[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4651-H4661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR
ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE AND SENATE FOR INDEPENDENCE DAY DISTRICT WORK
PERIOD
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 176 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 176
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, to consider a concurrent resolution
providing for adjournment of the House and Senate for the
Independence Day district work period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 176 provides for the consideration in
the House of a concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment of
the House and Senate for the Independence Day district work period. All
points of order are waived against the resolution and its
consideration.
As Members are aware, section 309 of the Budget Act states that the
House cannot adjourn for more than 3 calendar days in July if it has
not completed actions on all appropriations bills. In addition, section
310 requires that reconciliation legislation if directed by the budget
resolution, be completed before such an adjournment.
Ordinarily, these two potential points of order against an
adjournment resolution for the Fourth of July District Work Period are
waived by unanimous consent. In fact, we attempted to work with the
minority to reach an acceptable unanimous consent agreement. When we
were in the minority, we consistently allowed these unanimous consent
agreements. This year, however, the minority rejected our request.
It is true that the Congress has not completed its work on the
appropriations bills and the reconciliation legislation, and I guess I
can understand the despondency of the minority. The past few days have
not been enjoyable for those who support high taxes and big government
solutions.
However, these are extraordinary times for those of us who support
the axiom that the Government is too big and spends too much. In fact,
I would say that this Congress, more than any other, has led the way in
exhibiting fiscal sanity.
No, the appropriations bills and the reconciliation legislation are
not yet complete. However, balancing the budget is more difficult than
the practice of past Congresses, which simply passed irresponsible debt
on to our grandchildren.
America was headed for a future in which interest on the debt would
surpass spending on the defense of our Nation, a future in which
Medicare would go bankrupt by 2002, and a future which had taxpayers
giving more and more of their hard-earned money to support a bloated
Washington bureaucracy.
Our Nation could have lost control of its destiny, but this Congress
took action to save Medicare, pass a balanced budget and provide
massive tax relief for our families. These are truly historic
accomplishments.
Independence Day is a time to celebrate the birth of this Nation and
the perseverance of the Founding Fathers who fought the heavy hand of
government and oppressive taxes. The budget passed by this Congress
reduces the oppressive taxes on American families and balances the
budget.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply allows us to go home to our
friends and neighbors to listen to what our constituents have to say
about issues that are important to their lives. As we celebrate the
birth of our Nation with them, I believe they will be very pleased to
celebrate the triumph of lower taxes, less Government and more freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Linder] for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is one more way for the Republican
leadership to go on vacation before their work is done. It is one more
way for my Republican colleagues to get out of their responsibilities
to the people of this country, and I think it is a bad idea. Normally
adjournment resolutions are privileged, but in the rare cases when
Congress fails to get its work done, the Budget Act kicks in and
exposes these adjournment resolutions to points of order.
According to the Budget Act, Mr. Speaker, the House cannot adjourn
for more than 3 days unless it passes all its appropriations bills and
unless the reconciliation bill has been signed into law. Mr. Speaker,
we all know the appropriations bills are nowhere near finished.
The first part of the reconciliation bill passed the House only last
night and the second part of the reconciliation bill will be considered
for the first time later today. The Senate has just started debating
the reconciliation bill and the conference committee has not even met
yet. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if you are waiting for these spending
bills to be finished, please do not hold your breath.
Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us to Congress to act
responsibly and the Congressional Budget Act gives us some very
specific responsibilities. Section 300 requires that Congress complete
action on reconciliation legislation by June 15 and pass all 13
appropriations bills by June 30. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has not
even come close. The appropriations bills may not seem urgent now, but
unless the House does its work and unless the House gives the Senate
enough time to do its work, we will be approaching another September 30
without all appropriations bills being signed. If we fail
[[Page H4652]]
to finish the appropriations bills and they are not signed into law,
the American people could very well see their Government shut down for
the third time under the Republican leadership's watch. All because the
Republican leadership has not done their work.
That is not the worst of it, Mr. Speaker. What the Republican
leadership has done is even worse than what they have not done. This
week the Republican leadership unveiled their tax and entitlement
package and, Mr. Speaker, it does not look good. Under the Republican
bill, the families of 40 percent of American children will get no tax
relief because their income is too low.
Let me add, Mr. Speaker, these people are not on welfare. These
people actually work for a living. Meanwhile, according to the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Republican bill provides 87
percent of its benefits to the richest 20 percent of Americans while
the 40 million families with the lowest income may actually lose money.
Even the Treasury Department says that when this bill has been fully
implemented, the top 1 percent of taxpayers will get nearly 20 percent
of the benefits, and the bottom 60 percent will get only 12 percent of
the benefits.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is taking from the
poor and the middle class and giving to the rich. It is a Robin Hood
reversal. It does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. According to today's New
York Times, a small provision in this Republican bill will take $9
million and split it among 1,000 wealthy taxpayers. Some of these
taxpayers actually stand to gain $100,000 each under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, not 5 miles from here are American children who do not
get enough to eat during the summer because they have lost their school
lunches, but my Republican colleagues still want to hand those enormous
tax breaks to the very richest Americans and hand just about nothing to
the rest.
Mr. Speaker, the American people do not think millionaires need more
money. They think everyone else needs child tax credits and tuition tax
credits. The American people do not think the richest 1 percent of
Americans need a $27,000 tax break and certainly not if it is going to
cost the poorest 20 percent of American families $63 apiece to give it
to them. But that is exactly what my Republican colleagues want to do.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats have put together
a bill that gives tax relief to the people that really need it, the
middle class, people who are trying to send their kids to college,
working families, and family-owned businesses.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution. This
Congress should be helping the middle class and not padding the pockets
of millionaires.
{time} 1030
And we should have finished our work a long time ago.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
gentleman from Massachusetts who is so concerned that we have not
completed our work.
The same argument came up 1 year ago on this same issue because the
Democrats at that time were again not cooperative on unanimous consent.
My colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], went back 6
years prior to 1996 and discovered that not once, not once during those
6 years were all 13 appropriations bills passed by the July recess; and
indeed, if we go back 40 years, one time, 1988, were all the
appropriations bills passed by the July recess.
. . . .
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman's words down calling
me dishonest.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I apologize and ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the words.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to look
at the last year of Speaker Foley when we passed all 13 appropriations
bills.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw my words. I am not
going to impugn anybody's integrity. But I am going to talk about two
kinds of baloney, two kinds. One is the baloney about why we are not
going home this week and why we ought to stay here and work, because
that is a lot of baloney; and then I am going to talk about complaining
about the tax cuts, and let me tell my colleagues that is a lot of
baloney on the other side of the aisle.
Let us talk about it for a minute. First of all, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], my good friend, and I have the greatest
respect for him, I literally love him. He is my ranking member over on
the other side of the aisle. He sings little Irish ditties, and he
really keeps us in a good mood, so I certainly would never impugn his
integrity. But let me just say he mentioned something about how we
ought to stay here and deal with this business.
As my colleagues know, back in 1993 the Democrat-controlled House and
the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled White House
under President Clinton gave us on October 10 the biggest tax increase
in history. Now that was, I beg my colleagues' pardon, on August 10.
