[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 97 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5040-H5049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2014, TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1997
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2014) to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to subsections (b)(2) and (d) of section 105 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, with a Senate amendment
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request from the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Rangel
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct the conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rangel moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 2014, be instructed to work in a bipartisan
fashion to provide fair and equitable tax relief to working
families and avoid large and growing out-year revenue costs.
In doing so, the conferees shall, within the scope of the
conference,--
1. Recede from their insistence on the provision of the
House bill that provides for indexing of capital assets,
2. Support tax relief that provides a family credit
commonly referred to as the $500-per-child credit, to working
families, who pay Federal taxes,
3. Support tax provisions designed to assist working
families in meeting the costs of college education and those
provisions shall--
a. Include a HOPE Scholarship credit for the first 2 years
of postsecondary education consistent with the objectives of
the HOPE Scholarship credit proposed by the President so that
students attending low-cost community colleges are not
disadvantaged,
b. Include tax benefits for families paying tuition costs
for the second 2 years of postsecondary education out of
wages and salary income, and
c. Not include the provisions of the House bill that impose
new taxes on graduate students receiving tuition waivers.
Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXVIII, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]
[[Page H5041]]
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues, my motion is to move that the managers on the part of
the House conference be instructed to work in a bipartisan fashion in
order to avoid this historic piece of legislation from being vetoed by
the President of the United States.
No one can challenge that our President has gone through great
lengths to achieve what is hoped to be a bipartisan agreement as
relates to the budget and as relates to taxes. There are sharp
disagreements on both sides of the aisle as to how this should be done,
and the President has made it abundantly clear that the House bill and
the Senate bill, in its present form, would be subject to a veto.
It seems to me, however, I think that some of the things that we can
ask those that are in conference to look at is to question, where both
sides agree that we are seeking to give middle-income tax relief, that
calling people who do not make much money but do have tax liability as
being welfare recipients, this would not be the climate in which to
create a bipartisan agreement.
When the President and this Congress says it wants to give assistance
to middle-class working people, I do not really believe that
Republicans or Democrats have the right to set the income level that
says that these people deserve or not deserve the child credit.
The second thing is that we did not come into this agreement in order
to fix capital gains. It may be a passion with some, but the President
has made it abundantly clear that indexing is not a part of what he
thinks should be in this bill. It would seem to me, if we want a bill
rather than a confrontation, that we should consider removing this
obstacle in the bill so that the President can pass it.
And last, I think that some support should be given to the executive
as he maps out and assumes the responsibility for an education
opportunity. All of us recognize that more emphasis is being placed
today on our jails, on police, and on penitentiaries than it is on kids
and to prepare them for college, to make sure that they are productive,
to give them the hopes and the dreams and the jobs that are necessary
so that we can move our country forward.
The President feels very strongly about this, and I would encourage
the conferees to try to work with the President to make certain that
the educational mandates that he has there would allow him to be able
to sign the bill.
{time} 1300
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman
of the committee, for confiding with me his willingness to be flexible
and me just going to conference, I think, would already display the
flexibility that I have in trying to reach agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. I would just
like to talk about a concern I have in the nature of this debate. I
think it was Abraham Lincoln who said that you never can build up a
poor man by tearing down a rich man.
The interesting thing is I see us, particularly officials within the
administration, beginning to engage in a debate to try to rekindle the
flames of class warfare. One of the things that has been confusing to
me in this debate is if we take a look at the tax bill that we have
before us, we have, Mr. Speaker, the big bulk of this tax bill relating
to the child tax credit, $500 for every child under the age of 17 whose
income levels are under $100,000. That is a very costly provision in
the tax bill. It eats up a whole lot of the amount of money that is
available under the tax cut program.
Another provision in the tax bill is the education credits, which I
strongly support and I frankly want to commend the administration for
making a priority. Obviously, it is very difficult for mothers and
fathers to educate their children. While we need to work on those
reasons why college education grows at rates far beyond the rate of
inflation, it is also necessary that moms and dads have a chance to
educate their kids. And anything that we can do to begin to relieve the
stress of time, the time burdens on moms and dads and families in this
society is very positive. That is another thing that applies, of
course, to the middle class.
We have the family tax credit, and we also have the education credit.
Then when we talk about the issue of capital gains, I think it is fair
to say that there are many people who are middle-income folks who have
sat on their homes, their farms, and their investments for a long
period of time who do not believe they ought to be punished for taking
a risk and who really believe that over time they should not be paying
taxes on inflation, which is what this indexing provision is all about.
Mr. Speaker, let me also suggest, though, that I think we have a
serious problem in our country with the growing difference between the
rich and the rest of Americans. There are a lot of things that have to
be done to resolve that problem, including education. But beyond that,
part of the reason why our workers have wages that are not advancing is
because frankly they have not had the tools to compete and win. Our
savings rate, our investment rate is very low. If we expect the members
of the All-Star team, Mark McGwire, to stand up at the plate and try to
hit a home run with a Little League bat, I do not think he is going to
be very successful. But if we are interested in having McGwire have
that big major league bat and Americans have major league investments
and major league equipment, it is necessary to provide incentives for
people of means to take risks. It is not confusing in our society for
people who have means to not take risks if there is no incentive. I not
only believe the capital gains tax cut will apply to middle-income
people, it will apply to people of means. But to punish and beat them
down is going to mean that they harbor their money and the people we
are very concerned about, which are middle-income workers who are
spending more time working and getting less gain for it, they need to
be given the tools. Part of the way in which they get the tools is
through an investment strategy and a Tax Code strategy that provides
reasons for people to invest their resources so that our workers can
compete and win.
