[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4332-H4333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     GEPHARDT TAX SUBSTITUTE CLEAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important as I heard the 
discussion with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle I heard 
some individuals talking about confusion and not knowing what they 
voted for. I think it is important that the American people but as well 
my constituents in the State of Texas really focus on what we did 
tonight.
  First of all, I think it was very clear what the Gephardt tax 
substitute did. If focused on reducing the deficit at the same time as 
if did in giving the right kind of tax benefits to those working 
Americans. But what it did for the State of Texas and this was what the 
Sate of the Texas would lose under the rescissions bill, which 
unfortunately was passed, and this was simply to give this uninformed 
and incorrect and biased tax cut to those who do not need it.
  So we are losing family nutrition. We are going to lose in AFDC 
training and emergency assistance, school nutrition, Medicaid. We are 
going to lose summer jobs and, yes, our college students are going to 
lose their ability to go to college with the college loans.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that even with the so-called 
Republicans that support this tax cut, in the quite moments of 
reflection they tell the truth. What about the capital gains Tax? Is 
that widely popular among business? Let me tell you what they have 
said.
  ``The rationale is to encourage Americans to save and invest more of 
their money.'' This is in the Washington Post with an article in 
headlines, GOP Tax Cut Publicly Backed But Privately Doubted. ``A goal 
supported by nearly all economists, but even those who support it 
concede,'' meaning the capital gains tax, ``there is no evidence that 
it will work. In all honesty, as an economist I cannot say that a 
change in the capital gains rate will have any measurable impact on 
savings or investment.''
  There goes your tax cut for the business folk. Then this is supposed 
to be a jewel. It is simply paste.
  Let me tell what you the Gephardt tax cut did. What it did is it 
ensured that we would be able to
 assess each time we were getting a cut as to whether or not it met the 
test of cutting the deficit. Each year, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 
2001, we were going to determine deficit targets: 150 billion, 125 
billion, 100 billion, 75 billion, 50 billion, and 25 billion.

  But most of all, Mr. Speaker, I think the most important point is 
that we would have a tax cut that responded to working Americans.
  I see the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and I wanted to yield 
to him and make an inquiry, because we are confronted and faced with 
hard decisions in this Congress. I do not think we are afraid of hard 
decisions.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Without question. I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding.
  One of the points that I wanted to make was the point of the 
alternative minimum tax proposal that was eliminated in this piece of 
legislation. I 
[[Page H4333]] mean, the whole purpose of this measure that was passed 
in 1986 was because of the fact that we had about 130 to 250 
corporations that pay zero in taxes.
   This was a big loophole in our tax law, so we passed this 
legislation so we could make sure that corporations paid their fair 
share.
  Now, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, even corporations, 
the very corporations that we are giving this big tax break to today as 
a result of the passage of this act a few minutes ago, if these 
corporations' board of directors would meet across the country, and if 
they are in the red, these board of directors members will not give 
their shareholders a tax dividend because they are in the red. This 
company, this country is in the red. It is in the red because we are 
facing a huge deficit.
  We are Members of Congress, we really are a board of directors for 
the United States of America. So I think it is our fiduciary 
responsibility as members of the board of directors for the United 
States of America to make sure that we not give a tax dividend to our 
shareholders when our corporation, which is the United States of 
America, is not as solvent as we want it to be.
  So if corporations themselves will not give shareholders a dividend 
when they are in a deficit, why would we as a corporation for the 
United States of America and as a board of directors give corporations 
themselves a dividend. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. If the gentlewoman would yield.
  You remember in 1981 when we got that kind of tax cut when the 
deficit was then just $1 trillion, it is now, under the Republican 
leadership, $4 trillion.


                          ____________________