Now that is several, a couple of months down the road yet, but we
Republicans, having taken control of the House and the Senate, are now
giving the American people one of the biggest tax cuts in American
history, and we are doing it way ahead of that August 10 date. So boy,
we are on line.
So let us just talk for a minute about not having the work done. As
my colleagues know, we have just passed the largest spending cut bill
in centuries here; OK. Seven hundred billion dollars in entitlement
controls; come over here and read them. And we had about 53 good
Democrats vote for this yesterday along with the overwhelming majority
of Republicans, and the President of the United States, thank goodness,
is going to sign the bill over the objections of the big spenders on
that side of the aisle.
Now let us talk about the big spenders for a minute because I am
going to sit here for the next hour and I am going to keep track of all
of the people who come over here and start complaining about this tax
cut; OK? Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen. These Members who oppose
the tax cuts, keep in mind that every single one of them are going to
be on the National Taxpayers Union's list of biggest spenders.
Now why do my colleagues think they want to oppose this tax cut?
Because they want to keep the money in the Federal coffers so that they
can spend it and the American people cannot.
Now let me tell my colleagues something about this tax cut here.
There is a $500 tax credit for people with children. Now that means a
family of 3, and in my Hudson River Valley municipalities all 157 of
them, that is about what we are made up with; we are an average of a
family with 3 children, and this is going to give them $500 per child
tax credit every year for the next 15 years. Now add that up; that is
$1,500 a year we are putting back into the pockets of that family, 15
years. Quick calculation: that must add up to about $22,500 a year over
15 years; and if they invest it properly, it is going to be worth maybe
$40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 over 15 years. Do my colleagues know what
that does at paying college tuitions?
I just put five kids through college. My wife and I had five children
in 7 years, and we struggled all those years to raise those children
and then to put them through college. Let me tell my colleagues $65,000
would have been a godsend to us, but we did not have this $1,500 tax
credit at that time; we are going to get it today.
So I want my colleagues to come over here, and I want them to do what
is right for the American people. I want them to vote for this tax cut
package. But in the meantime we are going to keep track of all of them
that come over here, and they will be the biggest spenders in the
Congress, and they will have been here for years spending the
taxpayers' money. So let us just keep track of it, and then we are
going to send it out to all their constituents and let them know that
[[Page H4653]]
our colleagues can spend their money better than they can.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my chairman of the Committee on Rules and I are very,
very friendly, and this debate is strictly on the issue. But actually
up in his office, really being ourselves, we really do get along, and
actually I was looking forward when he talked about baloney because I
thought he was talking about the menu of those people that I represent.
As my colleagues know, his people are going to be eating steaks when
this tax bill goes through; my people are going to be eating baloney.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding the time.
I also want to say that I do not think that the American people do
believe it is baloney if we stay here and do the work they sent us to
do here.
House rules say that we cannot go on vacation until it is finished
with appropriations work, and we know that the work has not been
finished, otherwise we would not be here asking for a waiver. And the
reason why the work is not finished is because what we have seen here
is that the Republican majority has spent their time crafting a tax
bill that in fact benefits the rich at the expense of average American
families. And in fact we have a historic opportunity and the American
public has an opportunity to take a look at what is in a Republican tax
cut proposal and what is in a Democratic tax cut proposal because the
Democrats in fact have a very sound and solid tax cut proposal.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle accuse us of waging
class warfare in this debate, but in fact it is the Republican tax bill
that is a declaration of war on working middle-class families in
America. Under the Republican bill, over half the tax benefits go to
the top 5 percent of Americans, those making an average of $250,000 a
year. And quite honestly what this bill does, it gives a $22 billion
tax break to the largest businesses and corporations in the United
States by scaling back the alternative minimum tax which was in fact
proposed and supposed to ensure that large corporations pay at least
some taxes the way that ordinary working families pay taxes in this
country every year.
But do not just take my word for it. Let us take a look at this
morning's headlines. The Washington Post: No to a bad tax bill. And I
quote: ``The tax bill will be the great atrocity'', is what the
Washington Post says this morning. The New York Times, quote: ``Break
for a few rich, for the rich few, sneaks into the tax cut bill''. We
are going to see $9 million a year in lost revenue to the United States
to give a bonanza worth thousands of dollars to 1,000 wealthy
taxpayers. What about working middle-class families in this country?
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman asked
the absolutely pertinent question here, what about working middle-class
families, and it is pointed out in this morning's Wall Street Journal.
What we see is people who were earning $23,000 a year with two children
will find that at the end of that year they will not get the benefits
of this child's tax credit, they will not get the benefits because the
Republicans have decided that the benefits will only go to those
individuals at the top levels.
Rather than sharing this tax cut, rather than sharing the money that
is now being accumulated because of the efforts to balance the budget
over the last 5 years with these middle-class families, they have
decided, as the gentlewoman pointed out, that half of the benefits will
go to the top 5 percent of the people in this country.
And so people who are going to work every day as law enforcement
officials, as fire protection people, as teachers, as oil refinery
workers are going to find out that they will not qualify for that.
In fact, in my State of California 56 percent of the children will
not be eligible for the child tax credit, and I think that is what is
going to happen to working families, and I thank the gentlewoman for
pointing that out.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I am looking at some
figures with regard to New York State, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] who spoke before on the Republican side. It says that tax
plans, the child credit, the child credit under the Republican plan
would exclude 53 to 56 percent of the children in New York State;
3,183,357 New York kids will be ineligible under the House plan for the
child tax credit. This is from Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan
Washington-based research organization that released a study today
showing that the proposed child credit in the pending House of
Representatives tax plan would exclude 56 percent of New York children.
The Senate bill would exclude 53 percent. Obviously the families of New
York have been promised a child tax credit for 3 years, but now many of
them, the majority of them will actually get nothing.
Ms. DeLAURO. That is absolutely right. I just say that there is a Los
Angeles Times article this morning: Take from the poor give to the
rich. The current Republican tax and entitlement package denies help to
28 million working families.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues ought to make
clear the basis on which the Republicans are denying these families
that participation in the tax cut. They are apparently under the
impression that Social Security payroll taxes are not taxes but are a
voluntary gift that the lowest earning people in America make to the
Government. What the Republican bill does is to say that people who get
the earned income tax credit will not be eligible on the whole for this
other credit.
Now the earned income tax credit was something that Ronald Reagan
thought well of, but the current group has made some of us who believe
in moderation nostalgic for Mr. Reagan from time to time because what
they say is this. The earned income tax credit compensates people who
have families, by and large, who make 20 and 25 and $26,000 a year and
who pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of any of us
because every penny they make is fully taxed under the Social Security
payroll tax. And what the earned income tax credit does is offset to
some extent the regressiveness of the Social Security payroll tax, and
people who get the earned income tax credit, they do not get the earned
income tax credit unless they are working or paying payroll tax on all
of their income and they are then getting some credit for that less
than the aggressiveness. And the Republicans are now saying, ``If
that's your situation, you're not a taxpayer.'' They said we cannot
give this to people, they do not pay taxes.
Mr. Speaker, if Social Security payroll taxes are not taxes, then I
guess we need a new dictionary and that is how it becomes so
regressive. What they are saying to people is, ``You are paying these
very aggressive Social Security taxes,'' for which, by the way,
according to the Senate they have to wait a couple more years to get
anything for medical care, ``and we are going to deny you as a
consequence of that the tax credit.''