I think this is a problem that we have got in the country that needs
to be addressed. I think this tax bill is, by and large, a fair tax
bill. Let me just suggest again, as we were fighting about trying to
fight off the notion of a generational war of dividing Americans, the
idea that we should engage in a class warfare in this country and try
to convince one group of Americans that the reason they do not have is
because somebody else ripped them off is the last thing we need in our
country. We need healing. We need unity.
I think when we take a look at this bill, when we look at the child
tax credit and when we take a look at the education credit, it is very
hard to argue that this program is skewed toward the wealthiest of
Americans. But at the same time let us not beat people down who have
had the bypasses and spent time away from their family to provide jobs
for Americans just like my mom and dad.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
for purposes of distribution to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Crane].
The SPEAKER pro tempore Mr. Gillmor. Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].
(Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to
instruct conferees on H.R. 2014 and in opposition to the increase in
airline taxes, especially as it affects travel to the Virgin Islands.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, during the debate on the motion to go to
conference on H.R. 2014, to voice my strong objection to those
provisions of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 that would
increase the taxes on airline passengers.
If these taxes become law, they will place a heavy burden on American
citizens going to and from the Virgin Islands and hurt businesses in
the territory. These provisions are
[[Page H5042]]
particularly hard to accept because they will, for the first time,
place an unprecedented excise tax on international travel.
The economy of the Virgin Islands is presently trying to recover from
one devastating hurricane after another. Tourism is the largest segment
of our economy. In the past year, nearly 500,000 primarily mainland
U.S. residents visited the Virgin Islands by air.
The imposition of these new taxes, which at a minimum would mean an
additional $31 per round trip ticket to the islands, could have a
severe negative impact on our local economy.
Mr. Speaker, I thought this was the Congress of no new taxes.
Apparently, I was wrong.
Don't pay for the new capital gains tax cuts my making it too
expensive for average middle-class families to fly to the U.S. Virgin
Islands for a much needed vacation and undermine our already fragile
economy. I urge my colleagues to reject this new tax increase.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]
for the motion to instruct because it points out one of the most
important differences between the Republican tax bills and the
Democratic position. That is, we want a tax bill but we want one that
is fair, that provides tax relief to the people who need tax relief.
Both parties profess a desire to help middle-income taxpayers. We
differ on the definition of what is middle income. That is
understandable. But if we take the middle-income taxpayers, those that
are between 20 percent of the income and 80 percent, so we eliminate
those at the bottom quintile and the top quintile and then find where
the tax relief is going, there is no dispute that under the Democrat
position, over two-thirds of the tax relief will go to those that are
in the middle income.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, if what the gentleman says is true, why
when the Republicans show us graphs does it always look like their bill
gives all the benefit to the middle class, when he says that in fact
they give it mostly to people at the top? How do they do that with the
graphs?
Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate the gentleman asking me that question. What
the Republicans are doing in making their presentation is that they are
using 5-year numbers. They are not using the data that reflects the
total implementation of the tax changes. Therefore, the indexing of the
capital gains is not reflected, which basically will help wealthier
individuals. The backloaded IRA's are not included in their
recommendation. Again, that will help basically higher income people.
The estate tax provisions that are implemented over a long period of
time, if we use the tax provisions that they recommend as fully
implemented, less than one-third of the tax relief goes to those
between 20 percent and 80 percent, the middle-income taxpayer.
Mr. McDERMOTT. The issue is at full implementation. They never talk
about what happens way out, 10 years or beyond. That is really what the
gentleman is saying, is it not?
Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman is correct. When we look at the tax
proposals when fully implemented, under the Republican bill less than
one-third of the tax relief goes to those that are of middle income, no
matter what definition we use for middle income.
Mr. McDERMOTT. There is another issue that they keep raising with us,
and that is that the rich people pay most of the taxes so why should
they not get most of the benefit? That makes some sense, I guess, in
some way, but when I go to my district, people say, well, it is the
people at the bottom who need the benefit, not the people at the top.
Where is the fairness? How does that work?
Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman raises a very good point. The truth is that
our Tax Code is slightly progressive. That is, those in the upper
incomes pay a slightly higher percentage of their income in taxes. But
the people who are hurting, the people who are having a difficult time
paying their grocery bills, the people who are having a difficult time
sending their kids to college are not those in the upper 1 percent of
our income bracket. If we want to provide relief to those who really
need it, it is the middle-income taxpayer that is hurting and needs
some relief.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Picking
up on the questioning of the gentleman from Washington, it would be my
understanding that we were unable to find the funds to, say, give a
working-class family any relief in either bill because if you get $1
million in capital gain, it is my understanding you would save $80,000.
That is 80,000 bucks to somebody who is making $1 million in capital
gain. The person who is working as a teamster or a carpenter and, say,
has no children is getting nothing, zip. That $80,000 as that capital,
if you postpone selling that and the stock went up and up and up, that
$80,000 would increase over time, and 5 and 10 years from now, the
person working at $45,000 has still got nothing out of this bill.
Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman is correct. That is why under the
Republican bill, the top 1 percent in income receive almost 19 percent
of the benefits for the reason that the gentleman has pointed out. The
large gains in capital, et cetera, are going to be the wealthiest who
are going to get the benefit of it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. If the gentleman will yield further, putting in mind
for me is the story I read in one of the major newspapers about the
family of four living in a southern city, the father is a rookie
policeman, makes $23,000 a year. Some people have been saying that the
people that we want to give this child tax credit, that this is like
giving welfare to them. This is a rookie policeman making $23,000.
Under the Republican plan, he would get nothing. Under the President's
plan he gets $767. I cannot understand how we cannot raise the issue of
fairness, because it does not seem to me to call a policeman who is
making $23,000 a welfare recipient because he is going to get an income
credit, or a tax credit on the basis of his children. That to me is not
a welfare person. That is a working person. I find that extraordinarily
unfair.
Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman makes a very interesting point. It is
interesting that that person actually pays over $2,700 in taxes and, if
we put in the employer's share of FICA, pays over $4,500 in taxes.
Under the Republican bill, that family would receive not a dime under
the child credit.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Because they say he is not paying taxes. Are they not
deliberately misleading people by saying he is not paying taxes when
they mean he is not paying income taxes? He is paying FICA taxes. Those
are Federal taxes.
Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman is correct. In fact, that person actually
is paying some income taxes, paying about $600 in income taxes but they
are paying FICA taxes and other taxes, that for many American families,
the FICA tax is the largest amount of taxes that they pay. They need
help. They are trying to raise their family. They are playing according
to the rules. They are working 40 hours a week trying to support their
family, in many cases even working second jobs. Under the Republican
bill, they would be out of the child credit. It makes no sense, it is
certainly not fair. I appreciate the gentleman bringing that to our
attention.
We could give many, many more examples. A family with $50,000 of
income, one child going to an average 2-year community college full-
time, under the bill passed by this House, that family would get a $600
credit. Under the Democratic proposal, it is $1,100. On and on. That is
why the motion to instruct the conferees as presented is a matter of
fairness. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have appreciated listening to some of the discussion on the other
side of the aisle, notwithstanding the fact I think they misunderstand
what the real source of the problem is. There was an interesting
article that Milton Friedman recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal
where he was pointing out the parallels in terms of average per capita
income in this country versus that of Hong Kong, tiny little Hong Kong
with 6 million people and the
[[Page H5043]]
United States with 260 million and all the resources we have available
here. In that article, he pointed out that, to be sure, our average
annual income rates exceed those of Hong Kong. But if Hong Kong
continues to function as it has, that is going to end in about 2 more
years because of the astronomical growth there.
{time} 1315
The main distinction he made in his article was that their average
per capita or payment of taxes, rather, as a percentage of GDP is 15
percent; ours averages 50 percent already in this country, and we are
long overdue for significant tax relief, and put that money to work.
In addition to that, another distressing thing is to hear some of the
figures quoted on the other side of the aisle coming from the
Department of Treasury. Treasury is unbiased in making its submissions?
We have the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a nonpartisan
organization that did the analysis of the economic impact of the tax
figures that we were working with in committee, and the Joint Committee
on Taxation showed that in contrast to what the Democrats were touting
at the time we passed the bill out of committee that our tax bill would
give 93 percent of the tax relief to people making under $100,000 a
year, and roughly 72 percent of that tax relief goes to people making
under $75,000 a year. And by contrast, the figures that our
distinguished ranking minority member held up representing what their
proposal would do, it only gave 70 percent of that relief to people
making under $100,000 a year, and that was based on Treasury figures,
biased figures, if my colleagues will. I submit to my colleagues the
Joint Committee on Taxation is a better reference source for making an
analysis of these things.
Let me touch upon one other issue though, and that has to do with the
objections we have heard from the administration and from some of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle about indexation, preserving
indexation that is provided now for capital gains.
I fought for indexation of the Tax Code for over 25 years in this
body, and I did not originate the idea, I got it from Milton Friedman,
the distinguished economic scholar who formerly taught at the
University of Chicago. And as Friedman explained back there a
generation ago, absent indexation, what we are doing is permitting the
Government to raise taxes in a subtle and undetectable way, and they do
that by destroying the integrity of this piece of paper.
They say up here this note is legal tender, good for all debts,
public and private. If we have a steady erosion of the integrity of
that piece of paper, what we are experiencing over time is a
progressive tax increase. And in 1981, mercifully we got incorporated
in that monumental Tax Reform Act of that time, indexation of most of
our Code so that people did not keep getting ratcheted into higher
brackets with no improvement in their earning power, but rather the
destruction of the integrity in the purchasing power of that piece of
paper.
Now I tell my colleagues some people are extremely sensitive about
this issue, and those are people that trace their roots in German
history back to that period when their government totally destroyed the
integrity of those pieces of paper over there.
When I taught history back 30 years ago, I used to have in my wallet
a 50 mark note that was printed in Germany in 1914, about that size,
fine quality paper, fine engraving, the ratio was about 4 to 1. And
then I showed those kids a little piece of paper that size, printed
just 9 years later. They did not even bother to print it on both sides.
It was a 500 million mark note, and no German would have bent over to
pick one of those out of the gutter.
Mr. Speaker, they had totally destroyed the integrity of their
currency, and in the process they taxed their people out of existence,
wiped out all of their savings, all of their investments, all their
insurance, everything, and we all know the history that followed: that
man with a charismatic appeal coming down the pike on his white horse,
promising hope and salvation.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot blame the Germans in that state of desperation
for falling for that appeal, but the fact of the matter is even though
he was featured on the cover of Time magazine in the mid-1930's as Man
of the Year--and why? Because he had restored a sound currency, he
built the autobahn and he put them all in VW's. We all know the rest of
that story.
Mr. Speaker, I am telling my colleagues that indexation of that Tax
Code is the only way we can protect individual citizens against this
very clever, but very insidious means of imposing increased taxes on
individuals without them realizing it.
Keep in mind that in 1970 President Nixon took us off the gold
standard, and he did because the world price of gold had at that point
jumped to about $45 an ounce, and this piece of paper was redeemable
still at $35 an ounce. One could turn their paper in and get gold in
return.
