[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6623-H6662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2014, TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 105-221) on the resolution (H. Res. 206) waiving 
points of order against the conference report to accompany 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, which was referred to the House Calendar 
and ordered printed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 206

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for two and one half hours equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost]. All time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I were to address the American people, I 
would say, Today, you can finally believe that you will get a tax cut. 
We will pass it. The President will sign it. You can take this tax cut 
to the bank.
  This rule provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 
2014, the long-awaited Archer tax cut bill. The rule waives all points 
of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2014 and 
against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report 
be considered as read. The rule also provides for 2\1/2\ hours of 
debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out at the beginning that a balanced 
budget, even with this tax relief, will not solve all of our Nation's 
problems. However, the Archer bill is a major victory for American 
workers who pay the taxation that run the Government.
  The American family has not seen tax relief from their excessive 
Federal tax burden since 1981. Taxes eat up too much of the average 
family budget. I am honored to represent many working families who, 
unfortunately, pay more in taxes then they spend on food, clothing, and 
housing combined. Hard working people who save for retirement or 
struggle to build a small business or family farm see Federal taxes eat 
up far too much of their savings and investments. The Archer bill will 
help to address those problems.
  Last November, the American people gave Congress and the President a 
mandate to balance the Federal budget, provide tax relief for working 
families, create incentives for private sector job creation, preserve 
the Medicare program, and promote quality educational opportunities for 
all children.
  Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, many Americans did not believe that we 
would deliver. Commitments from elected officials mean little or 
nothing to those disillusioned by broken promises of big government and 
high taxes.
  A Washington Post columnist, David Broder, once described the 
President's trust deficit with the American people as even more 
damaging than the budget deficit. Congress is helping to eliminate 
both.
  In November of 1994, American voters made Republicans the majority in 
Congress for the first time in four decades. They wanted a change, and 
the new Congress vowed to succeed where previous Congresses had failed. 
That change in leadership sent us down the path that we are on today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority believed that keeping promises 
was as important a goal as balancing the budget, cutting taxes and 
reducing the size and scope of the overly intrusive Federal Government. 
Now, there is no doubt that this zeal did not always adapt well to the 
political realities of divided government. The American people have 
watched Washington's rocky moments with some understandable 
frustration, but they have also witnessed some momentous 
accomplishments, and from my perspective, the Archer tax relief 
legislation is at the top of that list.
  As the sponsor of the bipartisan, job creating and investment 
encouraging capital gains tax relief bill, which I join with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas City, MO [Ms. McCarthy] and 
other Democrats and Republicans, we put together the largest number of 
cosponsors, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the 
chairman, for the tremendous work that he did in the face of the 
outdated class warfare rhetoric that came from some of our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle. Reducing the job killing, investment 
stifling capital gains tax is the single best way to promote wage 
growth, spur real economic growth, and ensure that we will balance the 
budget by the year 2002. I applaud the effort of our negotiators 
because they share the commitment to raise the wages of American 
workers and ensure that strong growth balances the budget.
  At the end of the day, when the dust clears, we must look back over 
the past 3 years with some amazement and

[[Page H6624]]

pride. We have enacted a balanced budget, cut taxes on families and job 
creators, reformed welfare, controlled illegal immigration, saved 
Medicare, and made private sector health insurance more available and 
affordable.
  Combine the achievement of those bedrock Republican Party goals with 
the expansion of free trade through the North American Free Trade 
Agreement and the GATT Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade in the 103d Congress and the election and historic 
reelection of the Republican Congress, and we can make the case that 
President Clinton has compiled one of the most impressive Republican 
legacies of any President in this century.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican-led Congress has put policy ahead of 
blind partisanship. I congratulate the President for working with us to 
make Government a more cost-effective vehicle, for improving the 
standard of living of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, when this tax package is taken 
apart, it will be apparent that House Democrats, who have throughout 
this debate insisted on fairness, have been successful. What started 
out as a bill cutting taxes solely for the benefit of the wealthiest 
among us, while denying any sort of tax relief to those who really need 
it the most, has been modified to meet the fairness test.
  My Republican colleagues have for months insisted that working 
families who make less than $30,000 a year do not pay taxes and should 
not get a tax break. But House Democrats have stood fast and insisted 
that young families with children, those families just starting out in 
life who are trying to make ends meet, perhaps pay a mortgage, take the 
kids to McDonald's and maybe see a movie every once in a while need a 
tax break also.
  Why, we wondered, should a family making $29,000 a year be denied tax 
credits? Who says they do not pay taxes? Not the Democratic Members of 
the House, that is for certain. We know that everyone that works pays 
taxes. We all pay income tax, but we also pay Social Security and 
Medicare taxes, State income taxes, and unemployment taxes. Those taxes 
count every bit as much for the family making $29,000 a year as they do 
for a family making twice or three times as much. Maybe they count even 
more.
  And so, in the end, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have prevailed in our 
position. This bill will provide the tax credit for every family with 
children under the age of 17 who make $18,000 or more a year. That is 
what Democrats stood for, and that is what Democrats achieved.
  Democrats have stood firm in our insistence that education be a top 
priority in this bill and we joined with the President in insisting 
that the HOPE scholarship program be instituted to make the first 2 
years of college as universally available as a high school diploma is 
today.
  We need more opportunities for our young people to advance their 
education, and Democrats insisted that this package provide a way for 
everyone to continue education. And this package does that. We have 
components of this package which will go a long way toward ensuring 
that our work force in the 21st century is productive and globally 
competitive.
  Democrats stand for things like penalty-free IRA withdrawals for 
undergraduate, post-secondary vocational, and graduate education 
expenses. Democrats stand for tuition tax credits for juniors, seniors, 
undergraduate students, and for working Americans who are seeking to 
enhance or upgrade their skills. Democrats stand for things like 
education savings accounts and for extending the exclusion of employer-
provided undergraduate educational benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, since those things are in this tax bill, Democrats 
achieved what they stand for. Mr. Speaker, the fact that this tax bill 
provides for families and for those Americans who want to pursue an 
education make this bill much more palatable to Democrats. But I should 
point out that in spite of the infusion of fairness in this package, 
our Republican colleagues have managed to ensure that the upper end of 
the income scale has been taken care of.

                              {time}  1045

  I wonder how many of us really understand that the child tax credit 
is available in some form for couples with adjusted gross incomes up to 
$150,000 a year. Democrats are, of course, in the minority in the House 
and we cannot win on every point, but I do find it interesting that a 
party that was so willing to deny this tax credit to families making 
less than $30,000 a year is now so willing to extend it to families 
making five times that much.
  However, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a position to be able to discuss 
a balanced budget and tax cuts simultaneously is because 4 years ago, 
this House, or should I say the Democrats in this House, passed a 
deficit reduction package that has now produced an economy that is so 
healthy and so productive that our deficit has fallen by 75 percent 
since 1993. When the House passed that package, Mr. Speaker, it was 
done without a single Republican vote. It was done, Mr. Speaker, while 
the current Republican leaders lamented loudly that it would send the 
economy straight down the tubes.
  Yes, as my Republican colleagues are so fond of pointing out, that 
deficit reduction package did contain some tax increases, but I would 
like to remind my colleagues that those increases were aimed primarily 
at the upper end of the economic scale, at those people who are doing 
so well today that the stock market has soared in value, so much so 
that it has increased in value by 50 percent in the past 2 years.
  That deficit reduction package which the Republicans opposed 
unanimously set the stage for the action of the Congress this week. 
That package created an economy which this year has the lowest 
unemployment rate in 24 years and has created 12.5 million new jobs. I 
voted for that package in 1993, just as I voted for the spending cuts 
on Wednesday. I voted to bring Federal spending under control and to 
balance the Federal budget for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues now crow and claim credit for 
balancing the budget, but more importantly, Democrats can claim credit 
for ensuring that the proposals of the Republican majority are tempered 
and made much more fair for working men and women, their children, our 
seniors and for our vulnerable groups in society. Democrats stand for 
fairness and equity as do the American people. I think we won on these 
basic points in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was very privileged to come to the 
Congress in 1981 and vote for the Economic Recovery Tax Act of Ronald 
Reagan. I did so along with my very dear friend from Glens Falls, NY, 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman from 
California, the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding 
me this time.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is 
right. I had been here for a couple of years before he and Ronald 
Reagan arrived. With the gentleman and Ronald Reagan and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer] in the back here, and the rest of us 
Republicans, we began to change the philosophy of this Government, we 
began to cut taxes, meaningful tax cuts and shrink the size and the 
power of the Federal Government to go along with it; and yes, Ronald 
Reagan's legacy lives on and is being carried out today.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the former President, one of the greatest 
Presidents this country has ever known, is able to watch part of this 
debate today because it is devoted to him.
  Yes, back in 1981, President Reagan signed into law the historic 25 
percent across-the-board tax cut for all working Americans, a package 
that liberated our economy and our Nation from the fiscal straitjacket 
of stagflation, and the rising unemployment of the 1970's. President 
Reagan's foresight paved the way for the longest peacetime economic 
expansion in our Nation's history, that created 17 million new jobs, an 
increase in real average

[[Page H6625]]

family income from the richest to the poorest income groups and a 
steady and sustained growth in real GDP and productivity throughout the 
entire 1980's. This was one of the most successful decades of the 
history of this great country of ours.
  Today, 16 years later, the Republican Congress and President Clinton, 
stand on the threshold of delivering America's working families and 
America's businesses a long-awaited second installment of that tax cut, 
an installment that Ronald Reagan tried for years to get after the 
initial tax cut in 1981 but was deprived of by the Democrats in this 
House.
  In 1994, when the American people gave Republicans control of the 
people's House, we promised to cut taxes. Today Republicans deliver on 
that promise. Yesterday we delivered on the promise of a balanced 
budget. Today on tax cuts. It makes me proud to be a Republican today. 
Both are real, both are consistent and both, Mr. Speaker, are 
sustainable.
  Four years ago this same Congress under a Democrat majority passed 
the largest tax increase in American history. Today the Republican 
Congress will roll back our Nation's tax burden by at least $95 
billion. And you have not seen nothing yet. Wait until next year and 
the year after, because we are going to come back to eliminate capital 
gains taxes and we are going to further cut taxes off the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, this permanent tax relief takes many forms and will 
assist many sectors of our economy. A sharp cut in the capital gains 
tax cut will, without question, stimulate job growth, and investment, 
and the real incomes of all working American families.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, and this is so terribly 
important because it goes back to this business of class warfare. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of 
America's families own assets such as stocks, bonds, homes, real estate 
and businesses. NASDAQ reports that 47 percent of all investors are 
women. The Treasury Department, and this is perhaps the most important 
of all, the Treasury Department reports that nearly two-thirds of all 
tax returns reporting capital gains income are filed by people whose 
incomes are under $50,000. Fifty percent of two-thirds of all of these 
people are senior citizens living on fixed incomes with a few returns 
of the stocks and bonds from their investments. Clearly these figures 
show that a capital gains tax cut benefits middle-class American 
families and older Americans.
  In addition, family-owned small businesses and family farms are 
provided further relief through cuts in the estate tax. Educational and 
retirement opportunities are enhanced. And, Mr. Speaker, middle-class 
parents are allowed to keep more of their income to take care of their 
families with child tax credits. How terribly important that is to the 
average American in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we are going to hear from the other 
side of the aisle, the majority of this tax relief, more than 72 
percent of it, will go to middle-income wage earners, families making 
between $20,000 and $70,000 a year. This will better enable all 
American families to care for their children, to improve their 
communities, and represents a good first step in rolling back the high 
level of Government interference which has grown out of all proportion 
over the last 20 to 30 years.
  Mr. Speaker, while this tax cut may represent a major victory for the 
Republican Party and the American people, it is also the product of 
bipartisanship. In the same spirit, let me repeat a quote I stated 
yesterday. In introducing his tax cut plan to the American people in 
1962, President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, and I was a John F. 
Kennedy Democrat back in those days, stated that, quote, ``prosperity 
is the real way to balance the budget. By lowering tax rates, by 
increasing jobs and incomes, we can expand tax revenues and finally 
bring our budget into balance.''
  President Kennedy was right then and this bill before us today is 
right now. Over the past 16 years, this Congress has raised our 
Nation's taxes over five times and by hundreds of billions of dollars, 
taking money out of the pockets of the American people. Today we 
reverse that trend and we pass the first tax cut in 16 years and make 
good on another promise to the American people. Yes, Republicans. 
Promises made, promises kept. Come over here and vote for this great 
bill and let us keep this economy moving.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of 
pleasure to come and simply add to setting the record straight and 
clearly speaking to those who least of all have an ability to come to 
this House and lobby for their causes.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that any legislation that is passed in this 
body does nothing unless it gets to those who are at home and on the 
front line. Democrats are known for confronting the hard issues and 
working to get legislation that practically addresses those who every 
day are turning the engine of this Nation, to ensure that those who are 
running the engine of this Nation by working every day are 
appropriately protected and defended.
  That is why I can rise with maybe a troubled heart but a sure mind 
that we are making the right decision today and I am making the right 
decision today to vote not only for this rule but for this tax 
agreement. It allows me to thank those who were around the negotiating 
table but it has also allowed me to thank those who finally listened to 
my constant agitation and advocation for ensuring that those who did 
make under $30,000 a year were treated as American citizens and 
respected for what they have given to this Nation, by giving them tax 
relief.
  This agreement cuts Federal taxes $95.2 billion over 5 years, nearly 
$10 billion more than the House-passed bill. Why did that happen? 
Because it was the Democratic caucus that forced that increase so that 
tax cuts could come to those lower-income families who earn the earned 
income tax credit. They too can get a child tax credit. This effort 
stands and represents those who are least vocal and most vulnerable. It 
gradually raises the amount exempt from Federal estate taxes to $1 
million, and it makes IRA's more widely available, so to encourage 
Americans to save.
  What does that say? Mr. Speaker, what that says is to the many small 
businesses around this Nation who have cropped up over the last 20 
years, who pay their taxes, who work either in their homes or small 
offices, who employ only one or two persons or maybe a little bit more, 
it says that Democrats understand that small businesses have become the 
business of America.
  Then we go to the HOPE scholarships, something that was confused 
under the Republican plan, did not respect those who might be moving 
from welfare to work, looking for opportunities at less expensive 
community colleges or junior colleges or 4-year colleges. We give the 
HOPE scholarship with no strings attached. You can get 100 percent of 
$1,000 the first year. You can get your foot in the door. We did not 
hear from large businesses and advocates of large tax cuts on this 
issue. However, Democrats realize that education is the great 
equalizer, so along with President Clinton we fought for this change.
  To my family farmers, let me say we heard your voices. I am from an 
urban district, however most of my constituents have come in from the 
rural areas and their families are still harvesting the crop on small 
family farms. How gratified I am to be able to give them a $1.3 million 
unified tax credit, something that will start not 7 years down, not the 
year 2000-and-something, but January 1, 1998.
  Democrats, realizing who drives this Nation, fought hard in 
conference and before in strategies on the floor of this House to say 
that we must stand up for working people, the most vulnerable on 
welfare, and family farmers and small businesses. Yet I have supported 
tax incentives to help large businesses invest in job creation.
  And then we understand that there are some of us that can save a few 
more pennies. We can save a few more pennies, those of us who do that, 
by a deduction of up to $2,500 on interest for qualified student loans.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that we cannot come to this floor and abdicate 
our responsibilities, and so I say to Members

[[Page H6626]]

that I am going to be a diligent student of this tax plan. I am going 
to be watching whether there is a potential of exploding the deficit in 
the outyears and be at the fight to correct and fix what may damage the 
most vulnerable of this Nation.

                              {time}  1100

  Nevertheless, at the same time I am going to be able to go to my 
community and get to working on cleaning up inner-city areas because we 
have got a 3-year brownfield tax incentive that allows economically 
distressed areas to clean up environmentally damaged areas.
  And yes, this tax bill follows an amendment that I made as a freshman 
in this House to give tax incentives to employers who hire welfare 
recipients. We are going to do that now because Democrats recognize 
that we want to boost up the opportunity for those moving from welfare 
to work.
  This is a bill that needs to be supported, it needs to be watched, it 
needs to be monitored, the Tax Code must be simplified, and we need to 
stand ready to fix anything that hurts Americans as this bill moves 
forward to drive the economic engine of this Nation in order to create 
more jobs for all Americans.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What a fascinating debate. The American people know that the words 
``tax cutting'' and ``Democrat'' heretofore would clearly be an 
oxymoron. It is wonderful now to hear the great statements emerging 
from the other side of the aisle. I have to say that one of the 
fighters for meaningful tax reduction is my very good friend from 
Guilford County, NC.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Greensboro, NC 
[Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding this time to me.
  How far down this road we have advanced. Now a balanced budget is 
within our grasp. The White House, Republicans, Democrats are all 
taking credit for it, and that is fine. But these tax reductions, Mr. 
Speaker, would not be before us were it not for a Republican Congress, 
and if there are those who do not believe this, see me after work and I 
will sell you a used bridge. Capital gains tax reduction, educational 
tax benefits, estate tax exemption threshold increased.
  I could recall just a few recent years ago when some of our Democrat 
friends were daring to lower the threshold of the estate taxes from 
$600,000 down to $200,000. That sent a shock wave throughout America, 
throughout rural America particularly, and now family farms and 
residents and estates will now be exempt from that heavy hand of the 
death tax. It has been a long time coming, but it is here.
  These matters, Mr. Speaker, constitute the Republican agenda. 
Everyone knows that unless they have been residing in a cave. The 
President has embraced our agenda and, some say, is receiving more 
credit for it than are the Republicans. That is OK. It has been said, 
``Anything can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit 
for it.''
  This is a day, Mr. Speaker, when empowerment is being returned to 
hard-working Americans, and that is where it belongs. I commend 
everybody who had a hand in it, Democrats, Republicans alike, but most 
particularly I say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, Well done.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, when the President first took office, he 
invited 5 groups of 13, 65 total, to the Cabinet room. I was in the 
last group. He told us that he caught that Greyhound and it is 
different than what he thought it was and he was going to have to raise 
taxes. I was later told by the Vice President that 64 of the Members 
there said they agreed with him and they would support him. They said I 
was the only one that disagreed with him and told him not only would I 
not support a Btu tax, I would work to defeat a Btu tax.
  I also reminded the President when he campaigned in my district, the 
biggest crowd he ever had in his political life, he made a promise to 
cut taxes. Not only was he not going to cut taxes, he was going to have 
the biggest tax increase in our history, and he also said, ``Don't 
worry about it, we're also going to hit the rich.''
  I told the President then that I thought that type of strategy and 
politics was very bad, ``We've already chased jobs, Mr. President,'' 
exactly what I told him, ``in factories overseas. Be careful you don't 
chase our money overseas.''
  Vice President come to me, he said, ``I can't believe, Jim, you take 
this position.''
  I said, ``It's very simple, Mr. Vice President. I come from a poor 
family. My dad never worked for a poor guy.''
  This politics of class warfare is very bad. I disagreed with it then, 
I disagreed with it throughout this whole debate, and I want to now 
commend the Democrats for taking a look at the facts, and I want to 
give credit to the Republican Party. The Republicans have kept the 
President's feet to the fire on the campaign promise to cut taxes for 
people in America. That is the truth of it.
  I support tax cuts. I supported them all along. I knew that some of 
those provisions would be removed, but I am a Democrat, and Democrats 
were the very first to cut taxes with JFK, and by God, as a party, how 
did we give the Republicans the patent on it in the first place?
  But I want to say this, I hope this bill is the end of this class 
warfare. We, they; they, we; rich, poor; old, young; politics of 
division, politics of fear, politics that are bad for America, politics 
that are wrong for America, politics that are dangerous for America.
  I voted for this tax bill all the way through, I am going to vote for 
it today, and I want to close with commending now Democrat leaders who 
have taken out some of the provisions that I did not like either, but 
the Republican Party kept the President's feet to the fire. That is the 
bottom line, and I think it is good for our country.
  Our Government is working.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Youngstown, OH [Mr. Traficant] 
for telling it like it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], distinguished chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence and chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and 
Budget Process.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from downtown San Dimas, CA 
Mr. Dreier, vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House. I commend him for 
his very hard work to eliminate the punitive and the self-defeating 
taxation on capital gains, and I know he feels there is a great step 
forward here today and even more to do down the road.
  Two years ago a new Republican-led majority pledged to balance the 
budget, to save Medicare, and provide overdue tax relief to the 
American people. Republican after Republican and some Democrats joined 
us here in the well and said we would do those things, and we are doing 
them. The naysayers and the big spenders said it cannot be done, cannot 
be done, country cannot afford it, we have to keep raising taxes. Well, 
my colleagues, they were wrong. Here we are today to prove it.
  Today on this House floor we are going to complete the pledge that we 
made by providing Americans with the first relief from taxation in 16 
years, almost a generation. The good news is there is something in this 
package for just about everyone in America, across the land, in all 
different pursuits and in all different situations.
  For families trying to pay bills, that is most of us, we have 
provided a $500 per child tax credit. That is $500 more that you can 
use for things like school clothes or taking the kids for a summer 
vacation, some have not been able to do that, or anything else that 
they choose to do, because the bottom line here is that the people are 
going to decide what they are going to do with their money, not the 
folks here in Washington who may have a different idea about how to 
spend it.

