[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3896-H3897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   THE DEMOCRATIC TAX CUT PROPOSAL RESTORES FAIRNESS TO THE AMERICAN 
                                TAXPAYER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Carson] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about justice and 
fairness. When we were children our parents instilled in us a sense of 
fairness. We were taught to be equitable and impartial and truthful 
when dealing with others. We were taught to aid those in need. 
Obviously, all of us in this body took that to heart, and that is why 
we are here as we pursue public service on behalf of the public.
  Let us consider the budget amendment in general, however. Rather than 
stay within the parameters of the balanced budget agreement which 
passed the House overwhelmingly, the Republican framers of the tax cut 
have decided not to play fair, and to abandon the agreement. The 
original agreement contained a provision to provide at least $35 
billion in tax credits for college education. Yet, the Republicans have 
offered us only $22 billion in education tax credits, in direct 
violation of the budget agreement.
  It seems as though this sense of fairness has been lost on those 
framing the tax cuts, because they are attempting to undercut the 
agreement that was made with the President, and will deny American 
taxpayers $13 billion in tax relief. We should at least play fair and 
restore this provision of the tax cut.
  According to the Department of the Treasury, two-thirds of the 
Republican tax cuts go to families making beyond $100,000 a year. The 
majority of constituents in my district, Indianapolis, IN, of which 
nearly 50 percent make less than $25,000 a year, they certainly will be 
not happy, they will be unhappy to learn the fact that the Republican 
tax cut will go to families making over $100,000 a year, for the most 
part.
  I rise to support the Democratic alternative to the Republican tax 
cut package. Unlike the Republican proposal, the Democratic proposal 
restores some fairness to the American taxpayer and stays within the 
parameters of the budget agreement.
  In general, the Democratic tax proposal will target its cuts to those 
making less than $100,000 a year, not the other way around. Seventy-one 
percent of the Democratic tax cuts will go to nearly 91 million 
families across the United States that make under $100,000 a year. 
Twenty-three percent of the Democratic tax cuts will target the most 
vulnerable of our society, those making under $21,000 a year.
  The Democratic alternative will truly allow families to stretch their 
budget further and provide true tax relief, rather than just smoke and 
mirrors. I am particularly pleased with the education tax cut 
initiatives in the Democratic proposal. If we are going to truly effect 
positive change in our society, provide our young people the chance to 
improve our Nation's future, we must provide them with the opportunity 
to access the best education possible.
  The Democratic alternative provides more money for the HOPE 
scholarship, provides incentives for employer-provided educational 
assistance, and provides a source of cost-free capital for desperately 
needed school construction; at least $37 billion worth of tax cuts for 
education. It provides $15 billion more education initiative than the 
Republican plan does.
  Under the Democratic proposal, HOPE scholarship tax credits are 
provided at a rate of 1,100 for 1997 through 1999, increasing to $1,500 
per student after the year 2000.
  At Indiana University at Indianapolis, tuition costs $2,400 a year. 
At Ivy Tech State College, it runs $1,500 a year. The Democratic HOPE 
tax credit will provide for nearly 50 percent of the tuition at those 
two referenced universities.
  I would encourage, Mr. Speaker, this august body to consider what is 
fair and adopt the Democratic alternative, so we will truly be 
providing both HOPE and fairness for our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about fairness. When we were 
children, our parents instilled in us a sense of fairness. We were 
taught to be equitable, impartial, and truthful when dealing with 
others. We were taught to aid those in need. Obviously, all of us in 
this body took this message to heart. Otherwise, we would not have 
chosen a life of public service. Yet I am sad to say that in examining 
the recent Republican tax cut initiative, some of my colleagues have 
abandoned these principles.
  First, consider the budget agreement in general. Rather than stay 
within the parameters of the balanced budget agreement which passed in 
the House overwhelmingly, the framers of the Republican tax cut have 
decided not to play fair and to abandon the agreement. The original 
agreement contained a provision to provide at least $35 billion in tax 
credits for college education. Yet the Republicans have offered us only 
$22 billion in education tax credits, in direct violation of the Budget 
Agreement. It seems as though this sense of fairness has been lost on 
those framing the tax cuts, because they are attempting to undercut