Gold today is $350 an ounce, and that is a commentary on the
insidious erosion of the integrity of this piece of paper that has gone
on as a result of inflation through the years, a hidden tax, if my
colleagues will, and that is why it is absolutely essential that we
preserve indexation of capital gains that is long overdue so that those
people who were doing the things we were all counseled to do as kids,
and that is to not blow it all at the end of the week on instant
gratification, put something away for that proverbial rainy day. Do
that, and get hammered repeatedly under our stupid absurd Tax Code, but
this is especially true with investments that are made in the capital
gains that are realized.
So if we want to enjoy a reduction in capital gains taxes, than
guarantee that it stays in place, and we guarantee it stays in place by
indexing that into the future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
to talk about this issue, basically the refundability of our child tax
credit. That is a fancy word to mean that somebody gets something from
the Government that they do not send in the first place. It is a
negative income tax. We already have that in the form of the earned
income credit. It is a very generous credit. One can get up to about
$3,400 a year back from the Government without paying any income taxes.
That is a good program because it encourages people to work rather than
rely on cash welfare programs.
So I think all of us agree that the earned income credit is a
valuable program, but it is already in place, and in fact we increased
it in 1993. We made it more generous in an effort to help people who
were making those low wages have a livable wage, a livable income for
their families. That is in place.
What we are trying to do in this tax bill is give a break to those
middle-class families that do pay income taxes. This is an income tax
cut, so it does not make any sense for us to be here on the floor today
talking about not an income tax cut, but basically an increase in what
is essentially a welfare program, the earned income credit.
And that is what my friends on the other side are doing, trying to
confuse the issue. We already have the welfare program in place. The
earned income credit; I like it, I support it, but that is not what
this bill is all about. This bill is about giving middle-class folks in
this country who work hard and pay income taxes a break. Do not be
confused.
So I would say to my good friends, ``If you want to increase the
earned income credit, let's talk about it. If you want to give a break
in Social Security taxes, let's talk about it; or in Medicare taxes,
let's talk about it. But you know very well if we do those things,
there are consequences with respect to those programs.''
I would also point out that if my colleagues want to talk about
relief from payroll taxes such as Social Security taxes and Medicare
taxes, they ought to know that those folks in our society who are at
the lower end of the income scale and pay those payroll taxes are
paying for very specific programs that they will benefit from, and in
fact those programs and the tax system supporting those programs are
very progressive. That is to say, those folks at the lower end of the
income scale will get back in benefits much, much
[[Page H5044]]
more than they ever pay in payroll taxes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Levin] a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me respond to my friend from
Louisiana. The way the President has shaped this, this is the question:
Should people who are paying income tax and/or payroll tax receive
the child credit?
And essentially what my colleague is saying is the child credit
should not go to people who are paying payroll taxes. Why? Because it
is for a specific purpose.
I think taxes are for specific purposes, and we are willing to take
this issue to the country. It is not welfare to say to somebody who has
a couple of kids, who is paying net payroll taxes, we are going to give
you a child credit. A lot of these people are middle-income taxpayers.
Now let me say a word about this 10-year versus 5-year analysis. The
Joint Committee on Taxation has refused to give a 10-year analysis
period. Why? For two reasons. A 10-year analysis will change the
distribution and will show that increasingly from the fourth, fifth
year on, more and more of the tax cut goes to very wealthy families. So
they will not show, they do not come up with it.
Second, it will show, as the years go on, there is a greater danger
of blowing a hole in the deficit.
So essentially the refusal of the Joint Committee on Taxation to come
up with a 10-year versus a 5-year analysis is kind of a coverup, and it
makes the figures of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane]
essentially half fact at best. This is a 10-year budget agreement. We
need a 10-year analysis. Where is it?
Mr. Speaker, where is the gentleman's 10-year analysis? He does not
have one.
So the gentleman can repeat his half fact, and at best it is a half
fact, forever, and it is nothing more than a half fact.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and I wrote to Mr. Keys
yesterday. He said in an article, we will service Democrats equally
with Republicans. We do not have an answer, and now I guess we are told
it is going to be a number of weeks away. The CRS has said the Treasury
Department analysis is more reliable than that of the Joint Committee
on Taxation.
Republicans, come up with a 10-year analysis.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my
colleague across the aisle.
Show me any projection out over 10 years, whether it is Treasury,
CBO, Joint Committee on Taxation, that is on target.
What I said before, though, was the Joint Committee on Taxation at
least is comprised of bipartisan membership in contrast to Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Levin] to respond.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to
me.
So now, now the answer from the majority is we will not come up with
a 10-year analysis because they are not reliable, even though this is a
10-year budget agreement. No, the reason the majority will not come up
with a 10-year analysis is because the second 5 years show the
maldistribution and show that they blow a hole in the deficit.
So I say again to the Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Show your
bipartisanship, give us a 10-year analysis right away.''
{time} 1330
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this motion
to instruct conferees and read down the list, I see what could be a
very, very fine bill for us to pass and have the conferees write and
that could get a majority on both sides of the aisle.
No. 1, created from insistence on the provision of the House bill
that provides for indexing of capital gains, this sounds like a
sensible idea. However, we cannot afford to do it down the line. Too
many people have sacrificed their hard-earned dollars to pay taxes to
find out that we finally balanced the budget, and then down the line 5,
6, 7, 8 years from now, that deficit goes right back up. It is not
fair, it is not right, and we should not do it.
I read down and I see about education. Every one of us in this House
can agree that, if this country is going to compete, we have to educate
our young people and all people, because jobs are changing. The HOPE
scholarship, people like the HOPE scholarship. President Clinton
campaigned on the HOPE scholarship. The people liked it so much they
returned him to the White House. We should have that. We should have
the whole HOPE scholarship, not 50 percent of it, in the bill that is
written by the conferees.