[[Page H6627]]

  For senior citizens about to embark on their retirement, and many of 
those come to Florida and my district, we have cut the capital gains 
tax so they can sell some assets without Washington confiscating, 
``confiscating'' is the word I choose, nearly one-third of the gain.
  But most importantly, as we look to the future of our children, we 
have made it easier for young Americans to get a college education, and 
I see lots of young Americans around this building this time of year.
  Our package is going to allow Americans to withdraw tax free from new 
super IRA's to pay for college education expenses. This commonsense 
provision was part of our Contract With America, many will remember, 
and I am pleased that these new American dream savings accounts are 
soon going to be an option for all Americans.
  We have also created the HOPE scholarship, which will provide $5,000 
in credits for individuals who wish to go to college or get a graduate 
degree.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the right kind of incentives, and I hope that 
Americans will take advantage of them, and I know they will take 
advantage of them because I talk to Americans every day who are looking 
for these things.
  As my friend from California [Mr. Dreier] knows, though, we are far 
from done. We need to come back next year to zero out the capital gains 
tax and eliminate the marriage penalty as well, send the right 
incentive about our family values. We need to repeal the Clinton tax 
hike on Social Security benefits, particularly of doctors. This is such 
an onerous benefit on senior citizens who are on fixed income, and I 
have again a great many in southwest Florida, where I represent, have 
the honor to represent, and these folks get taxed who cannot afford to 
pay the tax. They are on fixed income, they are beyond their earning 
years, what do they do? This is a tax that needs to be repealed. We 
have not got it done here today. It is a target for tomorrow. The 
Clinton administration was wrong on that tax, and they should help us 
in that effort to repeal it. But most of all, we need to have 
comprehensive reform to simplify and flatten our convoluted, 
incomprehensible, and unfair Tax Code, and that lies ahead for us to do 
as well.
  I know that when I return to my district in southwest Florida and 
other colleagues return to their districts around the country we can 
now look constituents in the eye after we pass this bill and say 
``Look, next year Uncle Sam's tax bite isn't going to be quite as bad 
because we're listening to you and doing the job you asked us to do.'' 
I think we are going to be able to let them know that more of their 
money and decision making is going to stay with them, their own 
individual responsibility, and I think that is a great trend and a 
great sign for America. That is what we are great at doing so well 
together, is making the decisions.
  I urge support of this rule and the very important tax cuts that it 
makes in order.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are today on the last day of this session of the 
Congress before the big recess engaged in the big lie, the big lie. 
This is a balanced budget agreement. Well, after we voted yesterday, 
the Congressional Budget Office came up with an analysis, and the 
analysis is, guess what? Deficits have gone down for the last 5 years, 
but next year for the first time in 5 years they will go up and we will 
double the deficit by 1999.
  The American people know we cannot give away huge tax breaks, 
increase spending, and balance the budget. Congress did this once 
before in the early 1980's, and guess what. Three years later they came 
back and they had to repeal substantial portions of what they did.
  This bill today will reduce revenues to the Federal Government by 
$275 billion over 10 years, and it is going to balance the budget. This 
is great. We are going to have zero tax on capital gains, the 
Republicans tell us now by next year, and that will balance the budget. 
We will not tax capital gains, but all those little people who work for 
wages will pay taxes, and that is how we will balance the budget.
  What an absurd and very, very cynical assertion on their side of the 
aisle. Listen to a few things in here:
  Simplify foreign tax credit limitation for dividends from 1,050 
companies to provide look-throughs starting in 2003. Now all the 
middle-class Americans out there looking for that foreign deduction for 
the look-through starting in 2003, that is a billion dollar gift. Well, 
I am sure that a lot of my constituents, average working Americans, are 
looking forward to that.
  Then we have the capital gains provisions, $21 billion, and now they 
say they want to repeal the tax.
  Had a young woman in my office yesterday. She wants to become a 
neurosurgeon. We talked a little bit. She said, ``What does this 
mean?''
  I said, ``It means if you become a neurosurgeon, you earn $250,000 a 
year, you'll pay 40 percent of your income in taxes. But the rich kid 
who went to college with you who has not worked a day in his or her 
life who then just invests for a living will pay taxes at half that 
rate.
  She was outraged. She said, ``How can that be fair?''
  Well, they are saying it is not fair, the rich kid who inherits the 
money tax free should pay zero income tax his or her entire life; that 
is the Republican position. That is absurd.
  Then we have the alternative minimum tax. It was so embarrassing in 
the 1980's when the largest, most profitable corporations in America 
not only did not pay taxes, they got tax refunds paid for by the rest 
of us for taxes they did not pay, that Ronald Reagan supported putting 
in place an alternative minimum tax for corporations. They are 
repealing that here today. That will cost $20 billion, a nice gift to 
the large corporations. Oh, that is for middle-income America.

                              {time}  1115

  That is for middle-income America. Sure it is, Mr. Speaker.
  Then we have the subtotal here for gift and generation-skipping tax 
provisions, which they call estate tax relief, $35 billion. So the sum 
total here today is $275 billion in tax rates; crumbs for the middle 
class, and just wonderful bounty for the wealthiest in America.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], the hardworking Secretary of 
the Republican Conference and a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE OF Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hardworking gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier], who has fought so hard over the last 
several years for tax fairness, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the Taxpayer 
Relief Act. Just as history shows tax increases hamper economic growth, 
it will also show that the proper path to creating new jobs in growth 
is by lowering taxes. That is what we are about to do today with this 
historic conference report. We are going to put America back on track 
to growth and prosperity.
  For years Republicans have wanted individuals and families to control 
their own economic destinies. We fought for changes in the Tax Code to 
allow them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and we have 
pushed for commonsense changes to encourage savings and investment.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely elated that we are taking another 
historic step, indeed, a giant leap in fact, toward a new era of growth 
and opportunity that will touch the lives of all of those who still 
believe in the American dream.
  This conference agreement is a balanced plan to unite our country 
behind a new economic strategy that will expand opportunities for so 
many Americans. I implore my colleagues who might oppose this 
bipartisan effort to put away the tired refrains of class warfare. As 
my Democratic colleague, the gentleman from Youngstown, OH [Mr. 
Traficant], earlier so rightly stated, this is not good for America, it 
is not right for America, and it is actually very, very dangerous for 
America.
  It is time to recognize that an economic system that allows 
individuals and families to create opportunities for themselves and 
their communities is infinitely more preferable than government 
barriers to entrepreneurship and innovation.

[[Page H6628]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is hard to find someone this Taxpayer Relief Act does 
not help. To ease the financial burden on families with children, this 
plan includes a $500-per-child tax credit. There is capital gains 
relief. There is estate tax or death tax relief, as it should be 
called. There is an equally important provision to make higher 
education more affordable, to expands IRA's and to increase tax 
deductions for the self-employed.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the items in this package that I 
believe will change this Nation's economic destiny for the better. When 
all is said and done, I am confident that we will look back at what we 
began here this week and say that we curbed the size of government, we 
lowered taxes, and we revived the economic potential of the American 
people. Better than that, there will be more to come next year.
  Most important, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to say that we gave the 
taxpayers the tools they needed and they completed the job. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to restore the economic hope across the 
country. Vote for this fair rule. Support the Taxpayer Relief Act.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the political vote today is yes, but I 
intend to vote no because of the issue of fairness. This country was 
founded on a battle about taxation without representation with the 
British Government. We have had rebellions in this country, Shay's 
Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, when people felt the taxation was 
unfair.
  We rely in this country on taxpayers, voluntarily collecting from 
people. We have a basis in this country of fairness. This bill is 
unfair. It is unfair to give somebody making $30,000 with two kids and 
trying to deal with all that is involved in raising a family $1,000 for 
their kid credit, while somebody making $109,000 gets an average of a 
$16,000 tax break on their capital gains.
  The lowering of the capital gains rate benefits the wealthy in this 
country, and it is clear that what will happen when we get the rate 
down to 18 percent, which is almost the lowest tax rate on regular 
income, that this will have thrown gasoline on the whole class warfare 
issue.
  If I am making $500,000 or $600,000 or $800,000 and I can get my pay 
given to me in stock options, I will pay 18 percent. That is exactly 
what people making $30,000 in this country are paying. We have brought 
the tax rate for the richest in this country all the way down to 18 
percent. I do not see how anybody can call that fair.
  When I look at it, I hear it being made worse by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] and the Speaker, who are publicly saying they 
are going to reduce the tax rate on capital gains to zero in the next 
Congress. That means if you are out there working as an aerospace 
mechanic for the Boeing Co. and you make $35,000 or $40,000, you will 
be paying somewhere between 15 or 20 percent of your income in taxes. 
But if you are making all your money in capital gains, you will pay 
nothing. That is unfair, and this bill ought to be defeated.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the Gallery that they are guests of the House, and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], an able member of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk briefly about two important 
items in the tax bill. One is the tax bill does close loopholes. People 
have been concerned about the Tax Code providing special breaks. In a 
bulletin put out yesterday by the Joint Committee on Taxation, there 
are four pages of fine print provisions on closing tax loopholes, one 
of the most important being the so-called Morris Trust structure used 
by several companies to sell subsidiaries on a tax-free basis. That is 
closed. The bill also eliminates hedging techniques such as shorting 
against the box and equity swaps.
  I realize these are technical terms and technical provisions, but a 
real attempt was made in this bill to close tax loopholes. In return, 
we get an expansion of individual retirement accounts.
  This bill basically makes for three types of IRA's. The first would 
be similar to the current model, but it would greatly expand the number 
of people who can be in an IRA, and particularly housewives or 
household members who are not working outside the home will be included 
in this.
  The second choice will be a new account called IRA Plus, whose 
contributions would not be tax deductible, but withdrawals from the 
account would be tax-free if the IRA is held for 5 years and the holder 
is now over 59 years old.
  The third expansion of IRA's would be an IRA that would allow you to 
roll over savings from your current IRA into an account that would 
feature tax relief distributions.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to have more savings in our country. Savings 
will generate capital investment. Capital investment will generate new 
jobs. We have as a nation one of the lowest savings rates in the world. 
These tax provisions will encourage average-income citizens to take 
advantage of savings in the form of IRA's, and at the same time we are 
closing some corporation loopholes, tax loopholes, that we have needed 
to do.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good tax bill. I am in favor of this. I 
encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the 
same.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When the vote occurs later in the day, Mr. Speaker, on this 
conference report, a significant number of Democrats will vote in favor 
of it. I would point out to those watching this proceeding on 
television that no Democrats who are going to vote in favor of it have 
asked for time during this debate. The only Members who have asked for 
time are the ones who are opposed. The Committee on Rules grants the 
time to the Members who come to the Chamber and ask for time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Texas for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason I am going to be voting against this tax cut 
is that I do not think it is good public policy for this country. I 
came in in the 104th Congress and I heard a lot from my Republican 
colleagues how they wanted to balance the budget, reduce deficit 
spending, preserve prosperity for the future of this country. Guess 
what? Two years into the leadership, guess what they do? They go back 
to the voodoo economics that got us into this deficit dilemma to begin 
with.
  Just understand what this rule is saying. It puts in order a tax bill 
that will basically lock in a tax cut to the tune of $290 billion over 
10 years. As the gentleman before me from my side of the aisle, the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] said repeatedly, four times, 
the top 20 percent of the income filers get four times the tax benefit 
as the bottom 60 percent. So it locks this tax cut in.
  Guess what else it locks in? It locks in spending reductions, we are 
not hearing about that, Mr. Speaker, spending reductions like a 23-
percent cut in the Social Security Administration. Guess what that 
means? Elderly citizens in my district who are trying to arbitrate to 
get their Social Security check, who are already waiting 3 months right 
now, are going to have to wait an additional year.
  Why are they going to have to wait an additional year to get their 
measly $435 a month? Because we want to give a $16,000-a-year tax break 
to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. Does that sound fair to 
the Members? I do not think it does. But do Members know what this rule 
does? It shoves this tax bill down the throats of the American people, 
because they do not know what is in it. They do not know what is in it.
  If we had enough time to debate this issue, which our majority is not 
giving us, if we had enough time to debate this, I could make sure my 
constituents in Rhode Island know what the true facts are about the 
distribution tables in this tax cut. But we are going to rush this 
thing through because we

[[Page H6629]]

have to get out on vacation. We have to wrap business up by tomorrow, 
because we have to get out of town.
  Everyone loves this tax break, because in the words of my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Deborah Pryce], there is something in 
this for everybody. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? This is going to cost us. 
When future Congresses which have to pay for these tax cuts want to cut 
Social Security, want to cut veterans affairs, want to cut Medicare 
$115 billion, guess what, they are not going to do it. Guess what is 
going to happen? We are going to end up borrowing again.
  So the same crowd that told us that they were all anxious about 
deficit spending, guess what, not so. If we need proof of it, read this 
tax bill. It is Ronald Reagan trickle-down economics all over again. 
They give $500 to a middle-income family. Mr. Speaker, $500 for a 
middle-class family, while they give $16,000 tax cuts to the richest 1 
percent, can Members answer that, is that fair?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
It is obvious from the debate on the other side of the aisle that the 
Democrats continue to be the tax-and-spend party.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I hate that label because 
you know what, we are having to tax in 1993 to pay for all the deficit 
spending. What the gentleman's party is all about is borrow and spend.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if one looks at the 
pattern of the 1980's, it is very, very clear, we doubled the flow of 
revenues. We saw an increase in social spending and, yes, we did 
increase the national defense so that we could bring about an end to 
the Soviet Union and the cold war.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, yes, I also am opposed to this absurd bill. 
I think that millions of Americans will wonder why many leaders in the 
Democratic Party and the Republican Party have come together on such an 
unfair piece of legislation which primarily benefits the very rich at 
the expense of millions and millions of other people.
  Let us take a hard look at the two proposals that this Congress dealt 
with yesterday and today. First, in order to cut spending, the Congress 
yesterday voted to cut $115 billion from Medicare over a 5-year period 
and $385 billion over 10 years. That means that elderly people all over 
this country will see a lower quality of health care at a time when 
many of them cannot even afford their prescription drugs.
  Furthermore, Congress yesterday voted to cut the administration of 
Social Security by 23 percent, or a billion dollars, which means that 
when the elderly people and others want information or want to get on 
Social Security, it will take them longer to do that. Further, Congress 
voted a $13 billion cut in Medicaid over 5 years. That money goes to 
hospitals that are primarily serving low income people, exactly the 
hospitals that are having financial difficulties today.
  Congress voted to cut veterans benefits. Thank you, veterans, for 
putting your life on the line. Voted to cut discretionary health 
programs by 16 percent, voted to cut community and regional development 
by 29 percent. The result of those cuts means that for senior citizens 
and for others, life will be harder.
  Were there positive programs passed yesterday? Yes, there were. I 
support those positive programs. But today let us look at why we have 
to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security administration and the 
veterans. What are we going to do? Why did we cut? Well, it looks like 
today we are going to be dealing with a tax package. What is in that 
tax package? Well, under this tax package the wealthiest 5 percent of 
Americans will receive almost half of the tax cuts. The upper 20 
percent will receive over 70 percent of the benefits.
  What is going on in America today? Everybody in the world except the 
leadership of Congress understands. The rich are getting richer. The 
middle class is being squeezed. Low income people are working for lower 
wages than was the case 20 years ago. Last year our friend Bill Gates, 
having a tough time, his income, his wealth went from $18 billion to 
$42 billion, a $24 billion increase for one man's wealth, $24 billion.
  Bill Gates will do very well by this tax bill. Good luck, Bill, maybe 
you will make even more than 24 billion next year. But if you are a 
single working person or you are a family that does not have any kids, 
guess what? You are not going to do very well by this tax bill.
  The fact of the matter is that the average tax break for middle-
income families will be about $200. But, this is the Congress after 
all, we know where the money comes from to elect people. If you are 
among the richest 1 percent, you are not going to get a $200 tax break, 
you are going to get a $16,000 tax break. The wealthiest 1 percent will 
receive more in tax breaks than the bottom 80 percent. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is fascinating to listen to the attack by my friend from Vermont 
on Bill Gates. I do not stand here as a defender of any particular 
individual. But I would say that Alan Greenspan, chairman of the 
Federal Reserve Board, has made it very clear, the reason the United 
States of America is so productive today and we have the highest 
standard of living is there are more Americans with computers on their 
desks who are working hard to make sure that the level of productivity 
increases more than any country on the face of the Earth.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier:
       After ``debatable for'' insert ``two and one half hours'' 
     and ``three hours''.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
to the resolution I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Does my friend from California, and I will have to ask him to use his 
own time to answer the question, really feel that it is appropriate 
that when last year the average American worker saw a 2.8 percent 
increase in his income, which means that millions of workers in the so-
called boom saw a decline in their real wages, do you really think 
there is something appropriate or right about our economic system when 
one man saw a $24 billion increase in his income while millions of 
working people saw a decline in their real wages? This, I should tell 
my friends, is in the midst of an economic boom.
  Do we think it is appropriate that the United States continues to 
have by far the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the 
industrialized world, with the richest 1 percent owning more wealth 
than the bottom 90 percent? Is this something we are proud of? The fact 
that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty while millionaires 
and billionaires in the country proliferate and that this tax bill 
would only make that gap between the rich and the poor even wider?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say in response to the gentleman that socialism is a failed 
economic system and one single individual has been on the cutting edge 
of ensuring that the level of productivity in the United States of 
America has enhanced to the level that it is, increasing the take-home 
pay for many, many people. Computers have played a role in doing that. 
Chairman Greenspan has pointed that out. I happen to believe that it is 
great. I just want to see more people in a position where they can 
enjoy the kind of success that Bill Gates has enjoyed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are strong feelings on this particular piece of 
legislation. There are a number of Democrats

[[Page H6630]]

who will support it. There are some Democrats who will oppose it. Each 
group has its own valid reasons which will be developed during the 
general debate. I would only point out to the gentleman from 
California, and I intend to support this legislation, but I would only 
point out to the gentleman from California that his side chooses 
selectively to ignore the fact that the largest deficits in this 
country were run up under Republican Presidents during the 1980's and 
the early 1990's.
  It was the decisive action, decisive action of the Democrats in this 
Congress in 1993 by passing a deficit reduction package that brought us 
to the point today where we can entertain a tax cut and we can make a 
fair tax cut for the American public.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend referred to Republican reign over these 
deficits. I recommend that he look at the U.S. Constitution. Article I, 
section 7 makes it very clear, the responsibility for all taxing and 
spending lies right here in the House of Representatives. This is the 
first tax cut that we have had in 16 years. For 13 of those 16 years, 
this place was controlled by the Democrats. When President Clinton ran 
for office in 1992, he promised a tax cut for middle income Americans. 
The last Democratic Congress worked with him to bring about the largest 
tax increase in history.
  Many Members like to claim that that tax increase is somehow 
responsible for the economic growth we are enjoying today. Why is it 
then that with the measure that we will be voting on within the next 3 
hours we are repealing large parts of that tax increase?
  The best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton was the election of 
a Republican Congress. If Members look at the fact that in 1993 and 
1994 we saw an increase in interest rates, we saw a stock market that 
was not taking off, November 1994 saw the election of the first 
Republican Congress in 40 years and in 1996, the reelection of the 
first Republican Congress in 68 years; if we look at election day 1994, 
we can draw a line.
  We have seen interest rates on a downward slope since we began to 
focus on balancing the budget, reducing the size and scope of 
Government and cutting the tax burden on working Americans. In November 
1994, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 3,900. Now it is right 
around 8,000. The fact is, we as Republicans have helped to improve 
this economy and it would not have happened had we not been in the 
majority.
  I am very pleased that we are working in a bipartisan way to address 
this issue of the tax burden on working Americans. I look forward to 
seeing this Archer bill pass today and to have it signed by the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution, as amended.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 206, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, July 30, 1997, part II.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] each will control 1 hour and 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

                              {time}  1145


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the conference report on H.R. 2014.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], a respected member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the author of the Archer bill, which it is 
now very appropriately called, for yielding me this time.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, to simply talk about what I think is one of the 
single most important provisions in this measure, and that is the 
reduction of the top rate on capital gains.
  Back in 1993, several of our colleagues came together and worked on 
this issue of capital gains. We established what we called the Zero 
Capital Gains Tax Caucus. We recognized that capital gains tax rates, 
in fact, are some of the most confiscatory that we have of all. Why? 
Because people already pay a tax on that income that they are 
investing.
  So what is it that we need to look at? We need to look at what it is 
that the capital gains tax rate reduction is going to do for this 
economy. Clearly, we are going to stimulate a dramatic increase in 
economic growth.
  Every shred of evidence that we have throughout this century has 
proven that, going all the way back to Andrew Mellon's stint as 
Treasury Secretary under President Warren G. Harding, to the Kennedy 
tax cuts of the 1960's and, yes, the much-maligned Reagan tax cuts of 
1981, which I was telling the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] earlier 
today, I am very proud that that is the one tax bill that I voted for, 
the Economic Recovery Tax Act of Ronald Reagan back in 1981.
  As we look at decreasing the capital gains tax rate, I am convinced 
that we will do more to help working class Americans than virtually 
anything else we could do. There was a lot of talk about family tax 
cuts, but the studies we have conducted found that by reducing that top 
rate on capital gains, we will, in fact, Mr. Speaker, increase the 
take-home pay for the average working American family by $1,500 per 
year.
  Now, if we look at those facts, it is going to improve the 
opportunity for many. We also, Mr. Speaker, are going to be able to 
increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. When the Steiger 
capital gains tax cut went into place in 1978, we saw a revenue flow of 
about $9 billion. During the next several years, before the 1986 Tax 
Reform Act, we saw the flow of revenues to the Treasury increase by 500 
percent, from $9 billion to $50 billion.
  We had H.R. 14. I wanted it to go first to 14 percent then to zero. 
Democrats and Republicans joined me on that. We have ended up with a 
decent compromise, and I am very proud to support it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark] and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for 
expressing the need for capital gains tax cuts for the working people 
in America, because I think his statement proves that even though this 
is a bipartisan bill, there are basic differences between Democrats and 
Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Tanner].
  (MR. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel] for yielding this time to me.
  This bill before us today is not what I would have written. It is not 
what the group I am associated with, called the Blue Dog Democrats, 
would have written. There is one gaping hole in all of this discussion 
today, unfortunately, and that is entitlement reform.