[[Page H3897]]

the agreement struck with the President, and deny American taxpayers 
$13 billion in tax relief. We should at least play fair and restore 
this provision into the tax cut package.
  Yet the skewed sense of fairness on the Republican side does not end 
there. The tax cut package as a whole will benefit a small percentage 
of middle class Americans. Let's go to the numbers. According to the 
Department of Treasury, two-thirds of the Republican tax cuts will go 
to families making over $100,000 a year. The majority of constituents 
in my district in Indianapolis, of which nearly 50 percent make less 
than $25,000 a year, will not be happy to learn this fact. The 
Republicans have promised in this Congress and the last that middle-
class tax relief was their top priority, to allow those who work hard 
to take home more of their pay. Instead, middle-class taxpayers get the 
same old tried and true Republican tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, a 
Robin Hood in reverse for the majority of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Democratic alternative to 
the Republican tax cut package. Unlike the Republican proposal, the 
Democratic proposal restores fairness to the American taxpayer and 
stays within the parameters of the budget agreement. In general, the 
Democratic tax proposal will target its cuts to those making less than 
$100,000 a year, and not the other way around Seventy-one percent of 
the Democratic tax cuts will go the nearly 91 million families across 
the U.S. that make under $100,000 a year. Twenty-three percent of the 
Democrat tax cuts will target the most vulnerable of or society, those 
making under $21,000 a year. The Democratic alternative will truly 
allow families to stretch their budget further and provide true tax 
relief, rather than smoke and mirrors.
  I am particularly pleased with the education tax cut initiatives 
in the Democratic proposal. If we are truly going to effect positive 
change in our society and provide our young people the chance to 
improve our Nation's future, we must provide them with the opportunity 
to access the best education possible. The Democratic alternative 
provides more money for the HOPE scholarship, provides incentives for 
employer-provided education assistance, and provides a source of cost-
free capital for desperately needed school construction. At $37 billion 
worth of tax cuts for education, it provides $15 billion more education 
initiatives than the Republican plan does.

  Under the Democratic proposal, HOPE scholarship tax credits are 
provided at a rate of $1,100 for 1997-99, increasing to $1,500 per 
student after 2001. The Republican is half this amount at $600 per 
student. In addition, families could receive the credit for 4 years of 
postsecondary education, rather than only 2 years as provided in the 
Republican proposal. In my State of Indiana, $600 does not seem like 
much in accessing postsecondary education. But if we provide double 
that amount, it will go a long way in reducing the average cost of 
education in my district in Indianapolis. At Indiana University-Purdue 
University of Indianapolis, tuition costs $2,400 a year; at Ivy Tech 
State College, tuition runs at $1,500 a year. The Democratic HOPE tax 
credit would provide for nearly 50 percent of the tuition at IUPUI, and 
nearly all of the cost at Ivy Tech. These are the two largest colleges 
in my district, with over 23,000 students attending the two 
institutions. By providing the HOPE scholarship at the levels provided 
for in the Democratic alternative, we will truly be providing HOPE for 
many of my constituents.
  Yet another education related initiative in the Democratic proposal 
that I applaud is the school construction assistance provision. Schools 
in my district are dilapidated and crumbling. Indianapolis Public 
Schools recently approved drastic cuts in programs to rein in spending 
in their budget. With the Democratic proposal, schools in either 
empowerment zones or enterprise communities could enter into a 
partnership with private businesses that would make contributions to 
school improvements and would issue special bonds to finance school 
improvements. This would go a long way in communities such as 
Indianapolis to ensure that our children are not learning in 
deathtraps, and that we could bring our schools into the 21st century 
in terms of facilities by the next millennium.
   Mr. Speaker, President Clinton addressed this body 4 months ago in 
his State of the Union address. In it, he laid out an ambitious agenda 
for education which I, along with the majority of Americans, applauded. 
The President's vision for our young people and ensuring they receive 
the best education in the world should not be lost in the budget 
wrangling that occurs in this House. I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
Democratic alternative to the tax bill and give our working families, 
especially our children, the break they deserve.

                          ____________________