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. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report.
I rise in opposition to the conference agreement on H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act.
This bill is the Republican's risky scheme for how they want to help the rich. The majority knows that their only bread and butter issue is tax cuts, whether or not the American people ask for them, whether there is a budget surplus or a deficit, and whether other important tax cuts instead or priorities get squeezed out, such as protecting Social Security, saving Medicare, strengthening education, and paying down the national debt.
The American people won't be fooled. This bill provides very little for the average working family. The bottom sixty percent of Americans by income will only see about 8% of the tax cuts in this bill. Approximately $10 a month. Whereas, the top 10% of Americans will receive almost 70% of the benefits under this bill.
Plain and simple, this bill is one big tax cu t for those who need it the least.
I would also like to mention that there are a number of pension provisions included in this bill, some of which are good policy and some which are not. Overall, however, this bill does little to significantly improve the retirement security of working Americans. Our current pension and tax sy stem already favors the well-off. Over 80% of individuals earning over $75,000 a year have tax def erred pension income whereas only 8% of those earning under $10,000 and 27% earning between $10,000 and $15,000 have pension coverage.
I oppose this irresponsible raid on our Federal budget to benefit the wealthy and special interest at the expense of the average working family.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. NEAL).
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons to oppose this tax bill it is hard to know where to start.
I have spoken on the floor about the need to save the surplus for Social Security and Medicare. I have spoken about their importance as the premier government programs that keep millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. I have discussed the importance
[Page: H7263] GPO's PDF
Every day that goes by, it is more and more clear just how unrealistic these budget assumptions currently are. If we hold this bill until September, it will be as clear as a pie in the face.
The Washington Post this morning has a long article about how Republicans have already spent the on-budget surplus for next year. If we cannot maintain discipline for 1 year, how on earth will we guarantee that surplus for the next 10 years. We cannot.
The Democratic approach here is entirely reasonable. We want to go slow. Let us not repeat the errors of the last 18 years and pass a massive tax bill. Let us be for modest, reasonable tax cuts that become clear when the budget surplus really arrives.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BOEHNER), another member of the conference committee.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this historic tax cut, one that will protect Social Security and Medicare and still put some $800 billion back in the pockets of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, while others dwell on the past, Americans look to the future. We strive, we dream, and we sacrifice so that we and our children can have a better future. Our work, our dreams, and our sacrifices have more to do with realizing that than any program that is hatched here in Washington.
That is what this tax bill is really all about, letting the American people keep more of what they earn so that they can make the plans and do the work that will lead to a better future for them and their children. That is why we are lowering marginal tax rates , cutting the capital gains rate, fixing the marriage penalty, and increasing deductibility for retirement savings and health care. It is so our constituents can have the future that they deserve.
I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER) for working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) and myself to include important pension reforms introduced in the House by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. PORTMAN) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CARDIN).
These reforms will directly improve the retirement security of American workers by expanding small business retirement plans, allowing workers to save more, making pensions more secure, and cutting the red tape that has hamstrung employers who want to establish pension plans for their employees. They are important, bipartisan proposals and they will benefit every American worker who is trying to save for retirement.
But I also want to commend him for the much larger package. It returns money that our constituents have earned and that Washington hasn't. That's why we owe it to our constituents to vote for the conference report.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. MCNULTY), a member of the committee and my colleague from New York.
Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we will hear a lot of speeches today, and a lot of them are going to sound the same. Mine will be different in one minor respect. I am not going to attack the other side of the aisle. I am just going to ask what I think is a very salient question. Do we not learn anything from history?
In the 1980s, the leaders of this country, in a bipartisan fashion, decided to attack the national budget deficits, and a Republican president proposed and this Democratic House of Representatives adopted a plan which called for a massive tax cut. It was bipartisan. So if there is any blame to go around, there is plenty for everyone.
But I hearken back to the words of President Harry Truman again. Let us look at the record. What happened when we did that? We had the largest budget deficits in the history of the United States of America. In the ensuing 12 years we quadrupled the national debt. All of the debt accumulated in this country from George Washington to Jimmy Carter was quadrupled in a period of 12 years.
So I do not attack the other side today. I just make a very simple plea. Let us not make the same mistake. Let us not do it all over again. Let us pay down the national debt and stop stealing our children's money.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. HERGER), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend from New York, his comment on the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, regarding the tax cut. I would like to state the facts during that time. During that time, the tax rates were cut in half and revenues during the 1980s actually doubled. But the then Democrat Congress tripled the spending, so we ended up spending more.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act. The time has come to allow hard-working Americans to keep more of their money. Mr. Speaker, our plan sets aside three-fourths of the anticipated surplus, 75 cents out of every dollar for Social Security and Medicare.
Now we must take the next step. The legislation before us today provides all taxpayers with broad-based tax relie f by reducing tax rates for all income taxpayers, allows parents to save more for educational expenses, and phases out both the destructive marriage penalty and death tax. Mr. Speaker, let us side with hard-working Americans over Washington bureaucracy. I urge all my colleagues to support the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN), a member of the committee.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the truth squad needs to work overtime here. The chairman of the committee has said this bill secures Social Security and Medicare, and a subcommittee chairman said it saves Social Security forever. That is eternally untrue.
Mr. SHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. No, I will finish, and then I will yield.
Mr. SHAW. That is not true what the gentleman is saying.
MR. LEVIN. It is.
Mr. SHAW. The chairman did not say that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. KOLBE). The time is controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN).
Mr. LEVIN. It is untrue. The lockbox saves what is already coming in. It does nothing for the future.
What the Republican bill does is take money from the future to apply it now. Medicare is in jeopardy. It will run out of money in 2015.