[[Page H6631]]

  But, nonetheless, I think that democracy is an inconvenience 
sometimes for those of us who serve in the legislative branch of 
government because there are people of good will who have 
intellectually honest differences of opinion as to what should be done 
for our great land. And so democracy is an inconvenience because none 
of us get our way all the time on every issue.
  As I look at this bill, I am reminded of what Winston Churchill said 
one time when someone asked how his wife was; and he said, compared to 
what? Well, we look at this today and say to ourselves, would the 
country be better off with the passage of this Balanced Budget Act and 
this tax bill than it would be if we defeated it? I have concluded, Mr. 
Speaker, that the country will be better off with the passage of this 
tax bill today, notwithstanding the fact that there is much work to be 
done.
  We will hear a lot of rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, about whose fault it was 
that we got where we are, and I would suggest that it is probably like 
a lot of other things: Both sides are about half right and both sides 
are about half wrong. And those who claim that they have the truth and 
those who claim that they are the only ones who have the right answer, 
I would suggest, ought to grant to others who disagree the same degree 
of intellectual honesty they claim for themselves.
  I think, on balance, this is a reasonable bill. It will balance the 
budget in the year 2002 or before. I am convinced of that, and that is 
why I am supporting, as I did yesterday, the spending side, the tax 
bill today, and I would urge our colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House that this is truly a monumental 
bill. It has taken months to produce and it is before us today not 
without an awful lot of effort on the part of many, many people.
  Before we get too far into the debate, I express my thanks to the tax 
staffs of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, and especially, especially the office of the House 
Legislative Counsel, who worked around the clock in drafting to put 
this bill together. These staffs have given of themselves and taken 
time away from their families in order to make this moment available to 
all of us, and they deserve our heartfelt thanks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this tax legislation is 
monumental, and I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this 
time.
  What is exciting is that we are starting to let the American people 
keep a few more dollars of what they earn in their own pockets instead 
of sending it to Washington.
  It seems that we have been under the philosophy that the American 
people should sacrifice in order to send more money to Washington so 
that politicians can spend those dollars. Now at last we are starting 
to acknowledge that it should be Washington who should sacrifice; cut 
down the size of government, find the best, most efficient ways to 
spend less money so that the people who earn that money can keep it in 
their pockets and spend it or save it as they decide.
  As a farmer, I am especially pleased that we have strengthened the 
chances of the survival of the American agricultural industry by 
including several provisions in this tax bill that helps us keep a 
strong, viable agricultural industry; lets farm families keep and 
preserve their farming operations.
  So my thanks to the chairman and all those involved in moving us to 
this new beginning for America and Americans.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
join with the Chair in congratulating not only the staff of both sides 
for working together on this bill, but also including an uncustomary 
third party that has made this bipartisan effort work, and that is the 
President of the United States.
  I think the President made it abundantly clear, and both sides of the 
aisle agreed, that the American people were fed up with the political 
fights. So we join together in thanking the staffs of both sides and 
the President of the United States for making certain that we could get 
this bill passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand here 
and applaud the leadership, especially the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel], for what we have been able to achieve in this bill.
  Clearly, as it left the House originally I would not have been able 
to support it because we had left the real backbone of this economy 
out, the middle income and lower income earners who did not get a 
break. But as we stand here today, there is indeed some equalization 
and fairness in this tax bill that I can truly support.
  It is clear that when people make less money, and they are employees 
primarily, they pay a much more assured leverage of taxes. When we can 
make sure that they get a break, then I know we have accomplished 
something.
  I am not against the wealthy. They really do give a lot to this 
Nation. But all of us know that they have the greatest advantage when 
it comes to paying taxes and they did not just deserve a tax break unto 
themselves. All of America's workers deserved a tax break. And in this 
bill, Mr. Speaker, they get it.
  I appreciate this leadership and the White House and I am willing to 
support this bill today.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the leader of the Democrats in the House of 
Representatives.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, first I rise today to congratulate all who 
were involved in this negotiation. I especially want to congratulate my 
President and my party for standing for very important principles in 
how this tax cut bill was put together. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, 
of what my party stands for and, because of it, this bill has been 
improved.
  The child credit will go to hard-working families who desperately 
need this help. The education credit and deductions will go to help 
more young people go to school. There will be in this bill help for 
children in health care. So I am very, very proud of what my party 
stands for and what we have achieved.
  I believe that the bill that came out of the House gave about 55 
percent of its benefits to families who earn over $110,000 a year. I 
think that has been brought down to about 44 percent. In my view, it is 
not where it should be, but it is clearly better. So this agreement is 
better because we stood on principle.
  I respect the motives of everyone who is here today to argue about 
this bill, Mr. Speaker. Everyone is voting for what in their heart and 
mind is the best thing for their constituents and the best thing for 
the country. So it is in that spirit of humility about my own decisions 
and my own votes and respect for the views of others that I say my 
decision today is to not vote for this bill, because I think it could 
be better and I think it should be better.
  Back in 1981, I remember sitting right here after we had lost our 
effort to pass what I thought was a better Democratic tax bill and 
wondering what I would do. I voted for the Republican bill. In 
retrospect, I believe it was one of the worst votes I have ever cast 
because of what it did to the economy and what it did to the deficit. 
So my views today are tempered by that experience.
  But let me spend the rest of my time, Mr. Speaker, explaining to 
really my friends in the Republican Party why I feel this bill and this 
budget has a deficit of fairness, a deficit of investment and a deficit 
of dollars.

                              {time}  1200

  Let me explain to my colleagues why we Democrats feel so strongly 
about where the lion's share of this bill should be focused. Last 
weekend I went door to door in my district. The median household income 
in my district is $34,000. When I talked to my constituents in South 
St. Louis city and county, in Jefferson County, what person after 
person said to me is, ``I am struggling. I am just getting by. I am 
just surviving. I am up to my eyeballs in credit card debt.''
  This is the first tax cut that we have been able to legislate in 16 
years. Let

[[Page H6632]]

us remember the context in which we are talking today. Over those last 
16 years, people at the top have seen their incomes go up by 90 
percent. Those constituents that I talked to over the weekend have been 
stuck in place or they are falling behind. They have seen no increase 
in their income, and they are working harder and longer to overcome 
that problem, more hours, more jobs. People said to me, ``I am working 
two and three jobs in order to pay my bills.''
  So we in the Democratic Party feel strongly that people in the 
middle, people stuck on the bottom are the people that we need to be 
dealing with, with the majority of this tax cut.
  Now, understand our friends on the other side say, ``well, let us 
give the tax cut to the people who pay taxes.'' That is what they 
always say. The truth is people in the middle and at the bottom pay a 
lot of taxes. And we have always had a progressive tax system. That is, 
you pay proportionate to your ability to pay taxes.
  This bill will make the Tax Code, unfortunately, less progressive. 
But let us talk about the economics of it for a moment. And this is 
where we must part. I am a Democrat. I am a supply-sider, but I am as 
much a demand-sider. Why is it smart to have a progressive tax system? 
Why is it smart to give the bulk of the tax relief to people at the 
middle and stuck on the bottom? Because they need the help, it is fair, 
but because they need the money to spend in the economy.
  What do the economists always talk about when they talk if we can 
keep the economy growing? It is because, they say, if we can keep 
retail demand going. What do we think people in the middle and at the 
bottom do with the money they earn? They go to Wal-Mart. They go to K-
Mart. They go to Sears. They spend their money. And because they spend 
their money, if they have more money, all the boats can rise. People at 
the top can rise in their income. People in the middle. People in the 
bottom.
  I am a Democrat. I believe in building this economy from the bottom 
up, not the top down. I believe our work over the last years in making 
the Code more progressive has helped produce an economy where we are 
surging forward and jobs are being created and unemployment is down.
  Finally, let me say this: I am a tax reformer. I believe we ought to 
get less deductions and exemptions and special treatment. I think we 
need to get to lower rates for everybody. This bill today will add the 
greatest loophole. We will now take the rate for people that can figure 
out how to get their income in capital rather than in earnings, or 
earned income salary, to half the rate of other people. We are moving 
in the opposite direction of what we tried to accomplish in 1986. We 
should not be doing that.
  Let me end with this: As I get it, this debate will go forward. Our 
friends on the other side have said a tax cut next year and a tax cut 
the year after that and the year after that. I welcome this debate. I 
welcome this debate. This is a good debate for our country. They will 
stand for what they believe in. We will stand for what we believe in. 
And the country will do better because of it.
  I respect my friends on the other side and their views. I strongly 
disagree with their views, with all of the best intentions. I think 
they are trying to do what is right for the country and the people. But 
let me say to them that, in this debate which goes forward, Democrats 
are for cutting taxes for middle-income people and people trying to get 
in the middle class.
  I have heard the Christian Coalition in parts of their party that are 
raising that issue within their party. They are right to do it. Let us 
go forward with this debate. Let us make this Tax Code fair. But, most 
important, let us invest our money in the hard-working, middle-income 
families of this country and help them succeed and help move this 
country and lift all the boats of this country to higher and higher 
levels.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Weller], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a brief moment at the 
beginning of my remarks just to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, for his 
leadership in managing this very important component of the Contract 
with America and also very important component for bipartisan agreement 
to balance the budget for the first time in 28 years.
  This is a great victory for the middle class. It is a great victory 
for those who work hard and play by the rules and pay taxes, because 
this legislation we are voting on today is the first real tax relief 
for the middle class in 16 years.
  For the people that I represent in the South Side of Chicago and 
south suburbs of Chicago and rural areas to the south and southwest if 
they have children, for the average family with children in the 
district that I represent, it means an extra $1,000 in take-home pay. 
Over 110,000 children are eligible for the child tax credit that is in 
this legislation. It is important to families, and because we, as 
Republicans, believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you 
should be able to keep more of what you earn.
  Because we believe, if you work hard and you keep what you earn, it 
is because we believe that you should be able to spend those dollars 
better back home, meeting the needs of your families better than we 
politicians can here in Washington. This bill is a victory for the 
working middle class, and I am proud to support this legislation.
  I also want to note that there are three key components in this 
legislation that are initiatives that are strongly embraced by the 
people I represent in the south suburbs, part of a south suburban 
revitalization strategy, legislation designed to provide incentives to 
revitalize and clean up environmental cleanup of old industrial sites 
in old industrial communities, initiative to encourage the private 
sector to hire welfare recipients and give them a chance and give them 
a job, and also initiative to strengthen the opportunity for 
homeownership with homeownership IRA's.
  The work opportunity tax credit works as a way of attracting the 
private sector to give welfare recipients an opportunity to have a job. 
And I am proud this bipartisan initiative is included in this bill.
  My colleagues of the House, I again commend the chairman. I again 
commend the bipartisan effort. I urge support of this important 
legislation that helps the middle class.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel] for his work on the conference report. The bill 
that we are going to vote on today is far different than the partisan 
Republican bill that passed this House just a few months ago. Let me 
give my colleagues five changes, and there are many more, why this bill 
is a much better bill than we had when it passed the House originally.
  First: In regard to the child credit, we have changed the child 
credit so that now working families that make $30,000 a year can 
benefit from the child credit. That was not the case when the bill left 
this House.
  Reason No. 2: The estate tax provisions are targeted to give most of 
the relief to families that have small businesses or farmers. That is a 
major improvement that I congratulate my colleague on.
  Third: the education relief. When the bill left this House, it 
provided relief for the first and second year of a college education, 
but no more. We have now provided relief for college education beyond 
just the first 2 years and have provided relief for interest costs to 
those who had to borrow money to send their children to college. And we 
protected the tuition waiver program so employers can provide education 
help to families. Major improvement from when this bill left the House.
  Fourth reason: The initiatives for the brownfield that will help our 
cities, empowerment zone that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] 
was responsible initially to get through this House have now been 
incorporated into the bill that we will vote on today. Major 
improvement.
  Fifth reason: The gentleman has modified the IRA proposals, got rid 
of

[[Page H6633]]

indexing of capital gains so that we do not have exploding deficits in 
the future.
  We now have a bipartisan bill that, with the bill that we passed 
yesterday, will balance the budget and protect the priorities that are 
important for the future growth of our Nation. I congratulate the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] because we now have a bipartisan 
bill that deserves the support of this House. I intend to support it.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], another member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, Mr. 
Collins, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult for professional politicians to 
do this, but I would challenge Members on both sides who are career 
office holders to leave the spin cycle in the laundry room.
  The fact is it is time, Mr. Speaker, for straight talk with the 
American people. And the fact is that we have made an important first 
step with this legislation. Is it perfect? No. Does everybody get 
everything they want? Absolutely not. But to try and keep scores, as if 
this were the partisan baseball game the other night, I just think is 
something we should leave alone.
  Because this is not a game; this is about living, breathing, working 
people. Like the working couple from Casa Grande, AZ, who sent me a 
letter via fax, the Wilkins family, Barney and Margie. They are 
schoolteachers. Their kids are B.J., Megan, and Molly.
  Barney and Margie work hard at teaching school. They are not rich 
although some people have estimates that say that their combined income 
would make them rich. In fact, they have a third job. They supply auto 
parts for vintage cars and go to vintage and classic car shows on the 
weekend.
  They write me and they say, ``Congressman, thanks for this 19th 
wedding anniversary gift.'' I do not mean to pick at their sentiment 
here, but this is not really a gift to them or a gift to the American 
people. Because the money that the American people earn is their money. 
They ought to keep more of it and send less of it to Washington.
  The challenge is, and this is where we differ in good faith is this 
notion, why should families sacrifice to send more of their money to 
Washington? Why not let families keep more of their money and let 
Washington make the sacrifice? The P.S. is the most important thing. 
``P.S., please continue to cut taxes more so we do not have to work 
three jobs.''
  Mr. Speaker, we are making that first step today to cut taxes, to 
reward Americans who work hard. That is the key to this debate, and 
that is why I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is not a fight about whether there should 
be a tax cut. It is a fight about who gets it. There is much in this 
bill I support. It is a far better bill than the House originally 
passed.
  I was an original sponsor of the child tax credit, which is contained 
in this bill. I support the education tax credits and child health 
provisions. But I would remind my colleagues that the fundamental test 
of any democracy is to fund its activities through a tax system which 
is fair to each and every one of our citizens. Because this is, after 
all, a volunteer compliance tax system.
  We fought a revolution over the principle of fair taxes. This bill, I 
am sorry to say, fails that test.
  The most well-off 5 percent of families in the country who make over 
$110,000 will get seven times as much relief as all of the 60 percent 
of Americans who make less than $37,000. That is simply not fair.
  In fact, the wealthiest 1 percent of our citizens, who make more than 
$250,000 a year, will get more in tax relief than 80 percent of all 
Americans who make $60,000 or less. That is simply not fair. We can do 
better.
  Then if we take a look at the dollar relief in the bill, we see that 
the top 1 percent, whose average income is $650,000, will get a $16,000 
tax break under this bill. But if you are in the middle bracket, if you 
are in the middle bracket, you will get about $3 a week and you lose 
half of that because of what it costs you to get a tax preparer.
  If you are among the poorest 20 percent, you will lose $39. You will 
actually have a tax increase of $39.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I do not have anybody in my district that 
makes $645,000 a year, but could the gentleman tell me, do they work a 
lot harder in the gentleman's district than say that group of people 
down a couple who only make $70,000? Is that what happens in Wisconsin 
to those folks in the gentleman's district?
  Mr. OBEY. Not in mine.
  Mr. STARK. Does the gentleman suppose they inherited most of their 
money, what they are getting, $645,000?
  Mr. OBEY. I have no idea. All I know is that this distribution is not 
fair. We can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, the other problem with this proposal is that it is based 
upon promises that in the next 5 years we are going to cut the Social 
Security Administration by 25 percent, that we are going to cut 
community development by 30 percent, that we are going to cut veterans' 
benefits by 20 percent over the next 5 years. I do not believe that 
Members of either party will vote for those kind of reductions when 
those budgets come to the floor. That is why the claim that this budget 
is going to produce a balanced budget is built on a false promise.
  In short, in terms of a fair distribution of tax benefits to our 
people, in terms of an honest description of how they are paid for, 
this bill I regret to say fails both tests. We can do better. I urge a 
vote against this bill until we do.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the chairman of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, it is really happening: the first time in 
30 years we are actually going to balance the Federal budget. The first 
time in a few years we are going to save Medicare and extend the life 
of the trust fund for 10 years. We took those votes yesterday.
  Today we are going to provide tax relief for the American people, the 
first tax cut from Washington in 16 years. We all know that reducing 
taxes is going to mean lower interest rates for the American people, it 
is going to mean more jobs for the American people and, most 
importantly, it is going to mean higher wages for American families.
  These are the kind of values that we have been fighting for for 
years, trying to bring real relief to middle class American families. 
When we talk about lower interest rates, more jobs, higher wages, 
sometimes people think these are terms that economists use. Let us 
think for a moment about what these bills that we passed yesterday and 
today really mean.
  A balanced budget and tax cuts mean that it is going to be easier for 
families to go out and buy a home. It is going to be easier for 
families to send their kids on to college. A balanced budget and tax 
cuts mean that it is going to be easier for people to go out, who want 
to start a new business, to get that first start. It is going to be 
easier for every American to have a shot at the American dream.
  That is really what we are trying to do here today and over the last 
couple of years, is to renew the American dream for our kids and 
theirs. Over these last 2\1/2\ years, it is not what we have done just 
yesterday and today, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, saving 
Medicare, it has been issues like ending entitlements for farmers and 
allowing the market to take place, allowing farmers to decide what they 
are going to plant on their land.
  It is welfare reform, allowing the States to help those at the bottom 
of the economic ladder to become productive members of our society. It 
is illegal immigration reform. It has been health care reform. It has 
been eliminating 300 wasteful Washington programs, saving $53 billion. 
And, Mr. Speaker, this is just a good start.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.