Ms. DeLAURO. I will just say that, if we are Bill Gates we are going
to get a tax credit, but a police officer who is making $23,000 a year
who might be happy to get the earned income tax, paying taxes, is going
to be denied a child tax credit.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The argument that we have heard from
Republicans, from the Speaker, and others that, ``Oh, you shouldn't
give the tax credit to these people who don't pay any taxes,'' they
forget to say income taxes or capital gains taxes, that is true. Very
few of these people making 23 and $24,000 a year are paying capital
gains taxes. They are paying the Social Security taxes in the most
aggressive way; that is the group of people who are getting hurt by
this.
[[Page H4654]]
Mr. MILLER of California. The fact is many young families starting
out with young children pay more in payroll taxes, Social Security than
they pay in income taxes. But the Republican plan will not give them
the benefit of the $500 child credit.
What does that mean? That means that these working families making
20, $25,000 a year are going to find themselves without the benefit of
this. They still have two young children. They are still struggling
hard. But the Republicans do not understand that because one does not
make a lot of money does not mean they do not work hard. They work very
hard and they pay the most regressive taxes, and they refuse to give
the child credit to those families.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will
continue to yield, the gentleman is absolutely right, and I think what
we have here is something we can offer up to the dictionary. This is
the definition of adding insult to injury. These working people who
work in hard jobs at relatively low wages are injured by the Republican
bill by being denied the tax credit that everybody else gets. Even if
they have two and three children, their children do not qualify, and
then they are insulted by being characterized as people who do not work
and as simply tax eaters.
{time} 1045
I would just close by saying we have this national effort, I thought,
to help people get off welfare and into the wage-earning pool. Well, it
is precisely the formal welfare recipients who are being told to go to
work, who are being required to go to work, who will then be penalized
by the way the Republican tax bill is crafted, because they will go to
work at the beginning at relatively low wages, will pay a full Social
Security tax for every penny they earn, but not get the tax credit.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern. I too am
appalled when I hear the Republicans suggest that the Democratic tax
plan amounts to welfare. It is basically tax fairness. They are giving
all of the tax breaks to the wealthy. The top 5 percent are getting
over 50 percent of the tax breaks under their proposal, and then when
we say that the Democratic alternative provides tax relief for the
truly working middle class, they suggest it is welfare.
I did a little research and an article in the Wall Street Journal
indicated that a police officer in Gwinnett County, GA, incidentally
the Speaker's district, makes about $23,000 a year. Under their
program, he is not eligible for a tax break, yet he pays payroll taxes.
He is, in fact, the working middle class of people who are excluded by
the proposal of the Republicans.
Basically what they are offering us is not tax relief for Americans,
it is tax relief for the rich. My grandmother used to say when I was a
kid, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I think we are seeing it
in action today.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, if I could just add to that, that police
officer making $23,000 is getting a tax benefit through something
called earned income tax credit. The Republican plan is saying, if one
is getting one tax deduction, one cannot get a second, meaning the $500
children's tax credit as we see it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I have just been handed
an item from the Citizens For Tax Justice, which is a nonpartisan
Washington-based research group, saying that 897,000 Massachusetts
children would be ineligible under the House plan, and 850,000 would be
ineligible under the Senate plan. That is 48 percent of Massachusetts'
children ineligible under the House plan and 46 percent ineligible
under the Senate plan. This is not a good bill for children.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, if I might just continue in talking about
fairness, when we each do our taxes, we use tax deductions. What the
Republican plan is saying is if one gets one tax deduction, one cannot
get the $500 children's tax credit; but yet if one makes three times
that salary and one gets a lot of different tax deductions, one gets
the $500. That makes absolutely no sense. For those on the upper end
who get lots of tax deductions, they ought to be treated the same, or
the folks at the low end who ought to get a couple breaks ought to get
the same benefit of the $500.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 1,000 families who
are going to get some, and it is quoted in the article today, could get
up to $100,000 in that particular tax cut and are probably going to get
many others.
I think another area which is important to mention in this debate is
that with the Democratic tax cut proposal, we are going to see working
families who want to get their kids to school and provide education for
their kids; education in this country has been the great equalizer to
allow families to be able to have their kids succeed.
The Democratic proposal is for the full $1,500 tax credit for college
students, where the Republican proposal would cut that in half, would
not allow working families to realize a HOPE scholarship and provide
them with all of the help they might be able to get to get their kids
to school.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes a very good point.
Because in fact, the HOPE credit, the HOPE scholarship would be offset,
reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of a Pell grant. So here again
we have the same situation, where if one gets a Pell grant one cannot
get the full benefit of a HOPE scholarship.
It seems to me that this Republican tax bill ought to be judged by
two standards. One is fairness and the other is fiscal responsibility.
We have talked a fair bit about fairness.
This bill provides 41 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of
the taxpayers, those whose household incomes are over $240,000 a year.
In contrast, 20 percent of those in lower tax brackets would not
receive any benefit. It is simply not fair.
Also, in terms of fiscal responsibility, we look out at the second 10
years, and we are going to be giving up $500 to $600 million in tax
revenues that is not going to help a balanced budget. We need a
balanced budget that we can get to and stay with, and these tax cuts
explode in the outyears, they are not fiscally responsible, and they
ought to be rejected for that reason as well.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes just to
respond to some of these remarks we have been hearing.
The liberals have always trotted out liberal so-called nonpartisan
organizations to argue against letting people keep more of what they
earn, and we are seeing it now. How do these people get wealthy? Let me
tell my colleagues how the administration determines who is wealthy.
They determine what one's income is, say it is $50,000 a year, and
then the Treasury Department says, but, aha, if one is living in one's
own home and one could rent it for $10,000, one must consider that as
more income, even though one does not get it. If one owns an asset that
has appreciated in value and have not sold it, their proposal says, if
it has grown in value, one must consider that as part of one's annual
wealth. So they have bogused up these numbers to make everybody appear
wealthy so they can transfer more money as welfare to the poor. This is
an effort to undermine last year's welfare reform.
I would like to also point out that their arguments go against the
Joint Tax Committee's argument, which is the only official organ for
determining distribution tables. The Joint Tax Committee says the
following: Ninety-three percent of the benefits go to people with
incomes of less than $100,000 a year; 76 percent of the benefits go to
people with incomes below $75,000 a year. That simply is a fact. It is
not a comfortable fact for liberals, but it is a fact.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Scarborough].
[[Page H4655]]
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is, maybe it is
the summer heat, maybe it is the 50th anniversary of Roswell, but the
Democrats, the liberals, actually the radicals that control this party
are crawling out from underneath their rocks and once again showing why
they were voted out in 1994.
Here we have people that increase the crushing tax burden on the
American family from 10 percent when they gain control to something
like 50.2 percent, according to NTU, in 1994, lecturing us on taxes.
They gave us the highest tax increase in the history of this country a
few years ago, and yet they are still talking about how if we actually
give tax relief to Americans, that it is going to crush the poor
children 5 miles from the Capitol.
