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
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. TURNER).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the chart to my right compares the Republican tax cut plan with the tax cut plan of the Democrats. It is really very simple. We take the $1 trillion general operating budget surplus and we apply it to some very legitimate problems that we are facing in the Federal Government. We apply 25 percent to tax cuts, we apply 25 percent to save Social Security and Medicare, we apply 50 percent to debt reduction. Under the Republican plan, all of it is devoted to tax cuts.
This is a very risky plan for us to follow. First of all, the Republican tax cuts are aimed at Wall Street, not at Main Street where our plan aims them. Secondly, we save Social Security and Medicare by applying 25 percent of the on-budget surplus to those purposes. The Republicans like to claim that they have saved Social Security in their plan. Well, frankly, we have already done what they say they are doing in their tax cut. We have lock-boxed Social Security, we all voted for it, Democrats and Republicans. We have taken care of that and it is important that we do that.
Finally, we apply 50 percent of the on-budget surplus to debt reduction. After 29 years of running up $5.5 trillion in national debt, do you not think that we could at least wait 1 year until we have a true on-budget surplus? Apparently the Republicans do not think so. Democrats do. We think we ought to lock-box 25 percent for tax cuts, lock-box 25 percent to save Social Security and Medicare, and let us lock-box 50 percent of the on-budget surplus to reduce the national debt so we will not be passing that on to our children and grandchildren. That is what makes sense for American families. That is what makes sense for America.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman will be as enthusiastic in convincing the Democrats in the other body about the lockboxes as he is in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time.
In looking at the figures that the previous speaker had up, holding 25 percent of the surplus out to save Social Security, 25 percent for Medicare, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, that interests me greatly because I want to know where the Democrat plan is. I want to know where that 25 percent figure came from. I think that could be very, very interesting.
But there is another thing that I want to know for those who have spoken before and those to come later. What is it that you do not like about eliminating the limitation on the deduction for the interest on student loans? What is it that you do not like about eliminating and phasing out the death tax where you have to see the undertaker and the Internal Revenue Service on the same day? What is it you do not like about an across-the-board tax deduction for all American taxpayers? What is it you do not like about reducing the cap on capital gains? What is it about the marriage penalty that you like that you want to hold on to? Why not eliminate it? Why not join with the Republicans? What is it you do not like about deducting health insurance costs? What is it you do not like about increasing the amount you can put into educational savings accounts? Last of all, what is it you do not like about getting a deduction for taking care of your elderly parents?
This bill has been drafted very, very carefully. This bill is a wonderful bill. This bill just uses a small portion of the surplus and leaves plenty, believe me, plenty. By the passage of the Archer-Shaw Social Security plan, Members will see that we are going to save Social Security and they will also see that we are going to get many Democrats that are going to join with us. This is the plan that we have and we are going to do it. We are also going to reduce the accumulated debt that is going to pester our descendants so much unless we do something about it.
Let us get together. Let us in a bipartisan way do these things that the American people want us to do. Let us pass this rule and pass this very fair and very good tax plan.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OLVER).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise to oppose this rule and the bill that underlies the rule.
Mr. Speaker, like the instinctive march of lemmings over a cliff, it is instinctive for the Republican leadership to give huge tax breaks to the richest individuals and special interests. In their bill, the 1 million wealthiest families whose income is greater than $300,000 per year will get about $1,000 a week of tax breaks. But for the 120 million American families whose income is under $125,000 a year, and that, by the way, includes everybody virtually whose income is under that of Members of the Congress, for those 120 million families, they are going to get enough to buy a cup or two of coffee a week, so that they can stay awake while they are working their double jobs. That is not the tax relief that the middle class needs and deserves. But they simply cannot help themselves. It is in their genes. It is their genetic defect. They deliberately, deliberately crafted a bill that makes the richest 1 percent of Americans a very great deal richer, a bill that gives away the projected surplus, not one dime of which has yet been produced. But they give away that projected surplus in order to produce that kind of tax break, distribution of tax breaks. They deliberately have not extended the life of Social Security by so much as a single day so that in the year 2030 when they open the lockbox, which all of us have voted for, they are going to find that the lockbox is empty.
[Time: 11:30]
They have deliberately left not a single dollar to extend the life of Medicare, which provides healthcare for all of our senior citizens and our disabled citizens, so in the year 2014, Medicare is going to be bankrupt too.
This plan is not just risky, it is reckless. This bill should be rejected.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), the Chairman of the Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. HEFLEY). The gentleman from California is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. It is really sad to listen to the tried, age-old, and failed argument of class warfare. The previous
[Page: H7260] GPO's PDF
One of the greatest things about this Nation is that we provide opportunity. We provide opportunity for people to succeed, and we also in this country have an opportunity that some people are not all that successful. But I find that virtually everyone wants to have the opportunity to succeed, and that is what this tax bill is all about. We want to make sure that we maintain the kind of economic growth and expansion which this Nation has seen for the past several years.
We have today the highest tax rate in 50 years. The American people are paying more in taxes than they have in 50 years. We have been able to see the great benefits of surpluses that have been building, and what we are saying is that to maintain economic growth, we think it is important for people to be able to keep some of their own hard-earned dollars.
Guess what? That, in fact, is what we are going to do, and I hope very much that the President of the United States sees the way, as he has on the Y2K bill, welfare reform, on the National Ballistic Missile Defense bill, on the Education Flexibility Act, to come around to what is the right position, and that is to sign the bill.
I know that there are public opinion polls out there that are saying, gosh, we do not overwhelmingly, as the American people, support a tax cut. But we are proceeding with it. Why? It may not right now be the single most popular thing, but we know it is the right thing to do. That is why we are stepping up to the plate and doing just that.
As we look at the fact that 100 million-plus Americans are investing in the market, they are people who are often called ``rich'' by our friends on the other side of the aisle, but they consist of people who have maybe a few thousand dollars they are investing. What is it we are doing? We are going to allow them to keep more of that so they can choose to save or invest it by reducing that top rate on capital gains from 20 percent to 18 percent, and the very important provision in 2003 which allows us to see indexation of capital gains.
Then, extending for 5 years the research and development tax credit, that is very, very important. Forty-five percent of our Nation's gross domestic product growth in the past 4 years has come in the high-tech industry. Not only have hundreds of thousands of jobs been created by those investors, by new technologies, but we have also dramatically improved the quality of life for people here in the United States and around the world. We must do everything that we can to continue that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and to support a very, very good bill, and then, Mr. President, please sign it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, nays 203, not voting 7, as follows:
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
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