[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5005-H5006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PRESIDENT'S TAX CUT PROPOSALS BENEFIT TYPICAL AMERICAN FAMILIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been noted that many of 
us have come repeatedly to the floor of the House in trying to explain 
to the American people this whole debate on tax cuts. There have been 
an extensive amount of rhetoric, allegations of welfare deadbeats 
getting tax cuts, allegations that those who really work and really pay 
taxes would benefit under the Republican plan, but yet where are the 
facts?
  This is so important an issue that I think, Mr. Speaker, we should 
continue to come and come and come so that those individuals who pay 
our salaries can fully appreciate the intensity of this debate, but the 
realism of this debate.
  Just a few speakers ago, there was someone standing with a very 
pretty chart trying to discern between the Secretary of the Treasury's 
analysis and the Republican analysis. Let me, however, share with my 
colleagues words from the Congressional Research Service, the Library 
of Congress. Many of us go to libraries. We recognize that libraries 
have a myriad of resources. Most of all, libraries do not try to 
convince us of anything. They give the pros and the cons. They give the 
fiction and the nonfiction.
  In this report, the CRS service has made a very simple analysis. No 
one has paid them to make a statement in favor of one versus another. 
But it simply says estimates by the Treasury Office of Tax Analysis 
suggest that these tax cuts will favor high-income individuals while 
certain estimates taken from the analysis of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation indicate the cuts will favor the middle class.
  What does did CRS say? The CRS says that the Office of Tax Analysis, 
that is in the Secretary of the Treasury's Office, provides a more 
comprehensive measure, more consistent

[[Page H5006]]

with how economists would measure the bill's benefits to individuals in 
different income classes. Therefore, as compared to the Joint Committee 
on Taxation used by Republicans, the OTA, as assessed by an independent 
body, is the more accurate assessment of how these funds will be 
distributed, and the Secretary of the Treasury clearly says the high-
income, over $100,000 individuals, of which we have no animosity 
toward, will be the beneficiaries of the Republican tax plan, not 
hardworking and continually working middle-class and poor Americans. 
The OTA measure of income is the more accurate measure of economic 
income because it is more comprehensive, again from the Library of 
Congress.
  If we simply look at the President's plan in contrast, if we consider 
a family of four who makes $40,000, the father is a carpenter and makes 
$25,000 and the mother makes $15,000 working in a local department 
store. They have two kids, a son that is a freshman in high school, and 
a college student at a community college where tuition is $1,200. The 
President's tax proposal will benefit this family in at least two ways. 
The tax credit for $500 plus a HOPE scholarship of $1,100. In total 
they will receive a $1,600 tax cut. But they make under $50,000. But 
they work every day. No, they are not on welfare, they are not 
deadbeats.
  Here is another situation. Consider a family of four with two 
children living in a medium sized southern city. The father is a rookie 
police officer. How many of us applaud those men and women in the blue 
that put their life to line making $23,000, a year and the mother is 
taking off a few years from working because she has a small, growing 
family.
  Federal tax situation before any child tax credit: income taxes owed, 
$675 before the earned income tax credit that the Democrats want to 
ensure continues; payroll taxes, the employee's share, $1,760; excise 
taxes, $354; Federal out-of-pocket taxes owed before EITC, $2,789; 
employer share of payroll taxes, $1,760; Federal taxes before the EITC, 
that is the earned income tax credit, $4,549. Benefit that they would 
get from the earned income tax credit, $1,668, the same tax credit that 
the Republicans want to cut out.
  The child tax credit for the family of a rookie police officer making 
$23,000, President Clinton's proposal, $767; the House bill, they would 
get zero; the Senate bill, zero.
  What do we say to this working family with a mother who is caring for 
children? Do we say that they do not deserve fairness? This tax bill is 
important, Mr. Speaker, but the most important thing is for the 
American people to understand who is on their side and who can 
understand that than those who look in their pocket and find zero? Mr. 
Speaker, I hope this debate will be continued.

                          ____________________