I think they have got it backward. The children 5 miles from the
Capitol that are suffering are suffering because of higher taxes and
bigger Government spending and more regulations that they are going to
shove down the American people's throats this summer. I think if they
talk about the problems in south central L.A. or in Chicago, it is
because government has failed, the big taxing and big spending policies
have failed.
Let me challenge every one of these big spenders, every one of these
people that have supported taxes over the years, to stand up and tell
us how much they care about the children 5 miles from this Capitol when
the delegate from Washington, DC begged for tax relief. The gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia said please, give us a flat tax. Please
cut taxes in Washington, DC. She was abandoned by every single liberal
that stands up here today and acts as if they really do care about what
happens 5 miles from this Capitol; and no, I am anticipating the
gentleman's question, I will not yield. My colleagues on the other side
of the aisle all have already put on their sideshow.
I want somebody that stood up a few minutes ago talking about how
much they care about the residents of this inner city and the residents
of inner cities all over the country to stand up and tell me that yes,
they do support the tax plan of the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia [Ms. Norton] for tax reduction in this city.
My colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot say sure, we want
to help them, and yet every time there is a chance to cut taxes and
give tax relief to American people, my colleagues fight it time and
time again.
This is not about protecting the poor. My colleagues know that tax
relief has helped the poor. History has shown it time and time again.
This is about protecting the coffers of the Federal Treasury and
keeping more and more money in Washington, DC and not allowing it to
get out.
Again, I challenge anybody, and I especially challenge the ranking
member who I am sure does sing really good Irish ditties, and a man
that I respect watching him work, I challenge him. I would challenge
the ranking member and again, any other liberal that stood up here
opposing tax relief talking about how they care about what happens 5
miles from Washington, DC to stand up and say yes, we will support the
plan of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] for
a flat tax in Washington, DC. If so, then I think that is a good start
to agree that Americans need tax relief.
Like the Delegate from Washington, DC recognizes herself, big
spending, big taxing, big government has failed. What Americans need
now is tax relief, and tax relief helps everybody.
My colleagues just cannot have it both ways. They cannot quote
liberal columnists like Al Hunt, they cannot quote liberal agencies run
by, I believe, Ralph Nader, and then come in here and say they want to
help people in the inner cities when they turn their backs on the very
delegates from those inner cities who beg for tax relief.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am glad my colleague brought that up. What he is talking about is
exactly what I am going to do. The Democratic alternative does help
these children 5 miles from here. The Rangel alternative does help
these children 5 miles from here, but it does not give those 1,000
people up to $100,000 additional tax break.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have some good news for my
colleagues. Well, no, it is not good news for the big spenders, because
the Supreme Court a few minutes ago, within the last hour, just threw
out the case of the opponents of the line-item veto for lack of
standing. Whoopee. We won another one.
Now, let us just answer some of the people here that are talking
about people with children are not going to get this tax cut, this $500
tax credit. Again, here we go with the baloney again. Anybody paying
Federal income taxes is going to get that tax cut, make no mistake
about it.
Now, we are also hearing about this 5 percent, that all of the tax
cuts are going to 5 percent of the most rich. Let me state the facts
for you. Seventy-two percent of these tax cuts in this bill are going
to people with incomes between $20,000 and $70,000, and that means
people on Social Security as well, who may be working and paying a
little income tax as well.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]
stand up here and talk about the regressiveness of the Social Security
payroll tax. Well, what is the payroll tax and why was it established
under Franklin Delano Roosevelt? It was a forced savings account so
that the American people, all of them who work, would have to save a
little bit for the rainy day so that they would not become wards of the
State and the rest of us who did save would have to end up supporting
them.
{time} 1100
That is what it is all about. Nothing regressive about it. It means
that with the first few thousand dollars of your income you are going
to put away a little bit of that. That is the way it should be.
Now people are complaining that maybe some people with incomes of
$25,000 do not pay any income tax and therefore they do not get this
credit. Let me tell them what we are going to do. In this spending cut
bill we are cutting back on Federal regulation.
If Members look at the other taxes they pay in town, city, village,
and county taxes and all of the fees, it is caused mostly by this
Federal Government, their mandates. We are not going to mandate on
local governments anymore, forcing them to raise land taxes.
So come on over here, vote for this tax cut bill, and let us give it
to the President. I have a feeling he is going to sign it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office listening to the debate that
was going on over here, and I could not help but feel the need to come
over and respond. There is a lot of liberal drivel going on in this
Chamber right now. I cannot help but get up here and say something in
response to that.
If I were on the other side I would be crushed, too, I really would.
Because we have worked with their President to balance the budget,
lower taxes, and save Medicare. This is an indictment of big
Government. We are saying today we are interested in doing something to
address a problem that has been around this place for 30 years. We have
not had the courage to balance the budget, to lower the tax burden, or
to address a bigger and bigger Government in this country.
I cannot help but listen as well and respond to what is being said
about trying to somehow gear this thing so that it affects people in
lower-income categories.
People in my State, in South Dakota, understand the difference
between the income tax and the payroll tax. You pay 6.2 percent of your
income when you get a payday, so you will have a security program, a
retirement program when you retire. You pay 1.45 percent so you will
have a health care program when you retire. You are paying that for a
benefit. You cannot have a tax credit if you do not pay taxes.
What this simply says, and I think the distinction, the difference we
are
[[Page H4656]]
drawing here is that we want to bring tax relief to people who are
paying taxes, and they want to increase payments, welfare payments, to
people who are not. It is that simple. You cannot have it that way. If
you are going to have a tax credit, you have to pay taxes.
I used the illustration last night, if we told people with red hair
they were going to get a tax credit, my daughter would qualify. But she
does not pay taxes, so she cannot get a tax credit. The Medicare and
Social Security payment are retirement programs that people pay into so
they will get a benefit later on. They cannot have a tax credit unless
they are paying taxes.
I would say to my colleagues here that we have a definition problem.
We have a definition problem here, because we have to draw a
distinction between a tax credit and a government payment. The earned
income tax credit today, 80 percent of it is a payment. It is not a
credit. Let us make that very, very clear. So people who are currently
getting an earned income tax credit are already offsetting the payroll
tax they pay in Social Security and Medicare.
What the gentleman is saying is that he wants to give them another
$500 payment on top of them. That is not a tax credit, that is a
government payment. There is an important distinction here which needs
to be made. I am getting tired of listening to the rhetoric on the
other side.
This ought to be a great day for America. They ought to be working
with us balancing the budget, lowering taxes. I was just looking at
some statistics from the IRS here. Thirty-seven percent of the taxes
are paid by people who make less than $75,000. The balance, 63 percent,
is paid by those who make more than that. Yet 76 percent of the tax
relief in this package goes to people who make less than $75,000.
This is a good day for America, it is a good day for taxpayers. It is
a good day for this institution. We ought to be working together to get
this job done.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to take a deep breath and
all calm down a little bit, because all we are talking about doing is
allowing the American people to keep a little more of what they earn so
they do not have to send it to Washington.
I understand some of my friends on the other side of the aisle do not
really want to do that because they want more Washington spending. I do
not denigrate the position that they have taken for 60 years, that
Washington has the answers and we have to get this money to Washington
so Washington can do great things for us. Most of us in this Chamber,
Democrats and Republicans, believe it is time to allow the American
people to make more of those decisions on their own.