Include tax benefits for families paying tuition costs for the second
2 years of post-secondary education. Mr. Speaker, this is something I
know about. The bill before us or the bill that has passed has a
savings account that you can put money in, and then down the line you
can have that in place for tuition, for anybody.
But what happens here as you enter into the second 2 years, there is
nobody who is paying, just earning wages, living, taking care of their
families, and they get nothing. If you are on salary and you cannot
afford to save, and my husband and I had four children that we put
through 4 years of college and graduate school, not taking loans. Let
me tell the Members, we really had to work to do it. We could not save
those years. Those years we were trying to buy a house. So I really
hope that is put in there.
And they should not include a provision in the House bill that
imposes taxes on graduate students. Do we not know anything? Graduate
students, we need them if we are going to compete in this world. Take
this motion to instruct, conferees, do something about it, and we will
all vote for it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Maryland, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the outyear deficit that is in the
current plan passed by the House last week. We have a promise of a vote
for an enforcement mechanism to translate the idea of a balanced budget
to reality that we have been promised to vote on by July 24. I
certainly hope it passes when it comes up, but if it does not, let us
talk about where we are today in the House-passed plan.
The indexing of capital gains basically will put the revenue side of
our Nation's budget on automatic pilot after the year 2002. If we
learned anything about entitlement programs, we learned that beyond
1970, the early 1970's until today, we have had the entitlement
programs on automatic pilot. That is the spending side. Our enforcement
mechanism that I mentioned earlier will attempt to get our arms around
the spending side of this equation as soon as possible under this deal.
We know we have to do it.
Can Members imagine that in 1963 every dollar that came to
Washington, DC was obligated, about 30 cents of that was obligated for
mandatory spending, either interest on the debt or other entitlement
spending, and 70 percent was available for us to make public policy
with? If we do nothing about the spending side entitlements in the 21st
century, that ratio will be reversed. Over 70 cents of every dollar
that comes to this town will be obligated.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it then
becomes impossible to cut out of the 28 percent that includes our
Nation's defense enough money to keep up with the escalating cost of
the 72 percent that is represented by interest and entitlements.
Here in the House-passed plan we are going to exacerbate that problem
by putting on automatic pilot the revenue side, when we are trying to
stop that
[[Page H5045]]
on the spending side. This is not good public policy. This motion to
recommit would remedy that shortcoming, that failure in the House-
passed plan.
I would say this, while we are here in public office as stewards of
this great land, I can think of no legacy that would make our
forefathers less proud of us than to leave a broke America to those who
come. We owe $5.4 trillion. We must not continue public policy
statements that put on automatic pilot these programs.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind my distinguished colleague
that it is the lack of discipline in this body and the body across the
Chamber here, of the Capitol Building, that is responsible for that
escalation of spending beyond control.
We have increased taxes dramatically. In fact, just in the decade of
the 1980's we doubled total revenues from $500 billion to $1 trillion,
and yet our national debt combined to escalate astronomically because
of the lack of discipline here. I would urge colleagues to keep that in
mind.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time to
me. Mr. Speaker, I also want to comment on the remarks of my colleague
on the Committee on Ways and Means, who I have great respect for, and
his eloquence in terms of having us control the spending side.
But I rise to oppose this motion to instruct because the second
provision, which says that they would like to provide the focused per
child tax credit to people who are not paying taxes, that would make
that credit a refundable credit. The only way we could do that is to
make it a cash payment.
I think people should understand that is a huge source of fraud and
noncompliance. When I visit the middle part of Michigan and have town
meetings, people are always talking to me about the fraud in these
programs, and how can we get at that.
In April of 1997 the IRS released a study that said the EITC, which
is a refundable credit, had an error and fraud rate of 21 percent. So
that meant of the $28 billion in 1998, nearly $6 billion was due to
error and fraud, according to the Clinton administration's IRS. That is
completely and totally unacceptable.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric about how much help is enough. All
EITC recipients already receive public assistance which is unavailable
to middle-income taxpayers. For example, a family of four with one
worker and two children who earns $18,000 a year receives an EITC of
$2,555 and has a total income and FICA due of $199. A family, the same
family of four that had an income of $24,000, would have an EITC of
$1,292, a total income and FICA taxes due of $2,380. A middle-income
family of $50,000 would receive no EIC, would have a total income tax
of $11,505.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to help every taxpayer and every
individual more, but we really need to bring some help to these middle-
income taxpayers. And just as a note, under the Clinton administration
proposal, at $60,000 of income a family of four would have a tax
liability over $14,000 and they would see their $500 per child tax
credit begin to be phased out or lost under that proposal.
So I think we have no alternative but to oppose this motion to
instruct, because what it does is make this $500 credit refundable.
There is so much fraud in the refundable credit system we have seen
already with the EIC, and Americans are saying, please, do something
about the fraud; do not create another fraudulent program.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], my friend, to respond to the comments made by
the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to reiterate that the
gentleman from Illinois emphasizes a point I am making. Spending did go
up in the 1980's because of the automatic pilot that was put on the
entitlement programs in the early 1970's. It is rising faster than we
can cut domestic discretionary and other spending. We are going to do
the same thing on the revenue side. It is a mistake.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra], a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Maryland, for yielding time to me.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me, and I also wanted to thank the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Cardin] for this opportunity.
I want to clarify a couple of issues here. Perhaps the gentleman
could help me seek that clarity. There have been many changes that
appear to have been made to the President's education package. These
changes to me appear to be detrimental to low- and moderate-income
students and seem to benefit those in the higher income brackets. Do
not the Republicans provide a reduced HOPE credit for the first 2 years
in college in the case of students attending a low-cost institution?
