringing down the debt. This is what Chairman Greenspan said. Let the surplus increase so that when you move into the 21st century, you will be able to have a quality of life. Save Social Security and Medicare. Let me tell my colleagues where the power is. It is not with the working people of America. It is with the power-hungry people of America, and I am going to vote against this tax bill.

   Mr. LINDER. At the risk of sounding remedial, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentlewoman from Texas that there were more bankruptcies last year than any other year in history.

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

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time for my friend from Georgia (Mr. LINDER) and myself?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. HEFLEY). The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9 1/4 minutes and the gentleman from Georgia has 5 minutes.

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. ROEMER).

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

   Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson explained to his Treasury Secretary, and I quote, ``I consider the fortunes of our republic as depending in an eminent degree on the extinguishment of the public debt.'' He later explained to that same Secretary of the Treasury that retiring the national debt would be his highest priority.

   The Democratic proposal puts more money into debt reduction and debt relief than the Republicans do. Why is that important for us? They have a $1 trillion tax cut, we have a targeted $250 billion tax cut, but we put more emphasis on Social Security and debt relief. Why? Because if you are a small farmer in Indiana and you are trying to buy a $150,000 combine, that debt reduction can save you $10,000, for all farmers, not just for the wealthy. We also target the small businesses who are trying to buy and update the technology and capital equipment. That debt reduction that we put more money into helps them with tens of thousands of dollars in reductions for million-dollar capital equipment. We have targeted estate tax relief in our New Democrat proposal, targeted at small businesses and small farmers and American families that have someone sick with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.

   This is not a question of whether Democrats support tax cuts or not. We do. But we pay for them. According to one economic analysis, some 50 percent of the tax cuts would benefit, in the Republican plan, those earning $300,000 or more. How many of you watching today are in that category in America?

   We have two choices: A Republican plan on prayed-for projections that answers the plans of the wealthy and the prayers of the wealthy. We have a Democratic plan that gives a tax cut and debt relief to every single American. The choice is easy.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, again at the risk of sounding remedial, I would like to point out that our budget reduces the debt $200 billion more than the Clinton-Gore budget.

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

   Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. SMITH).

   Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I support tax cuts, but I also support fiscal responsibility. This bill only does the former. We will hear and have heard ad nauseam from the opposition about how this bill protects Social Security and reduces the debt. I guess if you say something often enough, you figure you will make it true, the facts be damned.

   This bill cuts taxes by nearly $1 trillion, period. It does not do anything to protect Social Security. And it does not do anything for debt reduction. All it is is a $1 trillion tax cut over 10 years.

   Let us look at those numbers that they use to assume how they are going to cover all of these promises that they have made. We hear of a $3 trillion surplus over 10 years. Right off the top, $2 trillion of that is in the Social Security surplus. Then we hear that the folks on the majority side are kindly setting aside this $2 trillion for Social Security. They do not have to. It is already there. It is in the Social Security trust fund. Furthermore, that $2 trillion regrettably does not do anything

[Page: H7259]  GPO's PDF

   So to say that you are setting that $2 trillion aside for Social Security is meaningless. Yet that is what we continue to hear. So we are left with $1 trillion. Well, that is all gone in tax cuts. Where is the debt reduction?

   We hear from them that they have all this debt reduction, which is not in the bill and the numbers are clear: $3 trillion over 10 years, $2 trillion is gone for Social Security, $1 trillion is left and it is done in tax cuts. Yet we hear this constant rhetoric, we are doing all of these things, debt reduction, Social Security, occasionally they throw in Medicare. It does not add up. It is overpromising. It is based on projections, furthermore. And those projections include two key projections: One, it already locks in 20 percent cuts in existing spending over those 10 years to get to that number. We have not even begun to do those cuts. In fact we just declared the census an emergency yesterday to get around them this year, much less 10 years from now. Furthermore, these projections count on continued growth, no recession. So if any of this does not come to pass, we do not even have that $1 trillion that is already to be done in tax cuts.

   Lastly, we hear that this is all about giving money back to the people and letting them make their decisions. Medicare and Social Security are two things the government does. Should we get rid of those programs to give the money back? Some programs need to be funded. The government does need to do some things.

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