So this package today that lowers taxes, the first tax cut from
Washington in 16 years, is aimed at American middle-class taxpayers who
are bearing the biggest burden today.
What does this plan do? It provides an IRA for parents who pay taxes
who want to send their children to college. It lets them save tax-free.
It provides a tax credit for parents who are sending their children on
to college or other postsecondary education. It provides a $500 per
child tax credit to American families that make under, roughly,
$100,000.
Fourth, homeowners, it allows someone to sell their home, and 95
percent of the American people who own homes are going to be able to
sell their homes and not pay any tax on the gain from the sale of their
home.
What we are trying to do here is to try to help every taxpayer in the
country at every stage of their life. Whether they are parents with
children, trying to raise them, parents with children trying to send
them to college, whether it is people trying to save for their own
retirement, with our cut in capital gains taxes and the cut in the
taxes on the sale of their home, we are trying to help all taxpayers.
This is good policy.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I think for a long time we have been trying to make an
effort to let people who pay taxes keep more of their own hard-earned
money. Yet all we hear is that all of this is for the rich. Let us talk
about what ``rich'' means.
Mr. Speaker, 2.4 million elementary and high school teachers have
family incomes, and they are considered rich; 1.7 million union members
have family incomes, and they are considered rich; 8.1 million Federal,
State, and local government workers have family incomes, and they are
considered rich; 120,000 editors and reporters across the country are
considered rich; and 4.2 million mechanics and repairmen and
construction workers have family incomes that under the
administration's definition of rich, they are considered rich.
I would like to ask, if I might, for anybody on that side to stand up
and when they say we are returning money to the rich, define what they
mean by rich. If Members believe we should have everybody receive a
$500 per child tax credit, even those who do not pay taxes, they should
be honest enough to call it what they are talking about. They are
talking about a welfare program.
What we are trying to do is return some of the hard-earned money that
working people in this country earn who work every day. If Members want
other children and other families who are not paying taxes to have a
$500 per child tax credit, say so, but be honest about it. Call it what
it is. It is a welfare program.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Georgia,
and I want to point out exactly the type of person that the Democrats
are trying to help, the person who is out there working.
We mentioned the Georgia policeman. This is from the Wall Street
Journal today. This is a starting police officer in Gwinnett County,
GA, coincidentally part of Speaker Gingrich's district. He is paid
$23,078 a year. If his family has two kids, it gets $1,668 in earned
income tax credit, this is the deduction we were talking about before,
which offsets his $675 in Federal taxes, and yields a check for $993.
But that family pays $1,760 in payroll taxes, and another $354 in
Federal excise taxes. That is even after this deduction that we are
talking about.
The out-of-pocket Federal taxes for this family would be at least
$1,121 a year, and in reality, more like $2,800 a year. What we are
saying is that that policeman right now, under this Republican
proposal, does not get that $500 deduction, the child tax credit. That
person is paying payroll taxes to the Federal Government, excise taxes
to the Federal Government. The gentleman is saying that that Georgia
policeman, who is out there every day on the line, is a welfare
recipient. That is exactly what the gentleman is saying. That is what
the Democrats are saying is not right.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we are of course back here today to discuss
another wreckconciliation bill. We are having another big wreck in
Congress, even bigger than the one yesterday; and of course it is true
that the liberals in Washington are causing this wreck, those who are
so liberal with the truth that they defy reality.
I would ask the gentleman, in light of some of those who had been so
liberal in the truth, if he is aware of a time in American history, in
the entire history of this country, when a majority party would come to
this floor and ask to adjourn for a week or 10 days and not have passed
one single appropriations bill, not one? Is the gentleman aware of any
time in American history when that has happened?
We are not talking about passing them automatically, but not passing
a single bill; but they are leaving, are they not, presenting a present
to the limousine crowd in giving them a tax break? I am sure the
gentleman from New Jersey, like me, we have nothing against limousines,
we have nothing against country clubs. We just think if tax cuts are so
good, why not share them with the working families of America and give
them a chance to climb up the economic ladder and have a limousine of
their own? Is that not correct?
[[Page H4657]]
Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. I appreciate that.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, under the original Contract
With America, that police officer was going to get that tax credit. But
what they decided this year was they wanted to give more money to the
wealthy, so they had to cut that police officer out of their tax plan,
but that was the original promise in the Contract With America. They
just decided they would rather deal with the people on Wall Street
instead of the people on Main Street.
Mr. PALLONE. I would add also, Mr. Speaker, that Senator Lott in his
Republican plan early this year, just like the Contract With America,
also promised that child credit to that Georgia policeman. So now all
of a sudden the Republican leadership has changed its mind, because
they want to give that money to the fat cats, to their wealthy
contributors.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I find it humorous, as a new Member coming
in in January from Michigan, to hear the word ``liberal'' thrown around
all the time. I want Members to know that for someone coming from
Michigan who was in the State Senate, I sponsored the State's largest
property tax cut as a Democrat. I understand what middle-class tax cuts
look like and feel like. This is not it.
As the gentleman knows, we are talking about what we want to see
happen for average folks, to put money in their pocket, to send their
kids to school, pay for child care, be able to get a tax break when
they sell their home, be able to get a tax break on their small
business, if someone passes away, be able to get a tax break on their
family-owned business and their family-owned farm. What we are talking
about here is how we make sure that the majority of the dollars that
keep this country going, to create jobs, go directly into the pockets
of middle class Americans. Is that not what we are talking about?
Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely. The gentlewoman pointed out, we were only
talking about Federal taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes. That Georgia
policeman is probably paying property taxes. He may be paying other
State or local taxes. They are saying he is on welfare.
Ms. STABENOW. Not only that, he probably is investing in a home. Most
middle class Americans are investing in savings through equity in their
homes, and we want to make sure they are getting the tax breaks; that
when you talk about capital gains tax cuts, that he is going to get
protected when he sells his home; if he wants to send his kids to
college, he is going to get the maximum tax break, and that if he goes
on to invest in a small business at some point, he is again going to
get a maximum tax break.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side are so
concerned that a starting police officer at $23,000 or a young teacher
at $23,000 might get a tax credit for their children, but they are not
concerned that the changes they are making in the alternative minimum
tax would give tax rebates to large corporations like Texas Utilities,
that did not pay a penny in Federal taxes.
The only reason they paid $19 million on their $1 billion profit was
the AMT, and their repeal of the AMT will give them a tax rebate of $18
million on taxes they did not even pay, and we do not have a penny for
the police officer or a penny for the young teacher. It is outrageous.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, the question is about choices: are we
going to give the policeman a choice of buying his family and kids new
clothes for school or having a decent diet, or is somebody going to be
able to extend their European vacation going over on the Concorde?
Where is this House at? Are we going to help people who have to take
care of kids and the basic needs of a family, while the wealthiest
Americans are trying to figure out whether they can extend their trip
to London for the weekend?
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon].
{time} 1115
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, it shows that some people are watching C-
SPAN. I just got a call from one of my constituents making $23,500. He
said he hears Members on the Democrat side railing about the excise
taxes and the payroll taxes. He said, ``Why don't you cut those,
Jerry?'' I said, I will be glad to. Just let them make these amendments
in order, offer them and we will accept them.