[[Page H6634]]

  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel] for yielding this time and for his hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. As a long time member of that committee, I have taken some very 
tough votes. In fact, in 1990 I took two tough votes for the 1990 
budget. In 1993 I really did not like a lot of things in that budget 
but I knew when the President became the President, President Clinton, 
because there was a $290 billion deficit, I had to vote for that bill 
if we were going to reduce that deficit. So it is a great pleasure to 
vote this week to finish the job and balance the budget for the first 
time in this generation.
  But I also want to thank the conferees on both sides of the aisle for 
listening to those of us who have worked on the Tax Code for a number 
of years. When the Ways and Means bill first appeared, there were many 
of us who were very, very concerned. We had worked for many, many years 
on the earned income tax credit. We had worked for years working to get 
a dependent day care credit for men and women who work and have 
families, and for the first time, all of a sudden we were going to see 
some of that day care credit we had worked so hard for disappear if 
they took the child credit.
  We found out that we could convince conferees that this would not be 
fair because most people go to work because they want that house or 
they want that education, and they need that help, even if they have 
got two salaries, in paying for good affordable quality day care.
  Millions of families, as we well know because we had a battle royal 
for the last month over the earned income tax credit, and I do want to 
commend the conferees for realizing that if they pay Federal payroll 
tax, it is paying to the Federal Government and it is just as good and 
just as hard as if they pay income tax. I really feel good about that 
piece.
  Unfortunately, we were not able to fix the AMT child credit problem, 
and I just said to Ken Kies, ``You've got a lifetime of work because 
you're the only one that's going to understand exactly what we did 
do.'' In fact, we have added a lot of complexity to that bill, and we 
will all be back hopefully next fall trying to fix this bill.
  But we should celebrate what we have right now where two groups came 
together, capital gains yes, indexing no, earned income tax credit yes, 
and yes for almost everybody. I vote for this bill and hope a lot of 
other Members will, and I know they will.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. English], another distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this tax relief package. In most respects this package is similar to 
what the Committee on Ways and Means passed last month. It provides 
significant relief to working taxpayers and middle class taxpayers who 
are facing the highest tax burden in American history.
  Many of us who were elected in 1994 came to Congress pledged to 
reduce the tax burden on middle class taxpayers and people who work for 
a living. Today we stand on the brink finally of fulfilling that 
pledge. This will be the first tax cut for the middle class since 1981, 
and not a moment too soon.
  This is not as large a tax cut as many of us on the Republican side 
had originally argued for, but the net tax cut of $94 billion is more 
than the White House was originally willing to subscribe to. That we 
have it here today is a tribute to the persistence of a pro-growth, 
antitax majority in this House which I am proud to be associated with.
  Our tax cut includes a child tax credit to provide tax relief to 
families with incomes as low as $18,000; tuition tax relief which makes 
college more affordable for a lot of middle class families; an expanded 
IRA to encourage retirement savings; a capital gains tax cut to 
stimulate growth and opportunity by providing more seed corn for the 
economy; and I think this is a tribute to the persistence of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] as well, small business tax 
relief and also tax incentives for home ownership.
  Mr. Speaker, in summary, this tax package for working families in 
places like Erie, PA means restoring the American dream and making it a 
little more achievable. This is a big win for the middle class. Today 
we are going to hear from the left wing in Congress that this bill is 
inadequate. They do not want tax cuts. But watch your tax return. If 
you are a middle class taxpayer, this tax cut is for you.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Are you confused? Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of people 
listening to this debate over the last 2 days are. They should be. In 
fact this legislation is designed to confuse the process, rushing this 
through before Congress's month-long vacation, is designed to obscure 
the truth.
  The truth is yesterday Congress adopted very substantial cuts in 
Medicare, cuts in reimbursements, cuts that will drive up premiums for 
seniors, cuts that will deprive seniors of home health oxygen benefits, 
and today they are using the proceeds of those cuts to fund huge tax 
breaks, $275 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years, tax breaks 
that will double the deficit by the year 1999. Yes, that is right. The 
balanced budget agreement before us today will double the deficit over 
the next 2 years, and that is from the Republican-controlled 
Congressional Budget Office. It will probably more than double the 
deficit over the next 2 years. A strange path to fiscal responsibility.
  What underlays this whole thing? Tax cuts slanted toward the very 
wealthy, repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax; an 
embarrassing time in the mid-1980's when Ronald Reagan supported 
imposing a corporate alternative minimum tax, as the largest 
corporations of this country were getting refunds for taxes they did 
not pay. We are going back to that. We will all pay taxes so 
corporations can get refunds for taxes they do not pay.
  Capital gains. Look at the distribution right here. The largest 
amount of money, 44 percent of the benefits, go to the top 5 percent, 
those earning over $112,000. If you are in over $112,000, cheer, right 
now, OK. If are in the bottom 60 percent, families making less than 
$36,000 a year, that is most of my constituents, those are the people 
who most need tax relief, look at what that large number of people, 60 
percent of the population are going to rake in: 7 percent of the 
benefits. What a great day for middle income America. Forty-four 
percent for those privileged few at the top and 7 percent for the rest.
  Mr. Speaker, this point cannot be made too many times in this debate. 
This is being rushed through unnecessarily so people will not 
understand the facts. They will say that 75 percent of the benefits are 
going to people who earn under $75,000 a year. That is simply not true. 
We are engaged here in the big lie.
  The big lie is that this is going to balance the budget. It will not. 
We have statistics now that show it will double the deficit in the next 
2 years. What they are saying is magically in 2001 Congress will come 
here and decide to cut $61 billion out of discretionary programs. That 
means cut the entire Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of 
Energy, Department of Housing, Social Security Administration, and the 
Justice Department.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman tell me, are we still going 
to build the B-2 bomber and is defense going to go up?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We cannot cut a penny out of the Pentagon and we are 
going to build 20 B-2 bombers.
  Mr. STARK. We are still going to take money out of people's pockets 
and spend it here in Washington.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. STARK. Just not on things that help people.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. But in a way to enrich contractors, not to enrich those 
people at the bottom.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], another member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and a strong advocate for working families.

[[Page H6635]]

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the taxpayer relief act of 1997. This bill provides much-needed tax 
relief for hardworking American families.
  After 28 years of chronic deficit spending, we are finally getting 
our fiscal house in order. The bill before us today, coupled with 
yesterday's entitlement reforms, proves that it is possible to balance 
the budget, cut taxes, and meet critical needs of our people like the 
needs of uninsured children for health insurance.
  In this bill we are taking giant strides to help families afford 
college educations through education savings accounts, HOPE 
scholarships, reduced taxes for families paying for tuition in advance, 
and a student loan interest deduction for all those young people who 
are struggling to repay the high cost of going to college. We have 
taken a giant step forward toward making post-high school education 
affordable for all: young people straight out of high school, mothers 
going back to work after being out of the workforce for a number of 
years, and workers whose employers pay for their education. Today's 
economy demands that young people learn well and that working people 
keep their skills and knowledge up to date. This bill goes a long way 
in helping each of us realize our greatest potential, and so our 
dreams.
  For families this bill offers a $500 tax credit for each child 16 and 
under, health care for kids whose parents work for small businesses 
unable to provide health insurance to their employees, educational 
opportunity, greater retirement security for our teachers and others 
who work for public employers. It also offers a shot in the arm to our 
economy, to build the base for continued long-term growth, making 
machinery and equipment more affordable, encouraging the research and 
development that can keep our companies product leaders in the market, 
relief for small businesses, and hope for family-owned businesses that 
they can survive mom and dad's passing.

                              {time}  1230

  This is a good bill for people, a good bill for the economy, and I 
urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997, providing much-needed relief for hard-working American families.
  After 28 years of chronic deficit spending, we are finally getting 
our fiscal house in order. The bill before us today, coupled with 
yesterday's entitlement reforms, proves that it is possible to balance 
the budget and provide tax cuts to America's families and meet critical 
needs of our people, like health care for uninsured children.
  In this bill we are taking great strides forward to help families to 
afford college educations--through education savings accounts, HOPE 
scholarships, reduced taxes for families paying for tuition advance, 
and student loan interest deduction for all these young people 
struggling to repay the high cost of going to college.
  We have taken a giant step toward making a post-high school education 
affordable for all, young people straight out of high school, mothers 
going back to school after being out of the work force for a number of 
years and workers whose employers pay for their educations. Today's 
economy demands that young people learn well and working people keep 
their skills and knowledge up-to-date. This bill goes a long way in 
helping each of us realize our greatest potential--and so, our dreams.
  For families, this bill offers a $500 tax credit for children 16 and 
under, health care for kids whose parents work for small businesses 
unable to provide health insurance to their employees, educational 
opportunity, greater retirement security for teachers and others who 
work for public employers.
  It also offers a shot in the arm to our economy to build the base for 
continued, long-term growth--making machinery and equipment more 
affordable, encouraging the research and development that can keep our 
companies product leaders in the market, relief for small business, and 
hope for the family owned business that they can survive Dad or Mom's 
passing. For the first time, this bill recognizes the special role of 
family farms and businesses by creating separate, higher exemption for 
those estates. This will enable more family farms and businesses to be 
passed down to the next generation successfully.
  This is a good bill for people, for families, and for our economy. 
It's good tax policy and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party has stood for economic 
growth with equity. The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act worked in both 
respects, promoting the dramatic deficit reduction that has been a 
major source of our sustained economic growth and providing a tax cut 
for low- and middle-income families through expansion of the ITC, and 
the predictions of economic doom from those who opposed the 1993 act 
came from many of the same people who voted for the 1981 legislation 
that led to the deep deficits of the 1980's. Time has proved them as 
wrong as to 1993 as it did for 1981.
  The tax bill now before us shows that today it does indeed take two 
to tango, but that does not mean the two partners have always been 
dancing in the same direction. Democrats have focused on responding to 
the pressures on middle- and low-income families whose income stagnated 
amidst the general boom of the last 5 years, while many of the majority 
have been dancing too often to the tune of the very wealthy, and 
Democrats have been resisting proposals that would bust budget in later 
years while the majority has been pushing some of the same approaches 
that engendered the deficits of the 1980's.
  So we Democrats worked with President Clinton to target the child tax 
credit to middle-income families, to provide help for families with 
escalating costs to educate their kids after high school and to provide 
the child credit for hard-working families making $18 to $15,000 as 
well as those making $25 to $100,000.
  In this strenuous effort on the tax bill we have lost some battles, 
but we have also won some vital ones. As a result, today I am voting 
for this tax bill.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sent to Congress in 1993 by the people of the 
Third District of Georgia with a very specific list of legislative 
goals. The budget agreement negotiated between the Congress and the 
President includes many of those goals. With the passage of the Tax 
Relief Act, we will successfully have achieved many reforms on behalf 
of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, today's vote is the result of months and months of 
diligent work in an effort to assemble a budget that the American 
people deserve. It is the product of a grassroots campaign where input, 
ideas, and priorities have been gathered not only from Georgia, but 
from people all across the country.
  This measure will put in law their priorities, which include 
balancing the Federal budget, providing tax relief to working families, 
and creating incentives for people to invest. It returns physical 
responsibility to Government by balancing the Federal budget just as 
families must balance their budget. Most important, this bill will 
leave $94 billion in the private sector, where working people will be 
able to keep more of their hard-earned dollars and small business 
owners will have the chance to invest and create jobs.
  Today success is not a victory that can be solely claimed by the 
Congress or the President. It is instead a victory for the people of 
this country who sent their representatives to Congress to cut taxes, 
reduce the size of the bureaucracy, and return fiscal responsibility to 
the Federal Government. The $500 per child tax credit, capital gains 
tax relief, reduction of the estate tax, tax incentives that reduce the 
cost of education, preservation of the Medicare commitments we made to 
our seniors and relief from the alternative minimum tax all are reform 
ideas that clearly reflect the priorities of the citizens all across 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I am humbled by the opportunity and proud to support 
this Tax Relief Act and believe it is a victory for the hard-working 
people of this country.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], a great American, someone that has been so 
helpful in making certain that we got here on the floor today, and the 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to

[[Page H6636]]

me and for his compliment, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note, as I 
did yesterday, the reason we are here near the passage of a major tax 
cut bill.
  In 1993, we dealt with the deficit and dealt with it squarely on both 
sides of the ledger, revenues and spending, and today we reap the 
benefits of what we sowed. Because of what we did in 1993 the deficit 
has come down 5 years in a row; it is down to at least less than $40 
billion this year, and that is phenomenal. It happened because we 
capped discretionary spending, we applied a pay-as-you-go rule to 
entitlements and tax cuts, and we restored the revenue base of the 
Federal Government. Corporate tax revenues, for example, were up last 
year by $72 billion, more than 70 percent over 1992.
  The reason we were able to pull together yesterday's spending bill 
and today's tax bill is that on May 1 CBO finally agreed with OMB that 
the Government's revenue tax increases are not episodic, not 1-year 
phenomena, they are permanent. These are permanent phenomena, such that 
over the next 5 years CBO was willing to add $225 billion, all 
together, to its revenue estimates. That made today possible and 
yesterday as well.
  And having come this far, our goal is clear. We want to balance the 
budget and finish what we have started. We want to do tax cuts, sure we 
do, but we want to do them in a way that we achieve a balanced budget 
in 2002 and thereafter. That is why we decided in the balanced budget 
agreement to keep our tax cuts within strict limits, $85 billion in net 
revenue losses over the next 5 years, $250 billion in net revenue 
losses over the next 10.
  When this bill left the House it was outside those limits, and in the 
outyears it threatened revenue losses that would have undermined a 
balanced budget for the long run. It was also tilted to top bracket 
taxpayers. It made room for a double-barrelled capital gains tax cut 
with both a low rate and indexing, but it could not find room for a 
child tax credit for families with 2 or 3 children making less than 
$30,000.
  I voted against that bill, but I will vote for this one, and I do not 
agree with everything in it, but I think it comes from conference to us 
in far better shape than it left the House, and let me give my 
colleagues just three examples.
  First of all, the children's tax credit which we all supported now 
goes to families who need it the most, families with 2 children or 3 
children or more who work hard but earn less than $18,000 a year. It 
would have been unconscionable to pass something called a child tax 
credit and leave those families and 9.5 million children out. Democrats 
fought to get them in, we prevailed, and we should be proud of that.
  The tuition tax credit which the President made the centerpiece of 
his tax cuts, which we as Democrats all of us heartily support, now it 
will not stop in midstream after the first 2 years in college as it did 
in the House bill. Once again we prevailed. This bill has a credit that 
will apply to the third year and fourth year and graduate education, a 
20-percent tax credit of tuition expenses.
  And the capital gains tax which the Republicans wanted is their piece 
of the pie. It is in this bill too, but unlike the House bill, this 
bill does not stack one preference on top of another. A lower capital 
gains rate is in, but indexation is out, and by taking it out we have 
taken out a time bomb that would have caused revenue losses to explode 
in the outyears, undercutting our whole objective, which was to balance 
the budget in 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, frankly I would have held off the tax cuts until we had 
our bird in hand, a balanced budget. But I believe this tax bill is 
consistent with our objective of balancing the budget by 2002, and I 
know this, it is much fairer than the tax bill that we passed in the 
House just a few weeks ago. It is fairer for hard-working Americans who 
need tax relief and deserve it, much fairer than the first bill. That 
is why I intend to vote for it.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Today we celebrate an important achievement by the Congress and the 
White House. But most importantly, we celebrate a victory for the 
American people. Yesterday in the spending bill we celebrated balancing 
the budget for the first time in 30 years, saving Medicare, which is so 
important for health care for our seniors. But today we celebrate with 
the American people receiving tax relief for the first time in 16 
years. Working families in mid-Michigan and across America who are 
raising children and saving for their education will receive not only a 
$500-per-child credit, but also tax relief to help pay for the rising 
costs of tuition.
  I represent a primarily rural district in the middle part of 
Michigan, and for millions of farmers across the country and many 
farmers in my district this tax relief bill means a better chance of 
continuing to do what they love to do, and that is feed our Nation and 
the world. It also provides the opportunity to pass on the farm to the 
next generation, and many farmers in my district are second and third 
generation farmers. With this bill farmers will get tax relief from 
capital gains tax, and farming is heavily capital intensive, and also 
relief from death taxes that often force families to give up family 
farms in order to pay the IRS. We are providing family farmers with 
relief by providing income averaging to try to level the peaks and 
valleys that often come with unreliable weather and crop years, and 
that will help with their tax bills.
  Mr. Speaker, family farmers in mid-Michigan are tired of knowing the 
IRS is waiting to claim a huge share of their efforts. With this bill 
we deliver real tax relief that will lead to the opportunity for 
greater prosperity and a higher quality of life on the family farm and 
in the homes of all Americans.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. MCDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are today dealing with a tax bill that 
I think if people are watching this they would have trouble figuring 
out where everybody is coming from. Some people, the majority, believe 
that this is the best tax bill since sliced bread. Some of the 
Democrats say, well, we took a bad tax bill and made it a little bit 
better. But there are some of us who think that this bill is so bad 
that it ought to go down because it is not fair, it is not fair enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of 
both the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader, 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], but I will give my 
colleagues a couple specifics. Let us take a woman who has two kids who 
makes $35,000 and teaches school.
  Now she pays 15 percent of her income in FICA taxes and then is taxed 
at the 15 percent rate beyond that. Somewhere around $7,500 to $10,000 
of her income goes in taxes out of a $35,000 income.
  Now let us take and contrast somebody who makes $200,000 in unearned 
income; that is, they invest in the stock market and they make 
$200,000. Under this bill they will be taxed at a 20 percent rate; the 
schoolteacher at a 30 percent rate; the unearned income at a 20-percent 
rate because the person earning their income in capital gains pays no 
FICA tax, no FICA tax.
  Now in my view that is unfair. The person making $200,000, taxed at a 
20-percent rate under this bill will pay $40,000 in taxes.
  Now let us get to the tax breaks. Here is the woman. She has paid 
$10,000 in taxes. She gets $1,000 back, $500 for each one of her kids. 
The person making $200,000 and paying 20 percent has two kids, so he 
gets $1,000 back.
  Is that fair to a woman raising two kids, making $35,000, paying 30 
percent of her income in taxes and getting $1,000 back and somebody who 
makes $200,000 worth of unearned income, and they get $1,000?

                              {time}  1245

  That is not fair. Mr. Speaker, the unfairness of this I think is only 
one of the problems. As I listen to people speak here, I continually 
believe that the Contract With America's idea of term limits is buried 
under all of this.
  An awful lot of people who are voting for this today are voting 
politically

[[Page H6637]]

correct when they vote yes, but they are not thinking long term. They 
do not expect to be here in 2005 or 2006 when the real impact of this 
bill comes to rest on the American people.
  Today's New York Times on the editorial page, page 21, says ``The 
deal's long-term effect has economists uneasy.'' When these capital 
gains cuts and these estate tax and all the other cuts come to full 
pressure on the economy, we will be facing the baby boomers going into 
their senior years with no capacity, because we have dug a hole in the 
revenue side. We will not be able to deal with their problems.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is it not true 
that we are not really going to have the budget balanced for 3 or 4 
years, 3 or 4 years from now when it finally comes to balance, and if 
we had no bill yesterday and did not do this tax bill today, we would 
balance this year or next?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct.
  Mr. STARK. And then after that, under the Republican bill, do we not 
have deficits that just zoom right down to below zero?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that ultimately the 
deficit will go back up again because of these tax breaks. If we had 
let the situation alone, the situation that was created in 1993 by the 
tax bill which we passed, and incidentally, people stand out here and 
say we are making all these great tax cuts. They have not changed in 
this bill one single provision from 1993. The bill that set us on the 
path that has gotten us in the good situation we are in today so we can 
talk about tax breaks, not a single provision of that has been 
repealed.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, do not higher deficits that the Republicans 
are giving us with these bills lead to higher interest rates?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. That is what Mr. Greenspan says.
  Mr. STARK. So if this family around $30,000, $40,000, savings $200, 
and a family at $150,000 to $600,000 saves $10,000 or $15,000, that 
$200 is going to be eaten up in higher interest rates, and the people 
with capital gains in the stock market are going to have all the profit 
out of this bill?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. There is no question, their credit card debt is going 
to go up.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Portman], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia, for yielding time to me.
  I want to start by commending the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bill 
Archer, because he held firm and worked in a bipartisan way with the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel, and others to ensure that 
hard-working Americans are going to get their first tax break in 16 
years. They deserve it.
  What is truly remarkable about this, of course, is we are doing it 
despite what we might hear from the other side in the context of a 
balanced budget. A lot of these tax relief provisions are going to help 
us get to that balanced budget, because they will help grow the 
economy.
  It is a sound package overall. I certainly support it. What does 
concern me about the package is that we did not do more in it to 
simplify the Tax Code for taxpayers and for the already troubled 
Internal Revenue Service that is supposed to administer all the things 
we have passed here on the Hill.
  Let me be clear, there are some simplification provisions in this 
bill. We need to talk about those. One is it that most people do not 
have to worry about capital gains when they sell their homes. That is 
an enormous benefit for taxpayers and a great simplification.
  We also get rid of some of the worst aspects of the corporate 
alternative minimum tax. That is important for tax simplification. AMT 
relief will help create jobs in this country.
  Finally, we take away a lot of unnecessary and costly regulations in 
the State and local pension plans. That is also in this bill. That is a 
good simplification measure.
  To be fair, there are a number of things here that add to the 
complexity; last-minute revisions in the child tax credit, for instance 
that makes it refundable and in various ways adds enormous complexity. 
We would have to face up to it, too, that some of the IRA proposals 
cannot be deemed simplification. But again, I support reducing the tax 
burden.
  This is a good package. I commend particularly the chairman for 
standing firm and making sure we got real relief. But I do think we 
missed an opportunity. We missed an opportunity to simplify the Tax 
Code. Now I think the next step should be as a Congress to make this 
code fairer, flatter, and simpler. That is the next thing we need to do 
for America, for all of the taxpayers, for the Internal Revenue 
Service, and for the tax system generally.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a colloquy with my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], ranking member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  It is my understanding that the number of empowerment zones will be 
expanded through the passage of this legislation. As we know, HUD has 
found 2 empowerment zones and 11 enterprise communities, including 
Norfolk, VA in my district, to be the most successful in meeting the 
performance milestones. Those milestones include initiating and 
implementing job training programs, recruiting unemployed individuals 
into both job training and education programs, increasing the number of 
new businesses in the region, and creating new jobs.
  In order to reward communities for these efforts, should these 
successful enterprise communities be given priority consideration for 
designation as empowerment zones?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I say this to the gentleman from Virginia; I 
was the original sponsor of the initial enterprise and empowerment 
zones, and also the latest bill which expands them. While it was not 
included in the Republican bill, it is in the bipartisan bill.
  As the gentleman well knows, communities have to file and show their 
proposals before they are selected by HUD. It makes a lot of sense that 
those enterprise communities who have done more than have a plan, but 
demonstrated a success with those plans, should be given priority as we 
move forward in the next round of selecting the new empowerment zones 
and the additional enterprise communities.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that comment, and 
look forward to Norfolk being given that consideration, because it has 
done such a good job through Norfolk Works and other programs such as 
that.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. Mr. 
Speaker, H.R. 2014 cuts taxes by over $100 billion in 5 years and 
almost $300 billion over 10 years. Those are massive cuts, and if this 
Congress had the gumption to legislate with long-term interests in 
mind, we might have scrapped these cuts entirely and used the so-called 
savings to balance the Medicare trust fund, which we have not done. We 
could have made Medicare solvent well past 2020 had we not entertained 
this amazing tax bill.
  Who gets the cuts? Half the cuts go the richest 5 percent of 
Americans, those with over $150,000 in income. The richest 20 percent 
gets 75 percent of the benefit, the top 35 percent get huge benefits, 
the bottom 60 percent get 7 percent of the benefits.
  Compare that with the richest 1 percent with average incomes of 
$645,000. They are getting $16,000 every year in benefits out of this. 
The lowest 20 percent of the people in the low-income class are going 
to pay $39 a year more taxes. Those are the very people that the 
Republicans and the President and his welfare bill have cut off the 
rolls. Those are the people they are dumping on. That is not 
Christianity, that is greed. That is awful, to take the poorest 
Americans, deny them the assistance we have all tried to give them, and 
then increase their taxes, on top of it.
  There is no magic in projecting who benefits from this bill. When we 
target