The Republicans say give back some of the money. We Democrats are in lower interest rates. The Democratic program is also trying to save some money to assure Social Security and Medicare.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER) said his bill is a breath of relief. What it is in the future is a hurricane of red ink. The Republicans were wrong in 1981, they were wrong in 1993, and they are wrong today. Reject this reckless bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP), another respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the challenge here today is to listen and not to mischaracterize. We are talking about tax relie f after we have set aside $2 trillion of our budget surplus for Social Security and Medicare. Locked it away. And by doing so, we begin to pay down our national debt.
Today, the question is should we return what is left to the taxpayer or should it stay here and be spent on big government? This bill is tax relie f for the American family. Close to 90 percent of the tax relie f in this bill goes to families. The average American family pays double in taxes today what they paid in 1985, and that is just too much.
Let me give my colleagues a few examples of how this bill helps families. This bill cuts taxes for every taxpayer. It provides tax relie f from the marriage penalty, so couples do not have to pay higher taxes just because they are married. And we kill the death tax. We a lso increase the adoption credit for parents
[Page: H7264] GPO's PDF
This legislation will help American families. Vote for the Tax Refun d and Relief Act.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. TANNER), a member of the committee.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and simply say this. I think the American people are ahead of the Congress on this. I think they know instinctively that we cannot have debt reduction, save Social Security, save Medicare, take 80 percent of a projection over the next 10 years and cut taxes today. It is called a free lunch, a bridge in Brooklyn, or any way we want to paint it. The American people know we cannot do all that and they are ahead of us on that.
The comment was made earlier in the debate about this, that if we keep the money, any of it, the bureaucrats will spend it. The last time I looked, a bureaucrat cannot spend any money unless we have 218 votes on that board. All my colleagues can well remember the government shutdown. Nobody here can spend money or authorize money but us. So what do my colleagues mean when they say if we keep the money the bureaucrats will spend it? That is patently untrue.
The other thing I would like to do is quote one of the leaders of this tax bill today regarding a comment made in 1996. ``It is about our Nation's debt. Our debt stands at over $4.9 trillion then, now it is $5.6 and growing. For a family of four, their share is $72,000, increasing each week by $89, each month by $383, and each year by $4,594. Sometime, some day, someone has to pay that debt, and that someone is today's younger workers, their children and their children's children.''
Now, I asked in a motion to recommit last week just to take half of this projected $1 trillion on-budget surplus and give it to the children. That was rejected. So when we say give it to the people, are kids, nonadults, are they not people too? They are the ones that have to pay this, not us.
Everybody within the sound of my voice under 35 years old ought to insist that we take at least half of it and split it with them. It is the honorable thing to do.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE), another respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means. We have tremendous talent on our committee.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.
It is interesting that today we hear lots of slogans on the other side but not one debate point on any provision of this bill. Think about it. They are not against any of the provisions. In fact, they cosponsored half the provisions in this bill.
[Time: 12:30]
But not one debate on any provision.
Let us just bring up one, the farm accounts, that came back in the conference report that has not gotten much attention just yet.
What that does, and I appreciate the assistance of the chairman in getting this into the conference report, what that says to farmers who are struggling right now is we want to be able to carry forward some income so that they can spread out the peaks and the valleys of what is happening in farm country right now.
That combined with the death tax relie f, the capital gains relief gives a real shot in the arm to American agriculture, who needs it right now.
Now, I understand there are some quotes on the other side about what the leadership said. Let me remind my colleagues of a quote from the Democratic leadership: ``I think we will write off rural America.''
Well, with their vote today they are writing off rural America. If they say no to death tax relie f, if they say no to capital gains relief, if they say no to the farm accounts, they are saying to those farmers that are struggling right now that we can spend their money more wisely than they can.
Well, go right ahead. Because, my colleagues, it is not our money. We have not even gotten the check yet from the American people, and they are already claiming it, saying what they do with it. Well, for the last 30 years they spent the Social Security surplus. We do not want them to spend this surplus.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has said it all, we have not gotten the check yet and he is putting out the tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we say ``No'' to their chicken manure subsidy, and we say ``No'' to a bill that jeopardizes Social Security and Medicare in order to provide tax break s to chicken manure producers and many other special interests in this country.
This so-called $3 trillion surplus is nothing but a figment of a Republican political imagination. $2 trillion of this amount simply represents the money that hard-working Americans will be paying into Social Security, and that $2 trillion, as large as it sounds, is not enough to ensure Social Security will be there for future generations of Americans.
Republicans do not provide one new dollar to help Social Security or to help Medicare in this bill. The other trillion dollars is funny money.
The Republicans have already consumed all of this funny money, this projected surplus for next year with the bills that they have under consideration in this Congress. That $1 trillion is as unreliable as a 10-year weather forecast.
But what I really object to is plucking Social Security and Medicare clean in order to provide tax break s for most every special interest with a PAC and a lobbyist. This is wrong. Reject this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DUNN), another respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years, Americans on average, each American, will pay $5,300 to the Federal Government in income taxes, more than it costs to run the government. This is above and beyond the Social Security surplus which we save in a lockbox.
This is a fair tax bill. This bill reverses the Clinton tax incre ase of 1993 by reducing income tax rates for every single person who pays them and by reducing taxes for lower-income Americans by expanding the 15-percent bracket.
It also will save married couples an average of $1,400 a year by doubling the standard deduction and keeping couples whose combined earnings are up to $5,100 in the 15-percent tax brack et.
Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it eliminates the death tax. This unfair tax has c aused often tragic hardship for families who are trying to build a legacy to pass on to future generations. We should honor the values of the hard work, not tax them.
I call upon the President to help us roll back the 1993 tax incre ase, which he himself admitted was too much. Join us, Mr. President. Let us do this bill together. Give something back to the American people. It is their money. Give it back.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. THURMAN), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
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