[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4333-H4334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE TAX BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I wanted to just get on the record with respect to the remarks of the
minority leader, it seems to me that I cannot imagine that the minority
leader intended in any way to mislead the House regarding what his
motion to recommit was. He talked about four items. In fact, there are
more like 15 or 20 items with respect to it.
But I would like to give the minority leader both the benefit of the
doubt as well as the opportunity to tell this House that what he had
indicated earlier this evening was not a complete statement but it was
not meant to be an incomplete statement and to tell the entire House
what the complete statement about the motion to recommit really was.
The reason that I think that it is important for him to do that is so
that we clear up the cloud with respect to representations about
motions to recommit.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, point of order, point of personal privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I realize this may predate the Speaker somewhat, but
several years ago we went through this exact same procedure in which
Members, in effect----
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. HOKE. The gentleman is not stating a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WISE. My point of order is that several years ago we went through
this procedures where Members would in effect call out other Members on
the floor, knowing they were not there. It was agreed, I thought, by
rule, if not by rule by comity, that that process would no longer
happen. Because, clearly, the minority leader is not here, was not
served notice that this was going to happen until 2 minutes before when
somebody came over here and said it was.
I would just hope for comity purposes alone we will not engage in
this conduct which several years ago both parties rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. We are not aware of any violation of rule
from what he said so far.
Mr. WISE. Then point of parliamentary inquiry. Then it is appropriate
for a Member to challenge another Members even though they are not
here, probably cannot be reached, to challenge them on the floor as
though they were there and ask them to come forward knowing that they
cannot come forward
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As long as the Member has not engaged in
personalities, which they have not.
Mr. WISE. I thank the Speaker. That is an interesting rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington may proceed.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we have not made clear what Mr.
Gephardt's motion would have meant for the senior citizens of this
Nation.
This would eliminate the repeal of the tax on social security
benefits. This would eliminate the tax preference for long-term
insurance, accelerated death benefits and long-term care benefits. This
eliminates the elderly care tax credit. This would
eliminate the increase in the Social Security earnings test.
These are not tax cuts to those who do not need it. The Republican
deficit reduction tax fairness act is one of the strongest pieces of
seniors legislation that this Congress has moved to date, and that is
why I am so proud to be an original sponsor of the seniors portion of
the legislation.
Essentially, what we have done with this legislation is remove the
unfair tax burden that the Democrats imposed on senior citizens in the
last session of Congress.
Remember back in 1993 the Democrats imposed a $25 billion tax on our
Nation's elderly. When President Clinton proposed this tax, he said
that only the wealthiest Americans would face higher taxes. So, by
President Clinton's definition, senior citizens living on fixed incomes
as low as $34,000 are wealthy and ought to pay their fair share.
Well, what President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress did 2
years ago was not fair, and after less than 100 days we have just
corrected this injustice.
In terms of New York, my State, my elderly will be able to keep more
than $2.2 billion more of their hard-earned tax dollars, and I can
assure you that this is going to benefit people who are definitely in
need of a tax break. They do need it.
Two of the other key elements of the deficit and tax reduction
package which benefit the senior citizens are the custodial care tax
credit and the estate and gift tax exclusion.
All of us have heard a loved one at one time or another say they did
not want to go to a retirement home. Well, by instituting a $500 elder
care tax credit, we have started to take steps to ease their minds and
their family's financial burden. This helps keep families intact by
providing financial assistance to families who might otherwise have to
place parents in a nursing home.
I will stand strongly behind these tax provisions that help our
seniors of this Nation.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we forget how strong the
package was for seniors, but I want to talk about working families
again, just real quick.
We heard about an average $120-some tax break. There are not any
``quarter'' of a children. Next April, under this plan that we just
passed, every child will be worth $500 on the tax return to their
parents. So if you have two kids, it is $1,000. If you have three kids,
it is $1,500. That is actual money that you can use to raise your own
children.
[[Page H4334]] So for many people that means that government will not
have to do things for them they can do for themselves. For others, it
means that they will buy something and pay taxes back into the economy.
But it is a misnomer; all of the averages are often used to try to
confuse the American people.
____________________