[[Page H6638]]

$35 billion of estate tax relief, we end up helping those 2 percent or 
3 percent of Americans who have huge estates and obviously incompetent 
children who cannot afford the business, and to pay it off with the 
generous terms we already give them. When we cut capital gains from a 
maximum of 28 to 20 percent or even 18 percent, we help the most 
affluent Americans.
  We should not be reluctant to question whether it is fair to give 
massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while those at the 
bottom pay an increase in excise taxes. The rich make out better than 
everyone else.
  Special interests are also making out like the Beltway bandits who 
represent them. According to the Joint Committee, this bill contains 80 
items which are highlighted as required by the line-item veto law 
because they give tax benefits to 100 taxpayers or less, and create a 
special transition relief for 10 taxpayers or less in any particular 
year. This ought to be embarrassing, to have this list appear in a bill 
that is rushed to the floor so quickly.
  Members of Congress have not had time to examine those items. I am 
not saying that all these provisions are bad. I am saying that this 
list should have been a red light for this Congress to delay the bill 
until our reservations could be addressed.
  For instance, it gives Amtrak a $2.3 billion tax break, which no 
other company enjoys. I support Amtrak, but I am troubled that we 
tucked away a provision to give a $2.3 billion relief to Amtrak without 
having discussed it in Appropriations.
  Another provision gives Amway a break for two of their Asian 
affiliates. According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Richard 
DeVos, Amway's founder, donated $500,000 to the Republican Party. Now, 
in July, his company gets a tax break thrown into the conference report 
that neither the House nor Senate approved. This is the tax fairy who 
appeared in the middle of the night, giving Amway this huge benefit 
after they contributed $500,000 in contributions to the Republican 
Party. That is payoff, big time. That is giving away Americans' tax 
dollars in exchange for contributions solicited by the Republican Party 
from their rich benefactors.
  There is a special benefit in here for Simmons Enterprises, a rifle 
shot in the estate tax area, and another favor from the tax fairies for 
Harold Simmons, a Dallas investor and baron of the sugar beet 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not like what I know about this bill. It is unfair. 
It discriminates against the average American. It gives only to the 
rich. But I like even less what I suspect is in this bill, and it is 
unfair. It deserves to be defeated. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger], another member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this tax bill is why I came to Congress. I have been in 
the House of Representatives since 1987, and ever since I have been 
fighting to help the American people keep more of their own hard-earned 
money. This country has not had large-scale tax relief like the kind we 
are voting on today since 1981, 16 long years. Of course, under a 
different Congress, they have been dealt their share of tax increases, 
including the largest tax hike in American history just 4 short years 
ago.
  What a difference 4 years can make, and what a difference a 
Republican Congress can make. Today, instead of voting to push Uncle 
Sam's hands deeper into the American people's wallets, we will be 
voting to tighten Uncle Sam's belt. Today we will be providing a $500-
per-child tax credit to America's families. We will be providing 
significant tax incentives for education. We will be expanding IRAs to 
help Americans save for their own retirements.
  We will be making major cuts in capital gains taxes to help keep our 
economy growing, and we will be providing a major relief from the death 
tax, so our Nation's family farms and small businesses can be passed on 
from generation to generation.
  Mr. Speaker, today finally we are giving the American people the tax 
relief they deserve. Sixteen years is long enough. I salute the 
chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bill Archer] on this historic 
achievement, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote for this historic conference report.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge], and I would point out the great support 
that his task force on education has given to improve the quality of 
the bill we will be voting for.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for this time, 
and also for his hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this middle-class tax relief bill. 
I sought this office to fight for North Carolina values, to look out 
for our farmers, and to help our families and provide quality education 
for all of our children. This bill makes significant strides in each of 
these goals.
  The first bill I introduced as a Member of this people's House 
provides estate tax relief for our family farmers and small businesses. 
I am very pleased that this bill contains immediate relief for our 
family farmers and small businesses from the heavy burden of estate 
taxes. This bill is good news for North Carolina farmers.
  In addition to the $500-per-child tax credit, this bill will help 
families in North Carolina and throughout this country to obtain 
educational opportunities for their children.

                              {time}  1300

  As a former two-term superintendent of my State's public schools, I 
know that education is the key to a brighter future for all Americans. 
For middle-class families and for those families struggling to make it 
into the middle class, education is the pathway to the American dream. 
This bipartisan budget agreement represents the most significant 
investment in education in a generation.
  We have more to do, Mr. Speaker. We must raise education standards. 
We must rebuild our crumbling schools. We must help put more police on 
the street and make our communities safer. We have more work to do, but 
this is a day to celebrate for the American people. On behalf of the 
North Carolina farmers, small business people and families struggling 
to provide a decent education for our children and who want to achieve 
the American dream, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me give my colleagues several reasons why we should defeat this 
tax proposal, bring it back to the drawing board and come up with 
something new. No. 1, if we are interested in a balanced budget as 
quickly as possible, vote ``no.'' Without this tax proposal, economists 
tell us that in 1 year or 2 years, we will move toward a balanced 
budget. With this proposal, the deficit will go up in the next several 
years and it will take us 5 years to move toward a balanced budget. So 
vote no if you want to get toward a balanced budget as quickly as 
possible.
  The second issue, and that is what this chart deals with, is that, if 
you are interested in helping middle income and working families rather 
than the rich and the superrich, you should also oppose this 
legislation. Last year Bill Gates had a good year, a very good year. 
His personal wealth went from $18 billion to $42 billion, an increase 
in wealth of $24 billion in 1 year. Putting that into perspective, if 
you are an average American worker and you saw a 3-percent increase in 
your compensation, that would mean that you earned $1,000 more last 
year. That means that 24 million American middle-class workers saw an 
increase in 1 year equal to what Bill Gates saw an increase in his 
income last year; 24 million workers, middle-class workers, not low 
wage workers, end up seeing an increase collectively compared to one 
man.
  The issue we are debating is who do we want to help with this tax 
proposal. If you want to help Bill Gates and his friends, vote ``yes''. 
But if you want to help middle-income and working families, vote 
``no''. It is wrong that the upper 1 percent receive more in tax breaks 
than do the bottom 80 percent. Vote no.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr.

[[Page H6639]]

Shaw], chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, a gentleman who has had a lot to do with legislation 
dealing with families.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of Members come to the House 
floor and come in with some figures as to who is getting the basic 
advantage of this tax cut. We know that well over 70 percent, well over 
70, I think it is 76 percent goes to middle income and below of the tax 
cut that we are looking at. So let us quit playing this game. This is a 
well-balanced bill.
  I think that when we are determining who is getting the advantage, I 
think it is also important that when we define somebody's income that 
we come to the floor and be really forthright with how we come up with 
the percentages that we do as to the amount of income that somebody 
has. As we know, the Treasury came out with some of these figures by 
actually imputing the rental value of somebody's home that they own and 
putting that on top of their income as well as other things, which they 
did not actually enjoy in the form of cash coming in or any type of 
recognizable income.
  The imputed income is a very unfair way of defining somebody's income 
so that we skew the figures.
  I think when we are talking about who is getting what, that it is 
very important that we be very factual and that we be very out front 
with the people.
  If some of the speakers that have come to the floor are suggesting 
that we in the Congress or that they in the Congress want to tax the 
imputed value of somebody's home, I would suggest that that is a very 
foolish thing and a very foolish position for somebody to have; but I 
think they should make that point and go forth with it without trying 
to come up with some phony baloney type of figures here in order to 
make a point that they want to make that simply is not true and is not 
acceptable by the vast majority of the American people.
  I think it is important that we get back on course and we look at the 
tax breaks and that we look at exactly what we are doing. We are giving 
the child tax credit, which is a direct cash payment off, directly off 
the income tax to middle- and lower-income people. The capital gains is 
something that is enjoyed by people whether they have $30,000 income 
and a mutual fund or whether they, their income is over $100,000 and 
they make stock transactions or investing in companies which produce 
jobs. The American people win with this bill. I would urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would like to respond to the gentleman from Florida in saying that we 
are going through a period of trying to learn to be bipartisan, and the 
gentleman and I have a whole lot of learning to do. I think he will 
agree that the Republicans wanted a tax cut bill and the President did. 
The question was who wanted one the most.
  When the priorities came, they sought to make capital gains tax cuts 
the priority. They sought to make estate tax relief a priority. They 
sought to make the individual retirement funds a priority. These were 
the things that people in higher incomes enjoyed.
  That is why so many Democrats are disturbed. We sought to stay with 
those for college educations, for those kids that come from working 
families. We did not call it welfare. We said, if you work hard and you 
pay taxes, you should get help. So there is still a major difference 
between the gentleman's side and ours.
  We join together in saying, the President and the people of the 
United States want a bill. But it does not mean that we swallow their 
principles. But it does mean, when we supported our President, we said 
we are with you, Mr. President, but there has to be some basic 
Democratic principles there. So the priorities were there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Lewis], our distinguished deputy leader.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill. It is a 
good bill because President Clinton and Democrats stood up for working 
Americans and demanded tax relief for working families.
  In 1993, Democrats made hard budget choices, hard choices that have 
brought millions of jobs and economic prosperity to our Nation. Because 
of those hard choices, we are close to balancing our budget. Because of 
those hard choices, we can give tax cuts to the American people.
  Today again, Democrats have succeeded. President Clinton and 
Democrats in Congress have turned a Republican tax bill targeted to 
Wall Street into a tax cut benefiting Main Street.
  Because of Democrats, families earning between $20,000 and $30,000 a 
year will get a $500 per child tax cut. Because of Democrats, there is 
a HOPE scholarship to make college more affordable to our children. 
Because of Democrats, there are tax cuts for people inheriting farms 
and small businesses. Tax relief for working families, tax relief for 
education, tax relief for owners of farms and small businesses, these 
are Democratic values. These are the ideas President Clinton and the 
Democrats fought for and won.
  Mr. Speaker, thanks to President Clinton and the Democrats, we have a 
growing, vibrant economy, a shrinking deficit and now a tax cut for 
working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this tax cut 
bill.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], another member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune a little while ago 
to hear the minority leader address the House, and I want to compliment 
him on the tenor of his remarks. He addressed the House and the Members 
of my side of the aisle with respect and engaged in an honest debate 
about tax policy in this country and what it ought to get us.
  The minority leader spoke about the consumption side of the ledger 
and how tax cuts ought to go into the pockets of Americans so that they 
can consume, because after all, he said, consumption is what drives 
economic growth. And while that is technically true, an economist would 
say that, I think an economist would also say if you do not have 
production in society, you are not going to have too many people 
consuming much, because it is the production side of the economy that 
creates the good paying jobs with good benefits that allows people to 
consume.
  We have tried in this tax bill to balance those concerns. Yes, we 
want to put more money in the pockets of people so that they might 
consume more, maybe even they will save a little bit for their 
children's education or their own retirement. But we also wanted to 
increase the incentives in the Tax Code for production. We want to help 
keep good paying jobs here in the United States. We want to encourage 
people to save their money, invest their money in productive 
investments; thus, the capital gains tax relief and the alternative 
minimum tax relief. That will help keep good paying jobs here in the 
United States and even help create more good paying jobs. We think that 
is important.
  This is a well-balanced tax bill that deserves the support of 
Democrats and Republicans alike.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill for 
what it provides for the average family for a lifetime of education 
benefits. Let us say you are an average family from South Bend, IN, and 
you have three children. We now have an education IRA that if you 
struggle and save $500 a year, that $500 a year is tax deductible and 
the money you make on that IRA years later for college, you can 
withdraw tax free.
  Let us say that you then send your children to Indiana University at 
South Bend. They may be eligible for a $1,500 HOPE scholarship. 
Finally, after graduating with your associate's degree from Indiana 
University and you work for Ameritech, Ameritech then pays to finish 
your undergraduate degree. They get your bachelor's degree for you. 
That is then tax deductible for you. You would not pay any taxes on 
Ameritech paying for your education. That is fair to the average 
midwestern

[[Page H6640]]

family. That is a good bill for education. That is a strong bill for 
America. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  (Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support the bipartisan budget agreement because 
it will do four primary things: balance the budget, reduce taxes for 
working families, extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and 
make a college education more affordable for all Americans.
  The tax and spending reduction legislation translates into the first 
balanced budget in a generation and much needed tax relief for working 
families, students, and small businesses.
  In addition, the package will help provide health insurance for 
millions of uninsured children whose parents are working but cannot 
afford the premiums.
  I am pleased to see the estate tax, also known as the death tax, 
reformed and the exemption for family owned farms and businesses 
increased to $1.3 million. Protecting family owned farms and small 
businesses is an issue that I have fought for and supported.
  The estate tax has ended the lives of many family owned farms and 
businesses. Increasing the exemption will help keep the farm or 
business in the family.
  I am also proud of the effort by Democrats to improve this bill. If 
it wasn't for Democrats demanding fairness, many families making under 
$30,000 a year would not have been eligible for the child tax credit. 
We also would not see child health care, higher education scholarships, 
and tuition tax credits included in this legislation if Democrats had 
not fought for them.
  This tax relief bill will not explode the deficit in future years as 
the original House Republican bill would have.
  This is not a perfect legislative package and it does not solve all 
of our long-term fiscal issues. It will reduce the deficit by $700 
billion over 10 years and bring the Federal budget into balance by 
2002.
  It is the product of genuine bipartisan efforts. The Congress and 
President did what the American people have been demadning--put aside 
politics and balance the budget in a fair and responsible manner.
  My hope is that Congress will followup this successful effort by 
passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to ensure that 
we will have a balanced budget not just for 1 year but for all future 
generations.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps].

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. 
This bill will cut taxes for millions of Americans while balancing the 
budget and protecting our critical investments in education and health 
care.
  In particular, I am in strong support of the immediate increase in 
the exemption from estate taxes for family farmers and small business 
owners. In my district on the central coast of California farm and 
ranch families face the triple threat of high estate taxes, rising land 
values and suburban development. This combination threatens a special 
way of life and a matchless environment. Our action today will help us 
keep family farms and businesses where they belong, in the family and 
not on the auction block.
  I also support the education tax credits in this bill and commend the 
President in particular for his leadership on this issue. As a teacher, 
I know firsthand the priceless value of education. The HOPE 
scholarships will open the door of education to families on the central 
coast where we have the great universities and excellent 2-year 
colleges.
  It is no secret that education benefits the entire economy, but it 
also uplifts the spirit and creates a more civil society, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to repeat for a few of my colleagues who were not here 
before that, in addition to the patent unfairness of this bill, which 
is obvious from the charts, that the top 5 percent are getting 44 
percent of the breaks. And when my colleagues on the other side suggest 
that the middle class is getting most of the breaks, they are just 
taking the first 5 years, they are not looking at the whole 10 years.
  The fact is that the poorest people in this country are getting 
nothing out of this and the richest are getting an average of $16,000. 
But then there are the owners of Amway Corporation, and I was wrong, I 
misspoke, they gave two $500,000 checks to the Republican Party, and 
there is a tax break in here totaling $280 million for their Asian 
subsidiaries.
  So if one invests a million bucks in the Republicans, they can get 
$280 million back in special hidden tax breaks.
  In this bill Sammon Enterprises in Texas, at the last hour, in the 
Speaker's office, $23 million to one company in Texas. Twenty-three 
million bucks. That is more than all the people in my district make in 
a year, Mr. Speaker. Ten times more going to one Texan. I wonder how 
much money old man Sammon kicked into the Republican Party. It will be 
interesting to find out.
  The beet king in Texas, Simmons, I did not realize what he got. He is 
getting $104 million, a gift from the Republicans in this tax bill, 
which is hidden here in the documents which never were explained to any 
of us.
  This borders on the criminal. And when we talk about investigations 
as to whether the Vice President was in some Ashram someplace and got 
money, what went on in the Speaker's office when the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the Speaker and the high-knockers in 
the Republican leadership were cutting deals to pay back big 
contributors? That is what we ought to find out that is going on in 
this bill.
  I have a page here that lists all of the rifle shots. My goodness, 
here, ``relating to transition rule for instruments described in a 
ruling request submitted to the Internal Revenue Service on or before 
June 8, 1997.'' Does not tell us the name, does not tell us the money, 
but I will bet it is somebody's buddy who kicked in big to the 
Republicans.
  Here it is, section 1005(b). We will make this part of the Record, 
Mr. Speaker. Here is ``relating to transition rule for instruments 
described on or before June 8, 1997, in a public announcement or in a 
filing.''
  I want to tell my colleagues, those are provisions, page after page, 
for individuals who are getting special slush out of this tax bill 
while lower income Americans are going to pay $40 more a year.
  Mr. Speaker, the material I quoted from above is submitted herewith:

                               Memorandum

     To: Honorable Bill Archer, Honorable John Kasich, Honorable 
         Philip M. Crane, Honorable William M. Thomas, Honorable 
         Richard K. Armey, Honorable Tom DeLay, Honorable Charles 
         B. Rangel, Honorable Jim McDermott, Honorable Fortney 
         Pete Stark, Senator William V. Roth, Jr., Senator Pete V. 
         Domenici, Senator Trent Lott, Senator Charles E. 
         Grassley, Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Don Nickles, 
         Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Frank R. 
         Lautenberg, Honorable Robert T. Matsui.
     From: Kenneth J. Kies.
     Subject: Provisions in H.R. 2014 which are subject to the 
         line item veto.
       The Line Item Veto Act (Pub. Law 104-130) (the ``Act''), 
     amended the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 
     to grant the President the limited authority to cancel 
     specific dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, 
     certain new direct spending, and limited tax benefits. The 
     Act provides that the Joint Committee on Taxation (the 
     ``Joint Committee'') is required to examine any revenue or 
     reconciliation bill or joint resolution that amends the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 prior to its filing by a 
     conference committee in order to determine whether or not the 
     bill or joint resolution contains any limited tax benefits. 
     The Act also requires the Joint Committee to provide a 
     statement to the conference committee that either (1) 
     identifies each limited tax benefit contained in the bill or 
     resolution, or (2) declares that the bill or resolution 
     contains no limited tax benefits. The Act provides that the 
     statement provided to the conferees must be made available to 
     any Member of Congress by the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     immediately upon request.
       The Act provides that the conferees determine whether or 
     not to include the Joint Committee's statement in the 
     conference report. If the conference report includes the 
     information from the Joint Committee on Taxation identifying 
     provisions that are limited tax benefits, then the President 
     may cancel one or more of those, but only those, provisions 
     that have been identified. If a conference report contains a 
     statement from the Joint Committee that none of the 
     provisions in the conference report are limited tax benefits, 
     then the President has no authority to cancel any of the 
     specific tax provisions, because there are no tax provisions 
     that are eligible for cancellation under the Act. If the

[[Page H6641]]

     conference report does not include a statement from the Joint 
     Committee regarding limited tax benefits, then the President 
     determines which provisions are subject to cancellation under 
     the Act.
       Pursuant to section 1027(a) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Act of 1974 (as amended by the Line Item Veto 
     Act), attached is the statement of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation regarding limited tax benefits contained in the 
     conference agreement on H.R. 2014.