We want to cut everybody's taxes, all kinds of taxes, and that is why
we have got this bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio],
all the bigger spenders in the Congress, according to the National
Taxpayers Union.
I include the entire list of big spenders for the Record.
National Taxpayers Union Big Spenders of 1993
alabama
Rep. Tom Bevill.
Rep. Robert E. Cramer.
Rep. Earl F. Hilliard.
arizona
Rep. Karan English.
Rep. Ed Pastor.
arkansas
Sen. Dale Bumpers.
Sen. David Pryor.
Rep. Ray Thornton.
california
Sen. Barbara Boxer.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Rep. Xavier Becerra.
Rep. Howard L. Berman.
Rep. George E. Brown.
Rep. Ronald V. Dellums.
Rep. Julian C. Dixon.
Rep. Don Edwards.
Rep. Anna G. Eshoo.
Rep. Sam Farr.
Rep. Vic Fazio.
Rep. Bob Filner.
Rep. Dan Hamburg.
Rep. Jane Harman.
Rep. Tom Lantos.
Rep. Matthew G. Martinez.
Rep. Robert T. Matsui.
Rep. George Miller.
Rep. Norman Y. Mineta.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard.
Rep. Pete Stark.
Rep. Esteban E. Torres.
Rep. Walter R. Tucker.
Rep. Maxine Waters.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey.
colorado
Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
Rep. David E. Skaggs.
connecticut
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Rep. Sam Gejdenson.
Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly.
delaware
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.
florida
Sen. Bob Graham.
Rep. Jim Bacchus.
Rep. Corrine Brown.
Rep. Peter Deutsch.
Rep. Sam M. Gibbons.
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings.
Rep. Harry A. Johnston.
Rep. Carrie P. Meek.
Rep. Pete Peterson.
Rep. Karen L. Thurman.
georgia
Rep. Sanford D. Bishop.
Rep. George Darden.
Rep. John Lewis.
Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney.
hawaii
Sen. Daniel K. Akaka.
Sen. Daniel K. Inouye.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie.
Rep. Patsy T. Mink.
illinois
Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun.
Sen. Paul Simon.
Rep. Cardiss Collins.
Rep. Richard J. Durbin.
Rep. Lane Evans.
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez.
Rep. Mel Reynolds.
Rep. Dan Rostenkowski.
Rep. Bobby L. Rush.
[[Page H4658]]
Rep. George E. Sangmeister.
Rep. Sidney R. Yates.
indiana
Rep. Frank McCloskey.
Rep. Peter J. Visclosky.
iowa
Sen. Tom Harkin.
Rep. Neal Smith.
kansas
Rep. Dan Glickman.
kentucky
Sen. Wendell H. Ford.
Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli.
louisiana
Sen. John B. Breaux.
Sen. J. Bennett Johnston.
Rep. Cleo Fields.
Rep. William J. Jefferson.
maine
Sen. George J. Mitchell.
Rep. Thomas H. Andrews.
maryland
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski.
Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin.
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer.
Rep. Kweisi Mfume.
Rep. Albert R. Wynn.
massachusetts
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
Sen. John Kerry.
Rep. Barney Frank.
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy.
Rep. Edward J. Markey.
Rep. Joe Moakley.
Rep. Richard E. Neal.
Rep. John W. Olver.
Rep. Gerry E. Studds.
michigan
Sen. Carl Levin.
Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr.
Rep. David E. Bonior.
Rep. Bob Carr.
Rep. Barbara-Rose Collins.
Rep. John Conyers.
Rep. John D. Dingell.
Rep. William D. Ford.
Rep. Dale E. Kildee.
Rep. Sander M. Levin.
minnesota
Sen. Paul Wellstone.
Rep. James L. Oberstar.
Rep. Martin Olav Sabo.
Rep. Bruce F. Vento.
mississippi
Rep. G.V. Montgomery.
Rep. Bennie Thompson.
Rep. Jamie L. Whitten.
missouri
Rep. William L. Clay.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt.
Rep. Ike Skelton.
Rep. Harold L. Volkmer.
Rep. Alan Wheat.
montana
Sen. Max Baucus.
Rep. Pat Williams.
nevada
Sen. Harry Reid.
Rep. James Bilbray.
new jersey
Rep. Robert Menendez.
Rep. Donald M. Payne.
Rep. Robert G. Torricelli.
new mexico
Rep. Bill Richardson.
new york
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman.
Rep. Eliot L. Engel.
Rep. Floyd H. Flake.
Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey.
Rep. George J. Hochbrueckner.
Rep. Nita M. Lowey.
Rep. Thomas J. Manton.
Rep. Michael R. McNulty.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler.
Rep. Major R. Owens.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel.
Rep. Charles E. Schumer.
Rep. Jose E. Serrano.
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter.
Rep. Edolphus Towns.
Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez.
north carolina
Rep. Eva Clayton
Rep. W.G. Hefner.
Rep. Stephen L. Neal.
Rep. David Price.
Rep. Charlie Rose.
Rep. Melvin Watt.
ohio
Sen. John Glenn.
Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum.
Rep. Douglas Applegate.
Rep. Sherrod Brown.
Rep. Tony P. Hall.
Rep. Tom Sawyer.
Rep. Louis Stokes.
Rep. Ted Strickland.
oklahoma
Rep. Mike Synar.
oregon
Rep. Elizabeth Furse.
Rep. Mike Kopetski.
Rep. Ron Wyden.
pennsylvania
Sen. Harris Wofford.
Rep. Lucien E. Blackwell.
Rep. Robert A. Borski.
Rep. William J. Coyne.
Rep. Thomas M. Foglietta.
Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski.
Rep. John P. Murtha.
RHODE ISLAND
Sen. Claiborne Pell.
Rep. Jack Reed.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Sen. Ernest F. Hollings.
Sen. James E. Clyburn.
Sen. Butler Derrick.
Rep. John M. Spratt.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Sen. Tom Daschle.
TENNESSEE
Sen. Harlan Mathews.
Sen. Jim Sasser.
Rep. Harold E. Ford.
TEXAS
Rep. Jack Brooks.
Rep. John Bryant.
Rep. Jim Chapman.
Rep. Ronald D. Coleman.
Rep. E. de la Garza.
Rep. Martin Frost.
Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez.
Rep. Gene Green.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz.
Rep. J.J. Pickle.
Rep. Frank Tejeda.
Rep. Craig Washington.
Rep. Charles Wilson.
VERMONT
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy.
Rep. Bernard Sanders.
VIRGINIA
Rep. Rick Boucher.
Rep. Leslie L. Byrne.
Rep. James P. Moran.
Rep. Robert C. Scott.
WASHINGTON
Sen. Patty Murray.
Rep. Norm Dicks.
Rep. Mike Kreidler.
Rep. Jim McDermott.
Rep. Al Swift.
Rep. Jolene Unsoeld.
WEST VIRGINIA
Sen. Robert C. Byrd.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV.
Rep. Alan B. Mollahan.
Rep. Nick J. Rahall.
Rep. Bob Wise.
WISCONSIN
Rep. Gerald D. Kleczka.