Mr. BECERRA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. If the gentleman looks at
it closely, for a student who attends a low-cost public college with
tuition somewhere around $1,000, under our plan, under the Democratic
plan presented by the President, that HOPE credit would be $1,500. But
under the Republican plan we have passed out of the House, the credit
would only be $750. This change would particularly hurt students from
low- and moderate-income families, those working class families that
typically attend those junior colleges that do not cost all that much.
I am as concerned, as anyone else on this floor should be concerned,
about helping working families pay for all 4 years of college. Is the
gentleman aware of any tax incentives that the Republican proposal has
for families paying tuition expenses for the last 2 years of college
out of their salary or wage incomes?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. No, it is my understanding that families
will receive tax incentives provided by the Republican proposal for
families paying tuition costs out of dividends and interest. There are
no income limitations on the tax incentives provided by the
Republicans.
Mr. BECERRA. The President's education proposal, supported by the
Democrats, would have provided tax benefits for working families paying
those tuition costs out of salary or wage income, but do not those
proposals have income limitations?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Yes, they do. The proposals were not
available to families with incomes in excess of $100,000, and they
began to phase out at incomes over $80,000. Families with incomes over
$100,000 paying tuition costs out of dividend and interest income are
one of the few categories of taxpayers to receive more benefits under
the Republican approach than under the Democratic approach.
Mr. BECERRA. We are talking about higher education here. Graduate
education, which is postsecondary education at the highest level, where
we have our chemists, our scientists, our teachers coming out of our
schools, that is extremely important as well. I am concerned that there
are some provisions in this bill that would detrimentally affect
graduate students, those who have already got the undergraduate degree
and now are trying to get that graduate degree to be the scientists and
chemists and inventors of the future.
Can the gentleman explain it? There is a particular provision that is
harmful to those graduate students. Can the gentleman explain that to
us?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman
raised that. I used to teach these courses. Under current law, graduate
students, teachers, assistants, or researchers are not taxed on the
amount of tuition waivers granted by the institution. The House bill
would repeal this exemption and these students would have to pay taxes
on the amount of those tuition waivers.
Mr. BECERRA. It is my understanding, and it has been a while since I
was in college as a graduate student as well, that these graduate
students, we are talking not about so much the business school and law
school and medical school graduates, but the folks studying science and
chemistry and mathematics, that they average about
[[Page H5046]]
$10,000 to $15,000 in income. How much of a tax does this bill impose
on those types of students?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Their bill, the Republican bill, would
treat as taxable income the tuition reduction of these students, and
this could be as much as $25,000. It would result in an average tax
increase on graduate students of $4,000. It is hard to believe we are
taxing hard-working students who are serving the future needs of the
Nation.
In Massachusetts alone we have numerous graduate students who are
making technological advances, and we should not reward their efforts
with a tax increase.
Mr. BECERRA. I have taken a look at the tax bill as best I can find.
The tax that is being imposed on students who earn, say, $10,000 or
$12,000 is not going to help provide other opportunities for other
people going to college, it is there to help pay for the cost of these
tax breaks that mostly well-to-do Americans are going to be receiving.
How does that strike the gentleman?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. That is true. And on the House bill, it
simply does not include permanent extension of employer-provided
education either. We live in an atmosphere now and at a time when
people are going to have to be continually called upon to upgrade their
skills. There is nothing in the House bill that supports lifelong
learning. Maybe the gentleman could explain to me the absence of this
exclusion.
Mr. BECERRA. By not providing for that tax credit for employers that
try to provide education to some of their employees, what we are doing
is saying if an employer has decided that it would be good for that
employee to get further trained, that no longer can the employer say to
that employee, you can now get that training and we will both receive
the benefits of a tax credit by having had you better educated.
{time} 1345
Now the IRS will have to decide if there is any tax credit to be had
by the employer or the employee.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, that was very helpful. I
thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
With respect to item 3(c) relating to graduate teaching assistance
with respect to tuition waivers, it is expected that the conferees will
clarify that no change in current law will apply to tuition remissions
for graduate students. There was no intention on the part of the House
to change the treatment of graduate students.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin my brief remarks by commending
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and other members of the
Committee on Ways and Means for trying to keep what I would define as a
good balance between various groups of taxpayers in this bill.
The colloquy that we just heard, Mr. Speaker, is just a continuation,
and I might say a very good continuation, of the debate that was
started by Secretary Rubin 10 days or so ago, when we began to try to
point out that the Republican proposal, which this motion seeks to
change, benefits the more wealthy taxpayers in this country, which is
simply not true.
As a matter of fact, the balance that I spoke about just a minute
ago, which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Archer] and others on the Committee on Ways and Means
have been so careful to try and maintain, is exactly the same balance
that the Democrats voted for in 1993 and that Bill Clinton signed into
law, the same balance among various groups of taxpayers.
This chart will help me to explain what I mean.
This chart shows in 20 percent jumps five groups of taxpayers ranging
from the 20 percent lowest group of taxpayers to the 20 percent highest
group of taxpayers. Under the bill that was voted for by all of you in
1993 and subsequently signed into law by President Clinton, 1 percent
of the taxes that are paid in this country are paid by the lowest 20
percent of the taxpayers.
Conversely, 63 percent of the taxes that are paid in this country, as
shown by the red line at the far end of the chart, 63 percent of the
taxes that are paid by all taxpayers are paid by the highest 20
percent. And as you note, coming from right to left, this way, 21
percent are paid by under the current tax system by the second 20
percent down, if you will, and 11 percent and 4 percent and back to the
1 percent.