  Sec.--. Identification of Limited Tax Benefits Subject to Line Item 
                                  Veto

       Section 1021(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 shall only apply to:
       (1) Sec. 101(b) (relating to high risk pools permitted to 
     cover dependents of high risk individuals)
       (2) Sec. 222 (relating to limitation on qualified 501(c)(3) 
     bonds other than hospital bonds)
       (3) Sec. 224 (relating to contributions of computer 
     technology and equipment for elementary or secondary school 
     purposes)
       (4) Sec. (relating to treatment of remainder interests for 
     purposes of provision relating to gain from sale of principal 
     residence)
       (5) Sec. 501(b) (relating to indexing of alternative 
     valuation of certain farm, etc., real property)
       (6) Sec. 503 (relating to modifications to rate of interest 
     on portion of estate tax extended under section 6166)
       (7) Sec. 504 (relating to extension of treatment of certain 
     rents under section 2032A to lineal descendants)
       (8) Sec. 508 (relating to treatment of land subject to 
     qualified conservation easement)
       (9) Sec. 511 (relating to expansion of exception from 
     generation-skipping transfer tax for transfers to individuals 
     with deceased parents)
       (10) Sec. 601 (relating to the research tax credit)
       (11) Sec. 602 (relating to contributions of stock to 
     private foundations)
       (12) Sec. 603 (relating to the work opportunity tax credit)
       (13) Sec. 604 (relating to orphan drug tax credit)
       (14) Sec. 701 (relating to incentives for revitalization of 
     the District of Columbia) to the extent it amends the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create sections 1400 and 
     1400A (relating to tax-exempt economic development bonds)
       (15) Sec. 701 (relating to incentives for revitalization of 
     the District of Columbia) to the extent it amends the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create section 1400C 
     (relating to first-time homebuyer credit for District of 
     Columbia)
       (16) Sec. 801 (relating to incentives for employing long-
     term family assistance recipients)
       (17) Sec. 904(b) (relating to uniform rate of tax on 
     vaccines) as it relates to any vaccine containing pertussis 
     bacteria, extracted or partial cell bacteria, or specific 
     pertussis antigens
       (18) Sec. 904(b) (relating to uniform rate of tax on 
     vaccines) as it relates to any vaccine against measles
       (19) Sec. 904(b) (relating to uniform rate of tax on 
     vaccines) as it relates to any vaccine against mumps
       (20) Sec. 904(b) (relating to uniform rate of tax on 
     vaccines) as it relates to any vaccine against rubella
       (21) Sec. 905 (relating to operators of multiple retail 
     gasoline outlets treated as wholesale distributors for refund 
     purposes)
       (22) Sec. 906 (relating to exemption of electric and other 
     clean-fuel motor vehicles from luxury automobile 
     classification)
       (23) Sec. 907(a) (relating to rate of tax on liquefied 
     natural gas determined on basis of BTU equivalency with 
     gasoline)
       (24) Sec. 907(b) (relating to rate of tax on methanol from 
     natural gas determined on basis of BTU equivalency with 
     gasoline)
       (25) Sec. 908 (relating to modification of tax treatment of 
     hard cider)
       (26) Sec. 914 (relating to mortgage financing for 
     residences located in disaster areas)
       (27) Sec. 952 (relating to assignment of workmen's 
     compensation liability eligible for exclusion relating to 
     personal injury liability assignments)
       (28) Sec. 953 (relating to tax-exempt status for certain 
     State worker's compensation act companies)
       (29) Sec. 957 (relating to additional advance refunding of 
     certain Virgin Island bonds)
       (30) Sec. 958 (relating to nonrecognition of gain on sale 
     of stock to certain farmers' cooperatives)
       (31) Sec. 961 (relating to exemption of the incremental 
     cost of a clean fuel vehicle from the limits on depreciation 
     for vehicles)
       (32) Sec. 964 (relating to clarification of treatment of 
     certain receivables purchased by cooperative hospital service 
     organizations)
       (33) Sec. 966 (relating to deduction in computing adjusted 
     gross income for expenses in connection with service 
     performed by certain officials) with respect to taxable years 
     beginning before 1991
       (34) Sec. 968 (relating to elective carryback of existing 
     carryovers of National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
       (35) Sec. 1005(b)(2)(B) (relating to transition rule for 
     instruments described in a ruling request submitted to the 
     Internal Revenue Service on or before June 8, 1997)
       (36) Sec. 1005(b)(2)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     instruments described on or before June 8, 1997, in a public 
     announcement or in a filing with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission) as it relates to a public announcement
       (37) Sec. 1005(b)(2)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     instruments described on or before June 8, 1997, in a public 
     announcement or in filing with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission) as it relates to a filing with the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission
       (38) Sec. 1011(d)(2)(B) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions made pursuant to the terms of a tender offer 
     outstanding on May 3, 1995)
       (39) Sec. 1011(d)(3) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions made pursuant to the terms of a tender offer 
     outstanding on September 13, 1995)
       (40) Sec. 1012(d)(3)(B) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions pursuant to an acquisition described in section 
     355(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal 
     Revenue Service on or before April 16, 1997)
       (41) Sec. 1012(d)(3)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions pursuant to an acquisition described in section 
     355(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     described in a public announcement or filing with the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission) as it relates to a public 
     announcement
       (42) Sec. 1012(d)(3)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions pursuant to an acquisition described in section 
     355(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     described in a public announcement or filing with the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission) as it relates to a filing 
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission
       (43) Sec. 1013(d)(2)(B) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions or acquisitions after June 8, 1997, described 
     in a ruling request submitted to the Internal Revenue Service 
     submitted on or before June 8, 1997)
       (44) Sec. 1013(d)(2)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions or acquisitions after June 8, 1997, described 
     in a public announcement or filing with the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission on or before June 8, 1997) as it relates 
     to a public announcement
       (45) Sec. 1013(d)(2)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     distributions or acquisitions after June 8, 1997, described 
     in a public announcement or filing with the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission on or before June 8, 1997) as it relates 
     to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
       (46) Sec. 1014(f)(2)(B) (relating to transition rule for 
     any transaction after June 8, 1997, if such transaction is 
     described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal 
     Revenue Service on or before June 8, 1997)
       (47) Sec. 1014(f)(2)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     any transaction after June 8, 1997, if such transaction is 
     described in a public announcement or filing with the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission on or before June 8, 1997) 
     as it relates to a public announcement
       (48) Sec. 1014(f)(2)(C) (relating to transition rule for 
     any transaction after June 8, 1997, if such transaction is 
     described in a public announcement or filing with the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission on or before June 8, 1997) 
     as it relates to a filing with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission
       (49) Sec. 1044(b) (relating to special rules for provision 
     terminating certain exceptions from rules relating to exempt 
     organizations which provide commercial-type insurance)
       (50) Sec. 1091(a) (relating to termination of suspense 
     accounts for family corporations required to use accrual 
     accounting) as it relates to the repeal of Internal Revenue 
     Code section 447(i)(3)
       (51) Sec. 1089(b)(3)(B) (relating to special rule for 
     decedents dying before January 1, 1999)
       (52) Sec. 1089(b)(3)(C) (relating to reformations)
       (53) Sec. 1171 (relating to treatment of computer software 
     as FSC export property)
       (54) Sec. 1175 (relating to exemption for active financing 
     income)
       (55) Sec. 1204 (relating to travel expenses of Federal 
     employees doing criminal investigations)
       (56) Sec. 1236 (relating to extension of time for filing a 
     request for administrative adjustment)
       (57) Sec. 1243 (relating to special rules for 
     administrative adjustment request with respect to bad debts 
     or worthless securities)
       (58) Sec. 1251 (relating to clarification on limitation on 
     maximum number of shareholders)
       (59) Sec. 1253 (relating to attribution rules applicable to 
     tenant ownership)
       (60) Sec. 1256 (relating to modification of earnings and 
     profits rules for determining whether REIT has earnings and 
     profits from non-REIT years)
       (61) Sec. 1257 (relating to treatment of foreclosure 
     property)
       (62) Sec. 1261 (relating to shared appreciation mortgages)
       (63) Sec. 1302 (relating to clarification of waiver of 
     certain rights of recovery)
       (64) Sec. 1303 (relating to transitional rule under section 
     2056A)
       (65) Sec. 1304 (relating to treatment for estate tax 
     purposes of short-term obligations held by nonresident alien)
       (66) Sec. 1311 (relating to clarification of treatment of 
     survivor annuities under qualified terminable interest rules)
       (67) Sec. 1312 (relating to treatment of qualified domestic 
     trust rules of forms of ownership which are not trusts)
       (68) Sec. 1313 (relating to opportunity to correct failures 
     under section 2032A)
       (69) Sec. 1414 (relating to fermented material from any 
     brewery may be received at a distilled spirits plant)

[[Page H6642]]

       (70) Sec. 1417 (relating to use of additional ameliorating 
     material in certain wines)
       (71) Sec. 1418 (relating to domestically produced beer may 
     be withdrawn free of tax for use of foreign embassies, 
     legations, etc.)
       (72) Sec. 1421 (relating to transfer to brewery of beer 
     imported in bulk without payment of tax)
       (73) Sec. 1422 (relating to transfer to bonded wine cellars 
     of wine imported in bulk without payment of tax)
       (74) Sec. 1506 (relating to clarification of certain rules 
     relating to employee stock ownership plans of S corporations)
       (75) Sec. 1507 (relating to modification of 10 percent tax 
     for nondeductible contributions)
       (76) Sec. 1523 (relating to repeal of application of 
     unrelated business income tax to ESOPs)
       (77) Sec. (relating to gratuitous transfer for the benefit 
     of employees)
       (78) Sec. 1532 (relating to special rules relating to 
     church plans)
       (79) Sec. 1604(c)(2) (relating to amendment related to 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993)


                        spending bill provision

       (1) Sec. (FUTA exemption for prisoners)
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I congratulate the chairman of the committee 
for the good work he did in this tax cut.
  I would like to talk a little bit about reality, who is going to 
benefit from this tax cut. This is a family in my district, the Auger 
family. We have here Jim and Donna. He is a plumber, she cuts hair. 
Here are their three kids: Christopher, the oldest, Anthony, and Danae, 
the young girl. They are going to get $1,500 of reduction in their 
taxes for the $500-per-child tax credit times three.
  When this young man is in college in about 3 years, they will get 
$1,500 of tax reduction. They will still get the $500 per child tax 
credit for these two. This is flesh and blood. These are real middle 
class families.
  Do not believe the lies that this is a tax cut for the rich. This is 
a tax cut for the middle class. It is a Republican tax cut. It would 
have never happened if it were not for the election in 1994 and the 
persistence of the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Newt Gingrich, and the 
gentleman from Texas Mr. Bill Archer. I encourage all my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote for it.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  In 1986 many of us voted against the then tax reform bill because it 
swept away, with one bill, capital gains and some other attractive 
features of that code.
  One of them has been restored in this bill, and it makes my farmers 
and other colleagues' farmers rejoice. Earned income averaging, which 
was a part of the 1986, but swept away, is now restored.
  This means our farmers, who experience a drought in 1 year and have 
minimal profits can balance that loss against a bumper crop that might 
happen the next year. This was an excellent feature on which our 
farmers relied prior to 1986. Now we can be happy to report that it has 
been restored in the current tax bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
[Mr. Baldacci].
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, first of all, before the time begins, I 
would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel], for his leadership, and the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. Speaker, in 1993 a major piece of legislation was passed, and at 
that time it was being criticized roundly in both Chambers of this 
Congress. In fact, one senior Member, in leadership now in the other 
body, had referred to the fact that if he was wrong about what was 
going to happen, that he would be the first one to take the hammer and 
chisel and put President Clinton's face on Mt. Rushmore.
  Since 1993, Mr. Speaker, we have had 5 years in a row of deficit 
reductions. With reinventing and streamlining the Federal Government, 
we are at the lowest number of Federal employees since the 1960's. 
Because of the hard work done by President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore and the Democrats in Congress, we are at a point where we are 
going to be able to build a bridge to the 21st century, where we are 
going to focus on children's health, on working families and we will 
reward ``work'' and not ``not work''. We are going to make sure that 
families, family businesses, and farms have the breaks that they 
deserve.
  All the hard work that has gone on to get to this particular point is 
a credit to those that have served and passed that legislation.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins] for yielding me this time.
  I want to point out today that I believe what we are hearing on the 
floor today is liberalism's last gasp. It is no wonder we are seeing 
some of our friends on the other side of the aisle having a hard time 
containing their disappointment, because liberals always look at things 
in terms of winners and losers. But we have a bill here where the 
American people are the winners.
  The people of this country, Democrats and Republicans, who have come 
together to do something that is very much in the best interest for the 
future of this country, because it gives people more control over their 
economic future, that is really what this is about.
  The State I come from, the State of South Dakota, there are so many 
things in here that will help rural areas of this country. Look at 
agriculture, estate taxes, capital gains, the family tax credit, income 
averaging, and deductibility of health insurance premiums. These are 
all things that will benefit rural areas of this country.
  So it is a project that I give credit to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer] and the members of the House Committee on Ways and Means 
for something that was very difficult, and that is trying to drive a 
Mack truck through a car wash; to get a lot of tax relief out of a 
little bit of revenue. I think they have done a wonderful job, and I 
hope my colleagues will support this bill today.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], the Chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, those of us who are fighting 
tooth and nail for working families are fortunate that with the strong 
backing of Democrats in this House, who stood up and opposed the Archer 
bill, President Clinton, as Phil Gramm has said, cleaned the clock of 
Republicans in these negotiations.
  The President and House Democrats fought for and won for families 
like that of Debbie and John Ellis, who live in my district in 
Woodland, CA. Debbie will make $29,000 this year as an office manager 
for the California Highway Patrol. She is the mother of two boys. Her 
21-year-old is working this summer to save enough money to attend 
Sacramento City College this fall. Her 10-year-old, Joshua, is a 
fourth-grader at the Woodland Christian School.
  The Ellises will receive the college tax credit so their son can get 
his degree, and they will be eligible for the new child tax credit, 
which they say will be used to help them get their car repaired.
  The Republicans would have denied this family and millions of others 
just like them tax relief this year. In fact, providing tax relief for 
these hard working families was called, and I quote, welfare. What an 
insult.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie 
Rangel, and President Clinton for hanging tough in these budget 
negotiations and for fighting for working families. Because of this 
debate, the American people know who is on their side, and I think they 
will remember that.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, [Ms. Granger].
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, as President, one of Ronald Reagan's 
favorite things to do everyday was to read the mail. Sometimes he would 
write out personal responses, but usually he just liked to read what 
the American people were saying.
  One Friday afternoon, as Mr. Reagan was leaving for Camp David, his 
director of correspondence, Anne Higgins,

[[Page H6643]]

gave him a stack of letters to read. Included in the stack was a very 
angry letter from an extremely upset Democrat in New Jersey.
  Next Monday morning, when Anne returned to her office, she noticed 
Mr. Reagan had returned this particular letter to her desk. Attached 
was a note from the President which read, ``Dear Anne, don't worry 
about writing this lady back. I called her on the phone. We are friends 
now.''
  Mr. Speaker, is it not amazing what can happen when honest people 
engage in an honest discussion on the issues? Fear gives way to faith 
and fiction is replaced with the facts.
  In the past few days, the Congress and the White House have been able 
to look for common ground and listen to common sense, and the American 
people are going to be very pleased with the results.
  The facts are this tax bill opens doors of opportunity by closing 
loopholes and exemptions. The facts are this tax bill raises hope 
everywhere by lowering taxes for everyone. And the facts are our tax 
bill is not designed to help folks with a corner on the market, it is 
designed to help folks with a market on the corner, a market not on 
Wall Street, New York, but on main streets across America.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel] for yielding and for his leadership during this process, as 
well as I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], our ranking member on the Committee 
on the Budget. They did a good job.
  This is a good bill, and I intend to support it. It is not a perfect 
bill. There are legitimate criticisms. The rich still get richer. But 
the fact of the matter is, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of 
the good, and this is a good bill. It provides tax relief that my 
constituents in Maryland can use. They can use a child tax credit 
because they are trying to put young people through college so they can 
get better jobs. They can certainly use a child tax credit so that they 
can buy necessities, perhaps fix a car, perhaps buy clothes for a 
child, perhaps simply buy groceries.
  This is not going to solve all the problems of the world, but it is 
an important movement in the right direction. We can remain here and 
bicker and try to make this a better bill, or we could pass this bill 
and begin sending child tax relief to needy families, sending education 
tax credits to people who want to get higher education, and also giving 
a break to those people who invest in our people through a capital-
gains break. It is a balanced bill. It is a good bill. I hope my 
colleagues will support it.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to rise in support of the Taxpayer 
Relief Act. Just a few years ago, the concept of balancing the budget 
while cutting taxes was thought to be impossible. The truth was, 
though, that this concept was nothing more than a myth propagated by 
the extreme left, who had more faith in the decisions of Government 
bureaucrats than in the American people. Today I rise in support of the 
first comprehensive tax cut in more than 15 years.
  I want to touch on two important provisions in this tax bill which 
are very important to my constituents, death tax relief and capital 
gains relief. Did my colleagues know that the IRS considers the death 
taxes a tax on the privilege of leaving the fruits of their labors to 
their children? Something is wrong in America when a tax collecting 
agency thinks that giving our children the family farm is a privilege. 
Let me be the first to tell the IRS that in America giving our children 
what we earn should be a right, not a privilege.
  While I support doing away with death taxes entirely, this bill makes 
an important first step.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think that, if the time is correct, my 
colleagues have double the time that we have. It might be better if we 
tried two-to-one at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins] has 58 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel] has 34\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Stark] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  So the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is correct.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, only in political Washington would a mom and 
dad, or both, working and earning about $40,000 in their family, be 
considered wealthy.
  I want to congratulate the Republican chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means and all the members of the Committee on Ways and Means 
for helping to put together a responsible bill. For the first time in 
15 years, we are going to enjoy some tax relief.
  For the American people saying ``What is the big deal? You should 
have been here years ago?'' but to give $500 per child tax relief, to 
provide educational incentives, to make sure that the largest 
investment to most families, their family residence, they do not get 
taxed by Uncle Sam, they will get the relief of up to $500,000, that is 
good. To provide for job-creating capital gains relief and small 
business exemptions, up to 100-percent exemption for small businesses 
paying health care premiums, protection from estate taxes of $1.3 
million, for family farms and for small businesses, this is the right 
thing to do.
  Some $600 billion the Democrat Congress took away from the American 
people in the early 1990's. To give $94 billion back is not only the 
right thing, it is long overdue. I commend my colleagues for their hard 
work.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means and chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2014, the 
Taxpayer Relief Act. What a difference a few years makes. Just 4 years 
ago, without a single vote, the Democrat Congress passed a $260-billion 
tax increase as part of the 1993 Clinton tax bill, the largest tax 
increase in dollars in our history.
  Today we vote to cut taxes by about $275 billion over a 10-year 
period. I think it is fantastic that we have been able to turn around 
the thinking that goes on in Washington, DC. We absolutely believe that 
there is going to be an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle 
that will support this bill. Because it is good for America, it is good 
for the ordinary taxpaying person, it is good for kids, it has got so 
many things that we have worked so hard on that I think America 
prospers because of this bill.
  Let us just talk about people that have gone to schools, gone to 
college and are paying off their student loans. For those, this bill 
allows those who are paying off student loans to deduct up to $2500 
annually in interest expenses. I do not think anybody has talked about 
that before.
  This provision is estimated to provide $2.4 billion in tax relief 
over the next 10 years. A second provision of the bill that makes it 
easier for students to enroll in Kentucky's prepaid college tuition 
program, to pay for room and board, as well as tuition. Over 2600 
Kentucky students have already set up savings accounts and accrue about 
$500,000 to help pay for college. This bill allows them to use that for 
tuition and room and board.
  I am a little disappointed that the final bill does not provide as 
much tax relief for withdrawal from these plans as proposed. But we do 
not get everything in every tax bill. This tax bill has all kinds of 
relief for the average American taxpayer, the taxpayer between $20,000 
and $75,000. Those are the people that want relief. The tax credit