Rep. David R. Obey.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell my friend from New Jersey,
the problem with that Georgia policeman is that he most assuredly will
receive some tax relief on this, because you have raised taxes so high
over the last 20 years that I guarantee you his wife is having to work,
too. So when we combine those incomes, that family will indeed, and I
remind you again that 2.4 million teachers are going to get some tax
relief, 4.2 million mechanics and repairmen and construction workers
are going to get some tax relief. I know you call everybody rich who
has a job, but those are the people who are paying into this
Government, and it is high time we let them have some more of their own
income because most assuredly they can spend it much wiser than we do
up here.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to enter into the Record the study
from the Citizens for Tax Justice that shows just how many children are
excluded from this tax credit and point out that in the State of
Georgia, the previous speaker's home State, the Republican tax plan
excludes 49 to 52 percent of Georgia kids. The Citizens for Tax Justice
study says that the House plan, the Republican plan, would exclude 52
percent of Georgia's children and the Senate tax plan would exclude 49
percent of Georgia's children. They would not receive it, including
that police officer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen].
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just
want to refer to a couple of other States here, first my home State of
Maine, the Citizens for Tax Justice report indicates that 45 percent of
the children in the State of Maine will not get the benefit of this
$500-per-child tax credit. A little bit of that is because of age but
almost all of it is because of this income floor.
The gentleman from South Dakota who was speaking earlier should
recognize that the number for his State is the same; 45 percent of the
children in that State will be ineligible for the $500-per-child tax
credit and it is the same reason. The fact is that this tax
[[Page H4659]]
credit, this tax bill is weighted very heavily for the wealthiest
people in this society. It provides 41 percent of its benefits to the
top 1 percent of taxpayers and those in lower tax brackets, the lowest
20 percent, are expected to pay maybe an additional $60 a year. They do
not get the benefits of this.
I agree with my friend from Florida on one point he said; this is not
about protecting the poor. It is not. It is about protecting hard-
working middle-income Americans and making sure that they get the
benefit, they get some of the benefit of this tax bill, and they are
not getting it now.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we have a statistic here that just shows
you that the billionaire, Bill Gates, would get capital gains and
estate tax reductions and even a new IRA provision that would let him
take a $4,000 tax break for educational expenses for his kids, but that
Georgia policeman making $23,000 is denied a tax credit for his kids.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for people that
are watching today, it gets very confusing when we are talking about a
lot of different statistics about where the tax relief goes. The
reality is that in this, in the Republican proposal, we are talking
about the top 5 percent of Americans who make $250,000 or more. That is
what we are talking about in terms of where the bulk of the tax relief
goes.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this has become a very, very sad time
for me, having worked since the beginning of this Congress and actually
in many previous Congresses on this issue of the capital gains tax cut.
I have about 165 Democrats and Republicans who joined as cosponsors of
H.R. 14.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] has been one of our
great fighters on behalf of reducing the top rate on capital gains,
knowing full well that it is not a tax cut for the rich. We have been
able to successfully throw that us-versus-them class warfare mentality
out throughout the debate on capital gains. We got the President in the
agreement to acknowledge that reducing the top rate on capital gains
will in fact benefit the middle-income wage earner. In fact a study
that we did found that the average family of four, if we were to get to
a 14-or 15-percent rate, would see their take-home pay increase by
$1,500. Those are the ones who benefit from things like a capital gains
tax rate reduction. Yes, there are people today in this country who are
unemployed and we need to get capital invested so that we can create
job opportunities for them.
So the reason this is a sad day is that many of my Democratic
colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of H.R. 14 have unfortunately
now been drawn in by their party to this trap of saying that this is
simply a tax cut for the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We will hear it time and time again that 76 percent of the benefits go
to people earning between $20,000 and $75,000. Ninety-three percent of
the benefits go to people with incomes of less than $100,000.
So the fact is, we are there trying desperately to help those
struggling middle-income wage earners create greater opportunities,
improve their quality of life, and things like a capital gains tax rate
reduction will do just that. So I just want to say that it saddens me
that we have seen the debate come down to this level.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before, where
we were offered trickle-down tax cuts in the 1980's, that benefited the
very well to do and did not get down to working men and women and those
families. Those incomes have been stagnant. They have not gotten any
rewards for their work. Their tax rates and tax burdens have increased.
What we need to do is to better focus the tax breaks on working men and
women, as the Democratic substitute has done, and not to allow trickle-
down to happen again. All that happened with trickle-down is the heavy
lifting was done by the working men and women and the people who are
trying to provide for their families at the expense of those who were
getting heavy from their lifting.
If we are going to reform welfare, if we are going to reward work, we
are going to need to make sure that working men and women have the
opportunities of tax credits for education, tax credits for health
care, to make sure that they can provide for their families and not go
down through the trickle-down economic theories that we went through in
the early 1980's.
They got nothing but debt and deficit and that left people out of
work or at very low incomes. So I think the important thing to do is to
not support the rule and to not support the proposal that has been put
forward.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The people watching this on C-SPAN must be thoroughly confused by
now, because according to the comments from the other side, virtually
everybody in America is wealthy. They have been quoting all day
Citizens for Tax Justice, a so-called nonpartisan think tank which is
in fact connected to Ralph Nader. The American people ought to know
that.
The fact of the matter is the Heritage Foundation and other studies
such as the Tax Foundation have said that the Republican plan covers 11
more, 11 million, the Republican plan covers 11 million more children
than the President's plan. Indeed, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller] has been concerned about the children being excluded. The
Republican plan in his own district covers 24,735 more children than
the President's plan.
The President and the Treasury Department have been simply unfair to
this debate because they recalculated wealth. And in fact they included
in your income to consider how wealthy you are such items as employer
costs such as payroll taxes, fringe benefits, and pensions. Their
proposal says that those people must consider that as their income,
even though they do not get it, and goes so far as to say that if they
could rent their home out, the home they are living in and buying, that
10,000 a year must be considered income also.
Under their calculation of income and who is wealthy, 2.4 million
elementary and high school teachers, over half of the teachers in this
Nation are considered under their standards rich; 1 out of every 10
union members, 1.7 million of them, under their standards are rich; 8.1
million Federal, State, and local government workers under their
measurement are rich. The honest deduction is this, the Joint Committee
on Taxation has made it very clear, 93 percent of the benefits go to
families with incomes under $100,000. Indeed the largest part of this
package is the child tax credit, the single largest part of the benefit
is the child tax credit and that is capped at $110,000 for couples also
and $55,000 for singles. So this is a fair plan. It is fair for all.
For the rest of this day, those of you watching this debate are going
to hear the same class warfare, the same argument that the rich are
benefiting when in fact the Joint Committee on Taxation makes it clear
that 76 percent goes to people with family incomes less than $75,000 a
year. They are going to be very surprised to discover how wealthy they
are tonight.
But when we pass this we will have for the first time in 16 years
provided decent, honest, and across-the-board tax relief for all
Americans at every stage in life.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if an
electronic vote on House Concurrent Resolution 108 occurs immediately
after an electronic vote on another question, then the minimum time for
that electronic vote on agreeing to the concurrent resolution may be 5
minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to extend their remarks during the debate
on House Resolution 176.