Now, the balance that I speak of that is so important in the
Republican proposal maintains exactly the same ratios as demonstrated
by the yellow bars at the far end. Still under this proposal, 63
percent of the total taxes that are paid, I want my friends to
understand this, are still paid by the highest quintile or the highest
20 percent.
Likewise, 21 percent of the total taxes that are paid are paid by the
fourth quintile or the step down one notch, 20 percent. That is those
taxpayers between 60, who are between the 60 and 80 percent mark. So
this is very important.
What this motion seeks to do is to change this balance rather
dramatically, as Secretary Rubin tried to do 10 days or so ago before
our debate when we passed the Republican proposal, and the colloquy
that we just heard also seeks to disrupt the ratios that all of you
supported in 1993.
I frankly, Mr. Speaker, have a hard time understanding why if it was
good in 1993, why it would be bad under the Republican proposal that
passed this House just a few days ago.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I hope that this
helps to clear up this matter somewhat.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond. I have
not run into too many people that are in the upper 5 or 10 percent that
are complaining that they cannot support their children going to
college or that they need the child credit. The people at the highest
incomes are paying about 21, 22 percent of their income in taxes;
middle-income people paying about 19, 20 percent. The people who need
the relief are the people in the middle income.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Neal].
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, just a quick response to the
gentleman from New Jersey. I have a quote here from the Boston Globe on
June 19 of this year in which it suggests, `` `and graduate students
include future doctors, lawyers and engineers,' he said. `We do not
think it is appropriate to give people who are on the verge of becoming
society's highest paid workers tax benefits that are not available to
others.' ''
The University of Massachusetts Medical School is at the other end of
my district.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying
that the chart that I just showed demonstrates full well that 84
percent of the taxes that are paid in this country are currently paid
by people who are in the 60 to 100 percent number of people who pay
taxes. That is the highest incomes. So that 84 percent of the total
taxes that are paid in this country under the Republican proposal are
likewise paid by that same upper income group.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the time that remains on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gillmor]. The gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Cardin] has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane] has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the Revenue Reconciliation Act contains a
very destructive provision that would destroy employment relations in
our country and eliminate key economic benefits essential to working
families.
I am speaking of the independent contractors proliferation clause.
This provision would reward employers for reclassifying their employees
as independent contractors. It would let employers avoid paying Social
Security taxes and overtime pay. Workers who are classified as
independent contractors would lose health insurance, lose jointly-
funded pensions, lose family medical leave, lose workers' compensation
and lose unemployment benefits.
[[Page H5047]]
Millions of American workers would be exploited and an American
tradition of respect for workers would be lost as well. This radical
change in worker classification will enable the companies which can
reassign workers to independent contractor status a competitive
advantage over socially responsible companies. This will reduce
American workers, rob them of their benefits, harm the American family
and steal from the U.S. Treasury. It is financially and morally
bankrupt and it should be defeated.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson].
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I do not have any charts today or pictures or
graphics. I want to talk about real people, Mr. Speaker.
Real people want tax relief. Real people want to target tax cuts to
families who get up every morning and go to work and pay their bills.
Real people want to target tax cuts to students so they can pay for the
college or vocational training, and real people want to target tax cuts
for farm families and small business owners.
These Republican tax cuts are like those aliens in Roswell, NM. Real
people will never see them. It is just wrong to have two-thirds of the
tax cuts go to families earning $100,000 or more. The bulk of the tax
cuts should go to the hardworking middle-income real families in
America.
The original bipartisan balanced budget agreement called for the
$1,500 tax credit for college tuition. Let me give you a real-people
example. The student at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College currently
pays $1,600 in tuition. Under the Republican tax bill, he or she would
save half the amount. Under the bipartisan tax plan, the student would
save the full $1,500. It is real savings for real people.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as one of the 27 Democrats that voted
in favor of this bill, but voted for it because, first, I believe my
constituents back home in Indiana, whether they want to send their kids
to college or they are a farmer or they have worked hard on a business,
they deserve a tax cut. But it needs to be fair. It needs to be paid
for, and it should not have hidden taxes in it.
I rise in support of this motion to instruct for one reason, because
it gets the indexing out. The indexing provision in the last 5 years
costs $14 billion.
Second, this motion to instruct will provide tax relief to the
$25,000-a-year plant worker or policeman who pays FICA taxes. They get
a child tax credit.
Third, this motion to instruct removes the hidden tax on graduate
students that are receiving tuition waivers. If you are for tax
fairness, if you are for fiscal responsibility, if you are for
delivering taxes in educational areas for people across this country,
vote for the motion to instruct.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion
to instruct, a commonsense plan and a commonsense tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
the motion to instruct the conferees on the Reconciliation Tax Act. The
Conferees should be urged to provide fair and equitable tax relief to
working families, support a child credit and education tax benefits for
working families, and oppose indexing of capital gains. A new Treasury
Department analysis reveals that the Republic bill is light on relief
for working families, and heavy on tax breaks for the rich. According
to the Treasury Department analysis, only a third of the tax breaks in
the Republican plan go to the middle 60 percent of all families--that's
families making between $17,000 and $93,000 a year. By stark contrast,
the Democratic alternative gives two-thirds of the tax breaks to the
same middle 60 percent.