[[Page H6644]]

for children, the estate tax, or death tax, whatever you want to call 
it, we give relief there. For anybody who has a family farm or a small 
business, we have an extra special tax relief, up to $1.3 million. But 
the $500 tax credit is the key to this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Price].
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has many 
positive features for working and middle-class families. But I am 
personally proudest of the inclusion of the main provisions of the 
Education Affordability Act, introduced by the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] and myself and cosponsored by a bipartisan 
group of 56 colleagues. These provisions will restore income tax 
deductibility of interest on student loans and permit penalty-free 
withdrawals of IRA savings for educational expenses--common sense ideas 
to make higher education more accessible for American families.
  Today is the culmination of an effort former Representative Martin 
Lancaster and I began some 10 years ago, soon after we first came to 
the Congress. We said then that if you can deduct the interest on your 
home mortgage or even on a second home at the beach, you surely ought 
to be able to deduct interest on something as basic as a student loan. 
That is still true today, and I am proud to see it recognized in this 
tax bill.
  There is more good news in this bill for Americans seeking to get the 
training the modern workplace requires, especially the Hope Scholarship 
which will provide a $1,500 tax credit for the first 2 years past high 
school and a 20-percent credit for succeeding years.
  I am also pleased that this conference agreement removes the 
notorious tax on the tuition waivers earned by graduate students that 
was included in the House-passed bill. Students in my district and 
across the country raised their voices in justified protest, and this 
bill shows that their voices have been heard.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will expand opportunity for America's young 
people and workers upgrading their skills. It will help give our 
country the trained workforce the global economy demands.
  Through supporting this conference report, we are putting our fiscal 
house in order, we are investing in our people, and we are affording 
tax relief for hard-pressed working families. That is a winning formula 
for our country, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  (MR. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins] for yielding me the time.
  What a wonderful victory for the American people, the working 
American family, people who have children, people who have to try to 
move around this country and find the best job and the best way they 
can provide for their families. They get to take a $400 tax credit next 
year. They begin to take the deductions next January on that tax credit 
per child.
  My colleagues, they also can start to say, ``If I have to move and I 
have to sell my house, I do not have to calculate not to carry forward 
until I am 55 years of age, but I can take that capital gains now.'' 
What a wonderful opportunity for people to find the best job, the best 
venue to raise their children.
  What this really means is that American families can start to make 
the decisions how they can spend extra dollars in their pocket. That 
$500 tax credit per child is in their pocket now. They will decide how 
to spend that instead of some Federal bureaucrat.
  What does that mean? Well, when we spend our own money, we get to 
grow the economy, we do not have to decide on some Federal executive or 
Federal bureaucrat on how they are going to grow government, bigger 
government, bigger cost, bigger spending. This is a double win for the 
American family.
  Is this bill perfect? Oh, I do not think it is perfect. But is it 
good? Yes, it is a good bill. And does it mean that we are not going to 
be back here next year with another bill and try to improve the 
climate, the economic climate for our American families and American 
workers? I think we can do that.
  But my colleagues, I have to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, I have to commend the people who worked in the 
leadership in this body, and the President. This is a wonderful first 
step.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins] for yielding, and I want to congratulate him and the other 
members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the budget negotiators 
for crafting a much needed, long overdue bipartisan bill to provide tax 
relief to hard-pressed American families and businesses.
  However, I do take exception to one aspect of these negotiations, and 
that is the last-minute decision by the President to threaten to veto 
the bill if education individual retirement accounts stayed in the 
bill. The President issued a last-minute veto threat unless these 
provisions were stripped out of the bill we will be voting on later 
today.
  This is good, sound policy put forward by the other body, a provision 
that would allow parents to set up education retirement accounts, or 
education IRAs, which could be contributed to with the contributions 
earning interest tax-free as long as the deductions from the account 
were used for educational expenses like tuition, fees, tutoring, books, 
supplies, home computers, and any other qualified expense.
  The idea behind it, of course, is to allow parents to set aside money 
for their children's education at any school, any school, public, 
private, parochial, or home, from kindergarten through college.
  But what does the President say in his veto threat? He says that ``I 
would veto any tax package that would undermine public education by 
providing tax benefits for private and parochial school expenses.''
  It is a sad day to see the President side with the opponents of real 
educational reform and the defenders of the status quo. School choice, 
colleagues, parental choice in education, is working. We are getting 
testimony. I chair the education subcommittee in the House. We are 
hearing from people who want, we are hearing from parents who want the 
ability, the choice to send their children to the school that is best 
for their child.
  Here is an article from the Washington Times from this week, July 28. 
Black support. Support in the African-American community. Risers for 
school vouchers. Here is Paul Peterson up at Harvard, one of the first 
people to study parental choice in public education today, looking at 
the low-income school choice demonstration projects in Milwaukee and 
Cleveland and concluding that the results, and I quote now, ``indicate 
that Congress should approve legislation initiating additional 
experiments in other cities, including Washington, to determine whether 
this school reform, parental choice in public education, should be 
introduced nationally.''
  So my colleagues, I am real disappointed to see this provision 
stripped out in the face of the President's veto threat. Parents should 
have the right to send their children to the school of their choice, 
the school that is best for their children. After all, it is their 
money, it is their children, and it is their future.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman should be reminded that it was the 
Republicans that agreed to drop that provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Thurman] a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel] for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of 
this conference agreement. I would like to point out that many of its 
best provisions were conceived, I believe, in 1996 as part of the 
Democratic families first agenda. Democrats said we had to finish what 
we began in 1993 with the largest deficit reduction package ever 
enacted and the only one that has worked. This bill will balance the 
budget once and for all.

[[Page H6645]]

  We committed ourselves to expanding health care for children; 5 
million children will get health insurance because of this bill.
  We said hard-working families must get help with the cost of college 
education. Millions of families will be able to afford college because 
of this HOPE scholarship and other initiatives in this bill.
  In Florida's Fifth District, the average median household income is 
about $21,000 a year. The capital gains provision in this bill will 
help thousands of seniors in my district who have their nesteggs 
invested in mutual funds.
  The farming families and small business owners will be able to hold 
onto their farms and businesses after the death of a loved one because 
of the estate tax relief contained in this bill.
  And families of public safety officers slain in the line of duty will 
receive their survivor benefits tax free for the first time.
  This is a family bill. Hardworking middle class families will enjoy 
the benefit of the child tax credit and the largest education 
initiative in a generation. But most of all, we all will enjoy the 
benefit of a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a perspective from my 
State of Iowa on the important work of the House today.
  It is my belief that few tax changes ever contemplated by Congress 
fit the rural economy as well as this one. Of particular import is the 
$500-per-child tax credit; the Archer capital gains cut, 20-year 
deferred payment contracts for family farms and small businesses for 
estates; 100 percent deductibility for self-employed individuals for 
health care cost; 3-year income averaging for farmers; and an increase 
in the inheritance exemption from $600,000 to $1 million and to $1.3 
million for closely-held businesses and family farms, which is a 
potential total inheritance deduction of $2.6 million if both spouses 
are able to participate. The effect of all of this is that for the 
first time in the last half century, many Iowa farmers will be allowed 
to transfer their farms to their children virtually inheritance tax 
free.
  On the education front, with the exception of the revocation of tax-
exempt status for TIAA-CREF, this legislation is a strong step forward 
for the education community. For the first time in over 10 years, 
students will be able to deduct a major part of interest accumulated on 
their student loans. In addition, the tax exemption for employer-
provided undergraduate education assistance is extended for 3 years, 
and a HOPE tax credit is created to assist students and their families 
with out-of-pocket expenses associated with college attendance.
  This economic package is beneficial for the rural economy, good for 
higher education and is put in place within the context of balancing 
the budget by 2002 if conservative economic growth principles are 
assumed, and perhaps sooner if the economy continues to grow at or near 
its current rate.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins].
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise for two reasons, one to express my 
support and how great a day I think this is for the American people, to 
realize that we finally have worked to where we are all in agreement in 
a bipartisan way to have a balanced budget for the first time in nearly 
30 years and also to have tax cuts for the first time in 16 years. I am 
excited about it because I am very much a pro-growth economic 
development type of person. I know we have got a lot to do in order to 
prepare an economy for the 21st century, the global competitive economy 
that our children and grandchildren will have to compete. I want to 
make sure that no one is left behind.
  Mr. Speaker, in the bill, as the chairman of the committee well 
knows, the Senate receded to the House provision in conference dealing 
with Native Americans in Oklahoma. However, I believe it is essential 
we clarify the congressional intent. After meeting with the gentleman 
from Texas, along with Senator Nickles and the staff of the Committee 
on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the 
Department of Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and many others, 
it was concluded it was necessary to create kind of a ``bright-line'' 
test for determining which Oklahoma lands qualify for section 168(j) to 
avoid first costly litigation, and also to clearly define the language 
that is in the House bill which says the ``lands in Oklahoma within the 
judicial area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe,'' to make sure it means for 
purposes of this legislation ``lands within boundaries of the last 
treaties with the Oklahoma tribes.'' This definition narrows the land 
area compared with the current law by eliminating the unassigned lands.
  Because I believe it is important that we clarify this matter, I 
would ask if the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means concurs 
with this explanation.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATKINS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. The gentleman from Oklahoma is correct. The Oklahoma 
Indian lands clarification in this bill does narrow the scope of 
section 168(j) in Oklahoma compared to current law by eliminating the 
unassigned lands. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation on this 
issue.
  Mr. WATKINS. I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman and also 
the cooperation of the ranking member. I have worked with the gentleman 
from New York also on many occasions in the past, and it is always 
great to be working in a bipartisan spirit to help all of our people. I 
thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel] and ask that the total text of my statement be added 
for the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and 
his staff have worked closely with me on a provision in this bill to 
clarify the application of section 168(j) of the Internal Revenue Code 
to Indian lands in Oklahoma.
  Section 168(j) was enacted in 1993 to provide accelerated 
depreciation for property placed in service on Indian reservations, 
including former Indian reservations in Oklahoma. The House of 
Representatives included a provision in this tax bill that provides 
that lands in Oklahoma within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma 
Indian tribe and eligible for trust-land status would qualify for 
section 168(j).
  As the chairman knows, the Senate receded to the House provision in 
conference. However, since the House leaves the interpretation of the 
provision to the U.S. Department of the Interior, I believe it is 
essential we clarify congressional intent.
  After my meetings with you, Mr. Chairman, and meetings with Senator 
Nickles, Ways and Means and Finance Committee staff, Joint Tax 
Committee, Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Department of the Interior, 
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs on this issue, it was concluded 
necessary to create a bright-line test for determining which Oklahoma 
lands qualify for section 168(j). This bright-line test is needed to 
avoid costly litigation and clearly define the language ``lands in 
Oklahoma within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe'' 
to mean for the purposes of this legislation ``lands within boundaries 
of the last treaties with the Oklahoma tribes.'' This definition 
narrows the land area compared with current law by eliminating the 
unassigned lands.
  Because I believe it is important that we clarify this matter, does 
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee concur with my 
explanation?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm] who has been so helpful in bringing this all 
together.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to first begin by commending the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel], the ranking member, and the President of the United 
States for their work in putting together this conference report which 
I urge everyone to support today. As so often happens in the 
legislative process, it is not a perfect document but certainly when we 
compare this bill with that which originally passed the House of 
Representatives, there are many significant improvements, one of which 
is in the area of the child tax credit, a debate that occurred that was 
truly amazing to many, that those who were earning $25,000 a year and 
also

[[Page H6646]]

working were not to be entitled to a tax credit; amazing that the 
debate occurred, but it has been resolved in a very favorable way which 
pleases 50 percent of the constituents of the 17th District of Texas 
who find themselves in that income category.
  In the area of the capital gains tax cut, one thing that was 
recognized that I think will prove to be hopefully a goal for the 
future is to recognize longer held investments should be entitled to 
capital gains reductions, not necessarily the short term that provides 
for speculation and quarterly report syndrome.
  The estate tax relief, something that we advocated, the Blue Dogs and 
others, glad to see now a $1.3 million estate tax relief for family 
held businesses, as my colleague from Iowa a moment ago so eloquently 
put.
  Also when we look at the backloading, something that was very 
concerning to those of us who are called deficit hawks, the concern of 
the original House bill with indexation of capital gains, with backend 
loading of IRA's, has been satisfactorily dealt with in a compromise 
way, so much of our concerns there have been eliminated.
  Some other very positive features. Moving to 100 percent deduction of 
health insurance for self-employed, something that will be of 
tremendous importance in our continued quest for a fair health system 
for this country. Income averaging for farmers. Glad to see that is in 
because that is something so important. And also the Hulshof-Stenholm 
bill providing preferential tax treatment for farmer cooperatives that 
purchase processing facilities, something that is a very good sign for 
the future of agriculture.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] the highly regarded, highly influential chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed after that introduction by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], but I am not embarrassed to 
stand up here and hand out accolades to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], the chairman. When the Speaker pro tempore and I were here way 
back in the late 1970's, or I was and then he came in 1980 with Ronald 
Reagan and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] was still here, this 
country was on hard times. I was a businessman just before that, back 
home, a small businessman. I recall having to make a corporate loan for 
my company in which we paid 2 percent above the prime rate and that was 
23.5 percent, to borrow money to expand our business.
  23.5 percent. That was almost impossible. Inflation was running at 
13.5 percent. It was really hard for people who were living on fixed 
incomes. They just could not make it.
  Then along came Ronald Reagan and he did what John F. Kennedy did 
many years before that in 1962, and the gentleman and I and Chairman 
Archer cut taxes, we stimulated the economy, and we had a roaring 
economy for 8 years that created 17 million new jobs.
  That is how important this bill is today. When we think about people 
today and the very fact that two-thirds of the American people today 
filing income taxes take some capital gains and of those two-thirds, 50 
percent are older Americans living on fixed incomes, with incomes of 
less than $40,000. In other words, $25,000, $35,000. That is how 
important this is. Because that is bread and butter on the table of 
those people who have worked all their lives but finally now have to 
dip into their savings in order to make it, in order to maintain a 
decent standard of living. That is how important this bill is today.
  I just cannot tell Members how thrilled I am and how proud I am to be 
a Republican, to be here today, to carry on that Ronald Reagan legacy 
that we are going to establish here today, reestablish and carry on for 
the next 10 years. I thank the chairman and the Speaker pro tempore for 
all they have done in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I will support H.R. 2014, the 
Taxpayer Relief Act.
  Yet I cannot rise without sharing my greatest concern with the tax 
bill, the airline ticket tax. The changes proposed in the airline 
ticket tax will have an adverse effect on Hawaii's people and on our 
economy. The segment portion of the domestic ticket tax is unfair. It 
is particularly unfair to Hawaii where Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo, our 
local inter-island carriers, provide short-haul trips between the 
islands. Our unique geography as an island chain makes air travel a 
necessity. Unlike other areas of the country, we do not have a choice. 
If individuals want to travel from island to island, we have to fly. In 
order to make it economical for our people, Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo 
island hop. The domestic airline ticket tax shifts the burden to low-
cost, short-haul carriers. These are our local carriers and this will 
hurt Hawaii.
  The ticket tax increase on international flights from $6 to $24 is 
another concern. Tourism is Hawaii's largest industry. It is a large 
industry for many States of the Union. International visitors are a 
vital part of our tourism industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell any further on the ticket tax except to 
say that I will work with all my energy to repeal these provisions in 
the future as we proceed to a tax bill next year.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2014. The conference 
report we are voting on today is an improvement over the version that 
initially passed the House in June. I voted against that measure for a 
number of reasons: It denied the full benefits of the child deduction 
to hard-working, low-income taxpayers who avail themselves of the 
earned income tax credit; it opened up enormous loopholes that would 
have fully or partially excluded millions of American workers from the 
protection of labor laws and fundamental benefits like Social Security 
and worker compensation; and it short changed low and middle-income 
taxpayers, denying them a fair share of its tax cuts.
  The bill before us today remedies those deficiencies in whole or 
large measure.
  Yesterday, the House passed the spending bill that sets our Nation on 
a path to have a balanced budget by 2002. The bill we are voting on 
today provides tax relief for our citizens--tax relief that is paid 
for.
  We have arrived at this point because of the courageous vote taken in 
1993. The 1993 budget agreement was a 5-year deficit reduction package. 
It was a fiscally sound decision. As a result of the deficit reduction 
package our Nation has a healthy economy.
  Unfortunately, my constituents in Hawaii have not benefited from the 
economic upswing to the same extent as the rest of the Nation. Hawaii 
needs an economic stimulus. The balanced budget tax relief agreement we 
are voting on today will help us. It is not a silver bullet, but it 
will benefit a great many hard-pressed people and small businesses in 
Hawaii.
  I am voting for this bill not because it is perfect, but because on 
the balance it helps working families and the middle class. It helps 
the people of Hawaii.
  The bill helps Hawaii families. It provides a child tax credit of 
$400 a child in 1998 and increases to $500 a child thereafter for 
children age 16 and under. The credit phases out for couples with 
adjusted gross incomes of $110,000 and individuals with incomes of 
$75,000.
  The bill helps Hawaii college students. It provides a tax credit of 
up to $1,500 a year for the first 2 years of college and a tax credit 
of up to $1,000 for later years. Eligibility phases out for couples 
with incomes between $80,000 and $100,000 and individuals with incomes 
of between $50,000 and $60,000.
  The bill helps Hawaii homeowners. Married couples may exclude up to 
$500,000--single individuals may exclude up to $250,000--of capital 
gains from the sale of a primary residence. In Hawaii, this provision 
will be particularly helpful to residents whose principal investment is 
their home.
  The bill provides Hawaii with broad based capital gains reduction. 
Capital gains come from the owning of assets such as stock, bonds, 
homes, real estate, and businesses. The top capital gains tax rate 
drops from 28 percent to 20 percent. This rate will drop further to 18 
percent, effective in 2001, for individuals who hold assets for 5 years 
or longer. For married couples with incomes less than $41,200 the 
capital gains tax rate drops from 15 percent to 10 percent. The rate 
will drop further to 8 percent, effective in 2001, for married couples 
who currently earn less than $41,200 and who hold assets for 5 years or 
longer.