[[Page H4660]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:
Methodology Problems and Multibillion Dollar Errors Produce Large
Distortions in Taxpayers Union Ratings
The tally of Congressional voting records which the
National Taxpayers Union Foundation released today is marred
by flawed methodology and multi-billion dollar errors,
according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
analysis of the NTUF tally.
The deficiencies in the NTUF analysis are sufficiently
serious as to make its tally of little value, the Center
said. The Center also reported that NTUF's mistakes and
methodological errors tend to have a greater adverse effect
on members of the minority party than on members of the
majority party and that some of its interpretations of its
vote tally appear to be marked by partisan leanings.
Entitlement Treatment Makes Many Who Voted to Reduce Spending Look like
They Voted to Increase Spending
The NTUF tallies are dominated by entitlement spending. But
the NTUF entitlement spending figures are flawed. Most
notably, the cost of federal entitlement programs will
automatically rise $54.5 billion between FY 1995 and FY 1996
because of such factors as the annual cost-of-living
adjustment in Social Security, veterans, and other benefits,
the increase in the number of Americans reaching age 65 and
qualifying for Social Security and Medicare, and normal year-
to-year increases in doctor and hospital fees. NTUF charges
all Members of Congress with voting to increase entitlement
spending by this $54.5 billion, although no such votes
occurred. This distorts the NTUF tallies.
One hundred fifty-one of the 172 House Democrats, the one
House independent, and the one House Republican who NTUF says
voted to increase spending in 1995--as well as all 28 Senate
Democrats and the one Senate Republican who NTUF said voted
to raise spending--should have been tallied as voting to
decrease spending. These are the members whom the NTUF rating
shows as voting to increase spending but by less than $54.5
billion. When the automatic increases that occurred without
any vote and that were due to factors such as the Social
Security COLA are put to the side, these members voted to
lower spending.
Most citizens who hear about the NTUF tally will assume
these members voted to make programs more costly than they
would otherwise be. Few will understand that NTUF is charging
these members with voting to increase spending merely because
the member did not vote to cancel Social Security cost-of-
living adjustments, deny Medicare benefits to those newly
turning 65, or make cuts yielding equivalent savings.
ntuf exaggerates size of some spending cuts
Those members whom NTUF shows as voting to reduce spending
would be given credit for reducing spending by a larger
amount if this $54.4 billion in automatic entitlement
spending were not counted against them. At the same time,
NTUF gives many of these same members more credit than they
are due for reducing spending in other areas because of
mistakes in counting votes for various bills the House and
Senate passed.
When a member voted both for an authorization bill and an
appropriations bill that cover the same programs, NTUF is
supposed to make an adjustment to avoid a double-count. But
it sometimes neglects to do so. It incorrectly gives members
who voted for the Amtrak reauthorization bill and the
transportation appropriations bill credit twice for the same
Amtrak cuts. This also is true of cuts in the Interstate
Commerce Commission.
NTUF also overstates the cuts in the FY 1996 agriculture
appropriations bill by $5 billion due to an error involving
farm price supports.
Still other problems in NTUF's methodology stem from the
fact that NTUF counts votes for authorization bills for
discretionary programs as votes to increase or decrease
spending even though authorization bills do not cause
discretionary spending to increase or decrease. Only the
discretionary spending caps and appropriations bills do that.
largest deficit reduction plan not given appropriate credit
While NTUF sometimes presents its vote tally as a measure
of fiscal responsibility, this is not accurate. NTUF ignores
many votes to reduce or increase the deficit.
NTUF does not count votes to increase or decrease
government subsidies that are provided through the tax code,
which many experts, the General Accounting Office, the Joint
Tax Committee, and individuals such as Alan Greenspan call
``tax expenditures.'' If a member votes to cut health
programs to fund a corporate tax subsidy without reducing the
deficit, NTUF rates the member as voting to cut spending. A
member who votes against such a measure does less well in the
NTUF rankings.
This approach adversely affects the rankings of a
substantial number of House and Senate members who voted for
the ``Coalition'' budget. The Coalition budget, developed by
a group of House Democrats, reduced the deficit more than
the Republican reconciliation bill. While the Republican
plan cut programs more, it also contained large tax cuts,
including expansion of a number of corporate and
individual tax expenditures. By contract, the Coalition
budget contained no tax cuts and reduced some tax
expenditures. Although the Coalition budget reduced the
deficit more, members voting for it fare less well in the
NTUF rankings than members voting for the Republican
budget.
Particularly serious is NTUF's mischaracterization of
``Blue Dog'' Democrats who supported the Coalition budget as
being opponents of cuts in discretionary spending. Many House
members voted against various appropriations bills that would
cut discretionary spending because of ``riders'' attached to
these bills that would weaken environmental protection and
health and safety standards--or because the members disagreed
with where the discretionary spending cuts were being made--
not because the members opposed cutting discretionary
spending.
In fact, a number of members who voted against various
appropriations bills voted for the Coalition budget, which
contained binding discretionary spending caps that would
force more than $300 billion in discretionary spending
reductions over seven years. NTUF fails to count votes to
lower the binding discretionary spending caps as votes to cut
spending, an egregious error. This affects all members who
voted for budgets that would reduce the caps.
ntuf's remarkable scoring of voice votes
NTUF ``scores'' a number of voice votes, even though not
all members may have been in favor of the measure in
question. In this area, NTUF has altered its methodology
since 1994.
Even members who were out of town and missed the vote
altogether are scored as having voted to increase or reduce
spending on voice votes.
The NTUF methodology on these voice votes has a more
damaging effect on Democrats than on Republicans. NTUF scores
voice votes on amendments to some bills. If the members voted
for final passage of the bill, NTUF then cancels out the
voice vote. But if the member voted against final passage,
NTUF leaves the voice vote in its tally. If you are in the
minority, you are more likely to be charged with the cost of
voice vote amendments that add spending, as most of the
amendments that NTUF counts did, since you are more likely
not to vote for final passage of the bill.
NTUF's use of voice votes is different now than it was in
1994. At that time, it did not score voice votes on
amendments.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan
research organization and policy institute that conducts
research and analysis on a range of government policies and
programs, and specializes in issues related to fiscal policy.
Is is supported primarily by foundation grants.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if those extensions of remarks on this
debate are admitted to the Record, must they be on the subject which is
the resolution under consideration, or can they be on the tax bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It would be on this subject.
Mr. LINDER. They must be on this subject, or they would be out of
order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The request specified that it covered the
subject of the resolution.
Mr. LINDER. On the subject of the resolution.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, is that saying that anyone submitting remarks
in the context that they have been offered during the last hour would
not be permitted or that someone would be trying to censor them in
order to get them into the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The issue before the House is on the
propriety of the resolution making in orders a fourth of July recess
beginning today. Under House rules, any remarks that are relevant to
the rubric of that resolution would be in order and would come within
the unanimous-consent request and printed in distinctive style.
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 230,
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:
[[Page H4661]]
[Roll No. 242]
YEAS--230
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--10
Bentsen
Castle
Cox
Cubin
Flake
Gonzalez
Kasich
Owens
Rush
Schiff
{time} 1149
Mrs. ROUKEMA and Mr. McINTOSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________