[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.

                          ____________________