The Republican plan skimps on the tax breaks for college students in
their budget. The Republican tax bill provides only half of the $1,500
tuition credit for the first 2 years of college, does virtually nothing
for juniors and seniors, and raises taxes on some graduate students. In
stark contrast, President Clinton and congressional Democrats have
offered an alternative that includes the full $1,500 HOPE credit for
the first 2 years of college, plus a 20-percent tuition credit for any
subsequent years.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released on June 26 revealed that
Americans prefer the Democratic tax alternative to the GOP plan by a 2-
to-1 margin, 60 percent to 31 percent. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll
released on July 1 found that 52 percent of Americans think the
Republican tax plan favors the rich. Based on these numbers, I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to instruct.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me reiterate one point that I made before. It has to do with
indexation of the Tax Code. Indexation of the Tax Code was one of the
most profound, fair, and proper things that we did in our Tax Code when
we did it back in 1981. It eliminated that subtle, disguised means of
steadily imposing increasing taxes on all working Americans unbeknown
to them. It was a clever gimmick. Whoever thought it up, we have to
give the guy credit because people did not seem to catch on to that for
a generation. But indexation of capital gains is something that is
essential to guarantee that we are not going to reverse what we are
trying to do with this package, and that is to provide tax relief 5
years out. You reverse that and you vote for the elimination of
indexing of capital gains, what you are calling for is an increase in
taxes that you are trying to produce at that time. You want to start
raising taxes again.
Many of you, I am sure, were not here in 1980, but on the other hand
I am sure you all have a vivid recollection of Jimmy Carter's last
year, what the inflation rate was in that single year, 14.6-percent. It
could happen again. That was a 14.6 percent increase in taxes on all
Americans through this hidden, devious means of inflation of our
currency.
I would urge all of our colleagues to support and preserve and
protect indexation of our entire Tax Code.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is
recognized for 3\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we worked very hard to bring the Reagan-Bush
deficits down to a 20-year low. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected
to the U.S. Presidency, he inherited a deficit of $290 billion a year.
In 1993, without one Republican supporting our budget deficit proposal,
in the House or the Senate, all being supported by the Democrats, we
have brought that deficit down, year-after-year, from 290 to 255 to 203
to 164 to, in 1997, $45 billion and next year it will be balanced. That
was the balanced budget proposal that got this country back in balance.
What this tax proposal that we are debating today will do will shoot
these numbers off this chart, back up to the range of not $300 billion
but as the Center for Budget Priorities estimated, $650 to $700 billion
because of the issue that the gentleman from Illinois just touched on,
indexing of capital gains.
This Republican tax bill is an ugly attack on America's working
families. It is a big bonanza for big corporations and the wealthy. It
is a bad deal for everyone else. It is a bad deal for teachers, for
nurses, for plumbers, for secretaries, and every other working person
who is going to have to pick up the tab when this starts to skyrocket
again.
{time} 1400
American working families deserve tax relief. We need to cut their
taxes and we can do it while balancing the budget, but this Republican
tax bill is nothing. There is nothing in it for working families.
If we take the case of a rookie police officer in the Speaker's own
district in Georgia, he and his wife are trying to raise two young
children, they have a household income of $23,000, they pay thousands
of dollars, thousands of dollars in Federal taxes. Under the Republican
bill, this family will get zero tax relief. Not a single dollar. This
police officer, a family man who puts his life on the line every day,
gets absolutely nothing.
[[Page H5048]]
Under this same Republican tax plan, the millionaire who spends his
day on his yacht talking to his stock broker on his cell phone will get
a tax cut on capital gains. He will get an estate tax cut. If he owns a
corporation, there is a $22 billion giveaway on the corporate minimum
tax. He may even qualify for that special tax loophole to benefit 1,000
wealthy investors that somehow slipped into this bill, a tax break that
will cost all of us about $9 billion.
Under this Republican tax bill the millionaire gets thousands of
dollars in tax breaks, while the working people, the police officer,
the teacher, the secretary, the plumber, the manufacturing worker get
absolutely nothing. And this Republican giveaway to the wealthy is
going to bust the deficit wide open again and put us into the same
situation we inherited with Reagan and Bush.
Now, some of my Republican colleagues have the gall to say that an
income tax cut for young working families would constitute welfare. In
fact, one conservative columnist wrote the other day that the proposed
cuts are welfare benefits to inspire breeding. That is an insult to
every working family, that is wrong, this motion to instruct needs to
be passed and I urge my colleagues to support it today.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of tax relief for
millions of hard-working Americans.
It is time to give every American their first tax cut in 16 years. It
is our job to ensure that all Americans receive the benefits promised
from this tax bill.
Fortunately, this plan does provide tax relief for young families who
are worried about the future educational needs of their children.
While this is a good first step toward helping families and students
there is still much more to be done.
I am a fiscal conservative. That is why I voted for the taxpayer
relief bill. But being fiscally conservative does not mean that working
class Americans should be left out of these tax cuts. We can do better
to ensure a fair distribution.
We have seen many fancy charts and graphs in this debate but what
really matters is what the American people see in the bottom line on
their 1040 next April.
Working class Americans carried the burden of financing the cold war.
Working class Americans carried the burden of financing oppressive
Federal deficits of the last decade. Working class Americans deserve a
return on their investment. Working class Americans deserve the bulk of
this tax cut.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARDIN. 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 199,
nays 233, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No 258]
YEAS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
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
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
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
NAYS--233
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
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
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
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)
NOT VOTING--2
Schiff
Slaughter
{time} 1422
Messrs. SHUSTER, GRAHAM, DEAL of Georgia, BARRETT of Nebraska,
CHRISTENSEN, NUSSLE, AND RIGGS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. SCHUMER and Mr. ORTIZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
So the motion to instruct was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
For consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Kasich, Archer, Crane,
Thomas, Armey, DeLay, McDermott, Rangel, Stark, and Matsui.
[[Page H5049]]
As additional conferees from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for consideration of sections 702 and 704 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Shuster, Ms.
Molinari, and Mr. Oberstar.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, for consideration of sections 713-14, 717, 879, 1302, 1304-
5, and 1311 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Messrs: Goodling, Fawell, and Payne.
There was no objection.
____________________