[[Page H6647]]

  The bill provides Hawaii with estate tax relief. The estate tax will 
increase from the current $600,000 to $1 million. It will be phased in 
over a 10-year period.
  The bill provides Hawaii with expanded IRA--Individual Retirement 
Account--opportunities. It creates new IRA Plus accounts. Contributions 
are not deductible, but interest, dividends, and capital gains 
accumulate tax free. Allows penalty free withdrawals for first time 
home purchases. Further, withdrawals are tax free if the account is 
held for at least 5 years and the account holder is at least 59\1/2\. 
Income limits on traditional IRA's are raised.
  The bill helps Hawaii small business. Self-employed small business 
people will be able to deduct 100 percent of their health and insurance 
costs--the current deduction is 40 percent, reinstates the home office 
business deduction, and provides an immediate jump in the estate tax 
threshold to $1.3 million--$2.6 million for couples--for small family 
farms and businesses. This provision is important, because it enables 
continued family ownership of small farms and businesses from one 
generation to the next.
  Yet, I cannot rise without sharing my greatest concern with the tax 
bill: the airline ticket tax. The changes proposed in the airline 
ticket tax will have an adverse affect on Hawaii's people and our 
economy. The segment portion of the domestic ticket tax is unfair. It 
is particularly unfair to Hawaii where Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo, our 
local interisland carriers, provide short-haul trips between the 
islands. Our unique geography as an island chain makes air travel a 
necessity. Unlike other areas of the country we do not have a choice. 
If individuals want to travel from Island to island we have to fly. In 
order to make it economical for our people Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo 
island hop. The domestic airline ticket tax shifts the burden to low-
cost short haul carriers. These are our local carriers. This will hurt 
Hawaii.
  The ticket tax increase on international flights from $6 to $24 is 
another concern. Tourism is Hawaii's largest industry. International 
visitors are a vital part of our tourism industry. The change in the 
ticket tax on international flights puts a greater tax burden on 
international visitors. International tourism is a major foreign 
exchange earner for the United States. It is one of the bright spots in 
our balance of payments picture. It generates millions of American 
jobs. Why do we create a disincentive to travel to the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on the airline ticket tax any further, 
except to say that I will work with all my energy to repeal these 
provisions in the future.
  This is an important day for the people of Hawaii and our Nation. 
H.R. 2014 provides the people of Hawaii and our Nation with tax relief. 
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Boyd].
  (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer] for his work over the many, many years and also 
my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the ranking 
member.
  As my colleagues know, we are going to pass today and I am going to 
vote for a tax cut bill which is on balance a very good bill, and it is 
a much better bill than it was when it left this House of 
Representatives earlier because it had many provisions in it at that 
point in time which caused many of us, including myself, to vote 
against it. But the conference has chosen to take those provisions out, 
and that makes me very happy.
  However, there is one very obscure provision which is very onerous 
which I want to tell my colleagues about, and that is a tax exemption 
repeal for a Teachers Insurance Annuity Association--College Retirement 
Equity Fund, better known as TIAA-CREF. TIAA-CREF was created in 1918 
by Carnegie Foundation to provide a portable pension fund for 
university employees. It has had tax exempt status for 79 years, and, 
my colleagues, we are going to repeal that tax exempt status in this 
piece of legislation that we are going to pass today, and that is 
wrong.
  I would ask my colleagues to work with me because the repealing of 
this tax exempt status will mean that there will be a 5-percent 
reduction on average of the average university employee retiree over 
the next few years, and I would ask that Members will work with me to 
repeal this provision in the future.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Rothman].
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe that promises made should be 
promises kept, and that is why I am proud to support this historic 
bipartisan balanced budget agreement.
  Among the most important provisions in this bill, the basic concepts 
of my Lifetime Learning Affordability Act are very much prominent. For 
the first time we will be giving American families up to $2,000 in tax 
relief for their children's college tuition and allowing them to save 
in IRA-like savings accounts for their own lifetime of learning. It 
also increases the Pell grants to a historic high and restores the tax 
deduction on the interest on student loans.
  Seven months ago, when I took office, I promised the people of the 
Ninth Congressional District of New Jersey that I would fight for a 
balanced budget. I promised to help bring about a smarter, more 
effective, more cost-efficient government that invested in our people, 
that kept our Nation's historic commitment to seniors, our children and 
the environment.
  This balanced budget agreement delivers for the hard-working men and 
women of Bergen and Hudson Counties, NJ, and that is why I am proud to 
support this historic balanced budget agreement. Promises that were 
made have now been promises kept.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez], the deputy minority whip.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, what will morning in America look like 
after we pass this bill? What will be the American vision of the 
future? We delivered the balanced budget based on tough choices and 
sacrifices made by Democrats in 1993, but the Democratic vision for 
America did not stop with a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy. 
Democrats fought for and delivered a far greater vision for all 
Americans and a more inclusive tax cut.
  Tomorrow morning in America, because of Democrats, 24 million more 
children will wake up with health care, millions more than under the 
Republican plan. Tomorrow morning in America, because of Democrats, 
every student with a talent and ambition will awaken to the opportunity 
to attend a 4-year college and get a degree, millions more than under 
the Republican plan. Tomorrow morning in America a hard-working farmer 
or small business person will be able to keep the family business in 
the family. Families will more easily sell and buy better homes. 
Hundreds of neighborhoods will awaken knowing that the local scourge of 
a nearby polluted brownfield will be cleaned up. Tomorrow morning in 
America twice the families in my own home State of New Jersey will 
receive a tax credit for their children because Democrats fought for a 
better vision of the future.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Clinton tax 
package. It is build on the hard work of the 1993 vote. Quite frankly, 
voting for tax breaks is one of the more pleasant tasks or the easier 
tasks that Members of Congress have to perform. Everyone likes to vote 
for a tax break, many of our constituents want them and are most often 
pleased with the tax breaks.
  But the fact is there would be no tax break legislation today 
available, without a bigger deficit but for the actions the 10 past 
years. Congress is not going to do what was done in the riverboat 
gamble of 1981. Congress is not going to do that. Today we are pursuing 
a much different policy path. The Federal Government fiscal policy 
actions have earned this tax break by making tough votes such as the 
vote on the 1993 budget. Today this mostly positive tax breaks. Eighty-
four percent of this bill the next 5 years goes for a child credit and 
education credit. Investing in people; that is the type of tax breaks 
the American families need. There is some other provisions in here, but 
that is reflection of political symmetry of the Federal Government.
  This action is no Ronald Reagan riverboat gamble, rather it is a good 
bill

[[Page H6648]]

and not savaging the basic programs that we came here and pledged to 
support, not the policy path of 2 years ago when, in fact, programs, 
like Social Security and others were the sacrifice for lavish budget 
busting tax breaks, this tax policy is a policy earned by solid fiscal 
discipline. We may be a little bit ahead of the curve in hoping to 
reduce the deficit and being certain that the deficit is under control 
but the fact is this is a sound tax break, a result of deliberate 
policy it eliminates the indexing, it eliminates the automatic pilot 
type of provisions that were in the initial bills. It is a measure that 
will get a big vote today, but it is built, as I said, on hard work of 
1990. I might say the budget of President Bush and Congress, and the 
1993 budget of Clinton and Congress. Congress has not since the early 
1980's been able to vote for additional substantial tax breaks or cuts, 
because the policy path of excessive tax giveaways and uncontrolled 
Pentagon spending dug the deficit hold so deep that the emphasis has 
been on correcting and rehabilitation of the consequence of the Reagan 
riverboat gamble tax policies.
  Finally, today in a measured manner and on a reasonable basis 
maintaining the programs that the American families need to care for 
themselves and one another, we can return and focus on tax breaks which 
help families and invest in people.
  Certainly the price of this has been some tax breaks for special 
groups that are not needed nor justified, but the Democrats led by 
President Clinton turned the GOP Congress product of 2 years ago and 
turned it inside out to principally help families and balance the 
budget without blowing up the budget for the future. A positive bill 
for which I can vote and urge others to support.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], a highly respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, because of the Republican majority in 
Congress, for the first time in 16 years women across America are 
getting a tax cut. The truth is the Republican tax relief bill helps 
women throughout their lives both at home and the job market. The only 
people who think this tax relief bill is not good for women are those 
who do not believe we women can manage our own money, and that, Mr. 
Speaker, is passe.
  So let us talk first about tax relief at home. With our bill the 
mothers of 41 million American children will be able to keep more of 
their own money. The $500 per child tax credit that will begin in 1998 
is money mothers surely can use to make ends meet, money that can be 
used to pay for school clothes or for groceries or for all the 
unexpected expenses that come with raising a child.
  Women and their families will also receive help in sending children 
to college. The cost of higher education is overwhelming these days. I 
just finished paying for two children to go to college, and truly 
believe me, I know how expensive it can be.
  Women are provided additional options to save for their retirement 
through expanded IRA's. The fact is that we women live longer than men. 
Yes, we generally have less savings set aside. I do not believe our 
society wants to force a woman into buying shoes for her 8-year-old 
child as opposed to saving for her retirement, and expanded IRA's will 
help provide the savings that will work toward those worrisome 
retirement years.
  And now let us talk about the workplace. Women are starting 
businesses today at twice the rate of men. A lower capital gains tax 
leaves more critical capital in hands of women business people, women 
investors, and women entrepreneurs. Why is this so important to women? 
Because the 1995 survey of women-owned businesses tells us that 84 
percent of women use personal savings to start their businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the American dream for everyone, including women, is to 
make life better for our children and for our loved ones. Yet the 
current death tax is such an onerous burden that when the owner of a 
family farm or business dies, the children often must sell their 
inheritance just to pay the taxes. That is what this bill is about, 
providing women with options and time to balance the demands of today's 
world. No longer should women feel they are being pulled in 10,000 
different directions, often sacrificing themselves and their children's 
interest just to pay Uncle Sam.
  Mr. Speaker, helping American families and especially America's women 
is all part of the Republican agenda. The truth is this tax relief 
never would have happened if it had not been for our majority, and we 
are proud of our work on behalf of American families, and we look 
forward to making Government more and more efficient while keeping that 
safety net out there for those Americans who truly need it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].
  (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the balanced 
budget agreement. Today we will have the opportunity to provide hard 
working Americans with the first balanced budget in a generation.
  We have accomplished an amazing feat today. The President and 
Congress have come together for a truly bipartisan budget agreement.
  A budget that is balanced, that provides fair tax relief, that 
provides coverage for children's health care, and that truly expands 
education opportunity.
  Congressional leaders and the President have worked to draft a bill 
that helps middle class parents. These Americans have funded the 
deficits of the last decade and deserve a return on their investment.
  This historic investment in education includes the HOPE Scholarship 
Program that truly will give hope for a college education to working-
class American families.
  It includes the largest Pell grant increase in two decades. As a 
former Pell grant recipient, I know how much we need this funding.
  This agreement provides the first tax cut for Americans in 16 years. 
This budget gives a $500 per child tax credit to every family in 
America. It also allows parents to save for their child's higher 
education with the education IRA.
  We have finally recognized what our parents and community leaders 
already knew, that when we cut taxes to families, when we provide 
children's health care, and when we invest in education--when we 
balance the Nation's budget--our cities, our States, and our Nation 
will prosper.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all commend 
and congratulate all of those who have worked to reach this accord. But 
when I viewed the balanced budget agreement I asked two fundamental 
questions:
  Is it fair and does it go far enough to lift the boats of all 
Americans, including the poorest among the poor?
  And while I agree that there has been serious movement toward the 
inclusion of more families and more children, I still must ask the 
question, is it good for all of America?
  This agreement provides tax relief for the richest of Americans to 
the tune of over 70 percent. Is that fair? Under the current agreement 
corporate welfare continues to be protected, and so I agree that it is 
movement, but I do not believe that it goes far enough to really touch 
the poorest of the poor.
  I believe that we can do better. We provide serious breaks for the 
rich, a few breaks for the middle class, practically no breaks and 
little hope for the poor.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, several days ago I had the opportunity to 
participate in a news conference at the White House, and it was a true 
love-in, it was a true commitment that we are going to balance the 
budget, and it is historic. We are on track toward a first balanced 
budget since 1996. We are on pace toward our first tax cut that we have 
really had since 1981. A couple of years ago, how many of us in this 
Chamber could have predicted such far-reaching and much needed reform?
  As a former college president, I am proud of the commitment that we 
have made on education, a $1,500 tax credit for college, $2,500 tax 
deductions for interest paid on college loans and $500 tax free 
contributions into education IRA's.
  And it is a pro-family reform as well, $500 per child credit, 
approximately doubling the tax exemption on real estate for both 
individuals and couples.

[[Page H6649]]

  Let us keep the budget process moving, let us cast a ``yes'' vote, 
and let us balance the budget once and for all for all Americans.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters], the chairperson of the Congressional Black 
Caucus.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chair 
of the Committee on Appropriations, for their work, and I know how hard 
he struggled. However, this Congress is about to pass the most profound 
and drastic tax cut this Nation will experience in many years to come. 
This is a true redistribution of the wealth, and let me tell my 
colleagues why.
  The top 1 percent in our Nation will get a tax cut of about $16,000. 
That is people who make over $645,000. The next 4 percent, people who 
make about $150,000 will get a tax cut of $1,492. But let us take a 
look at the lowest 20 percent, the lowest 20 percent in our Nation, 
people who make $6,500 will have to pay $39 more. The next 20 percent, 
people who make $15,000, will only get about $114, and the next 20 
percent, people who make $27,000, will get about $194 in tax cuts.
  Well, let me just show my colleagues this. In capital gains, this 
means the CEO's of major corporations like Donald Trump and over at 
Nike, they will be able to take their pay in stock options and the 
stock options will only be taxed at 18 percent which means they will be 
paying about half of what the average working person will be paying in 
taxes.
  So who is getting the short end of this deal? Not only are the poor 
in inner cities, where the economy is not performing, still no jobs, 
low paying jobs, jobs that have been exported to Third World countries 
for labor, let me tell my colleagues about districts like the district 
of the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], in her State's 
panhandle with the median income of less than $25,000 per year and a 
per capita income of $11,530.

                              {time}  1415

  These are working and poor people in districts like that of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Charles Canady], Poke County, FL, with a 
median household income of $25,315 per capita and personal income of 
about $12,277.
  I want to tell the Members, this is not the right way to go. It is 
going to pass. Republicans are going to take credit, Democrats are 
going to take credit. Nobody knows what is in the details. But I want 
to tell the Members, the American people will find out. They will know 
in the final analysis. This is no deal for the average Americans. Rich 
people will make out again. They will be partying on Wall Street 
tonight.
  Mr. ARCHER. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly respond to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters] and say that every Member has had an 
opportunity to know every detail on this bill because every detail has 
been on the Internet beginning at 7 o'clock last night.
  I know Members diligently have wanted to peruse this bill and to 
learn the details. I am sure that last night they have stayed with 
their staff and have had the opportunity to learn all of the details 
that are in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLay], my neighbor and my friend.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means for all the hard work he has done to bring 
this to the floor. I have to tell the Members, I rise in support of the 
Archer tax cut. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes history is made by bold strokes and sometimes 
history is made with small steps. Today we are taking a small step 
toward a smaller and a smarter Government. This tax cut legislation 
represents only the beginning of our agenda that will give the American 
taxpayer real relief from an oppresive Tax Code. A Government that 
takes over 50 percent of the average family's income threatens liberty 
and needs serious reform.
  But in our system of government, reform is best achieved through 
bite-sized bits that are easily digested, I believe, by the voters and 
easily understood by popular opinion. This is the first bite of a 
seven-course tax-cut meal. Some of my colleagues will say that this tax 
cut is not enough to tide them over. I agree. But I promise the Members 
that this first tax cut in 16 years will not be the last tax cut in 16 
years.
  This bill is a good start. It contains necessary relief for families 
with children. It will spur economic growth by lowering taxes on 
investments, savings, and job creation. It starts the process of 
phasing out that punitive death tax.
  To those liberals who complain that this tax cut goes too far, let me 
just simply say that in my view we can never go too far in allowing the 
American family to hold on to more of its hard-earned money. I urge my 
colleagues to start the process to cut taxes for all Americans and vote 
for this sensible bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, today is a great step forward, a new 
beginning down the path of ending the era of big government. For the 
first time in 16 years, the American people are getting real, permanent 
tax relief, the Archer tax cut of 1997. Every American is a winner 
today. We have sent a message that Washington has to make do with less, 
so people can keep more of what they earn. I think too often in 
Washington bureaucrats forget it is not their money to waste. People of 
America work hard for the money and it is theirs.
  This is real tax relief. People in every stage of life will receive 
something, families with children to pay for schooling, for home 
ownership, for home-based businesses, or to save and invest for 
retirement. From the family farm to the small business, everyone 
benefits. Families deserve the freedom our tax relief plan will bring.
  The $500-per-child tax credit will give parents more freedom in 
raising their children to be healthy, well-educated, productive adults. 
I want to commend the Republican leadership and Chairman Archer for an 
excellent job and a tremendous first step.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the respected member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for 
yielding time to me, and for his outstanding leadership. I daresay, 
without the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bill Archer], we would not be 
here with this tax relief bill, the most substantial tax relief for the 
American people since 1981.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the more publicized provisions of this 
bill, the child tax credit, the higher education relief, the capital 
gains cuts, and the death tax relief, I would like to point out several 
provisions that I have worked on for many months with several of my 
colleagues to help victims of the recent flooding in the Red River 
Valley of Minnesota and the Dakotas. I want to thank Chairman Archer 
for his help as well in getting these provisions in this bill.
  We include special mortgage revenue bond rules for those people to 
rebuild their homes in the flood areas. We extend the IRS deadlines in 
the flood areas. We provide interest abatement for delayed filings, and 
special IRS rules for the forced sales of livestock that were caused by 
the horrible, horrible floods.
  I am also gratified that several other reforms I have worked on are 
included. We changed the rules governing employee stock ownership plans 
[ESOP's] to make it easier for small businesses to give ownership to 
employees of the company. We prevent the taxation of survivors 
benefits. We stop, no more taxation for survivors benefits for police 
officers or firefighters killed in the line of duty.
  We make the administration of church pension and benefit plans much 
more workable. We include language to clarify the tax-exempt status of 
State health insurance risk pools that provide coverage for high-risk 
people and their children and spouses.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide important relief to real people 
right now. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert].

[[Page H6650]]

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I stand in favor of this bill. I also want 
to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for an 
excellent job.
  It certainly is an historic week. For the first time in a generation, 
we will balance the budget and provide tax relief to working families 
across the Nation. This Congress will leave the legacy of a smaller, 
less invasive government to our children. At the same time, we will 
ensure that middle-class Americans keep more of their money.
  Today we will refund to the American people one-third of President 
Clinton's tax increase, the largest in history. Back in my 
congressional district, the per-child tax credit will mean families 
with children can save $47 million next year. California has had some 
tough years, as the Speaker knows. We are looking forward to having 
better years. This is going to help, Mr. Speaker.
  Some said this day would never happen. Thanks to the Republican 
Congress, it has. But the real winners this week are my constituents 
and the rest of the American people. We look forward to future days 
like this.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, 
especially for all the work he has done on this particular balanced 
budget agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, if 535 Members of both the House and Senate got together 
to try to draft a bill, we would have 535 different versions of a 
balanced budget agreement. That is why in a democracy and in politics 
compromise is what must rule. If we do have that type of compromise, we 
have leadership and we will have progress.
  We have to accept some bad with the good. Democrats, I know for 
example, fought for about 5 million children to be included within the 
child tax credit because they happen to fall within families that earn 
between $18,000 and $30,000. Republicans were able to achieve victory 
for families earning $75,000 to about $160,000, and including them 
within the child tax credit as well.
  Democrats fought hard to get another $8 billion more for child health 
care, to try to help cover some 5 million of the 10 million uninsured 
children in this Nation. Republicans fought very hard and succeeded in 
getting the corporate tax rate dropped on capital gains tax rates.
  Democrats fought very hard to make sure that empowerment zones and 
brownfields were included in the legislation, which would allow for 
economically depressed areas, those areas that had contamination in the 
soil, to be reached by new entrepreneurs who are willing to take a 
little bit of a risk, and they will get some incentives and tax breaks 
if they establish a business in these areas.
  Republicans, on the other hand, fought very hard to get IRA's, 
individual retirement accounts, that will now go to those who can put 
up to about $2,000. If they happen to have incomes up to about 
$160,000, now they will not have to pay taxes on those particular IRAs. 
They benefit.
  Democrats made sure that the education package would give someone who 
is going to community college and pays $2,000 a year at least $1,200 of 
tax breaks. The Republicans wanted to give $750. We won on that. The 
Republicans were able to get more breaks for the 1\1/2\ percent of 
people who die and have to pay an estate tax.
  We all win and we all lose. Ultimately we try to compromise. I think 
we can all say that whether one lives on Main Street or Wall Street, we 
all won.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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, allow me to say to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], a friend and someone who I know has 
worked so very hard on this bill, I thank him very much. I rise today 
to support this legislation and this effort.
  However, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, Bill, if I might 
call you that, if we acknowledge the sincere distinctions that we have 
in this House, let me now commend my good friend and the ranking member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Charlie Rangel. Charlie Rangel is a Korean war veteran who went to 
school on the GI bill.
  It so happens that his history may track a little more where I came 
from, where the earned income tax credit might have helped my parents 
who did not have a college education; who struggled every day, and may 
not have known sometimes how the bills would be paid.
  I represent a district that looks like that of the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Charlie Rangel, and with poor people and working people, and 
great ethnic diversity, so I also stand in the well of this House 
acknowledging that there are some stumbling blocks in this tax bill. 
Nevertheless, I cannot thank Charlie enough for staying in there in the 
fight, never forgetting where he came from.
  So we now have in place for those people making $30,000 a year tax 
relief. The HOPE scholarship has been made better. In fact, now you do 
not have to worry about whether you are going to Yale or Harvard to get 
tax relief, you can go to your local community college and you can get 
$1,500 a year free and clear and you can go and get an education.
  I do not like that most Americans do not save a lot. This may change 
because of this tax bill. It gives incentives for savings. That is a 
positive. England is No. 3 in this world on assets because their people 
save. Yes, I do not like total airline taxation system, but we have 
made it better, and we are going to stay on it and make it much better. 
To my airline constituents those on short domestic routes and those on 
international routes, I will continue to monitor the impact on this 
bill.
  To the Members, there is something else we can work on. We can work 
on tax simplification, so all of us can understand how to file our 
taxes, because we are a nation that believes in carrying its weight. 
Further, in the outyears, if this deficit explodes, I am committing to 
be diligent in making sure this Congress fixes this bill so we do not 
have the deficit that we had before, which hurts the economic health of 
this Nation.
  There are some stumbling blocks here, but to that I quote 
Shakespeare's words ``that unto each of us is given a book of rules and 
a bag of tools, and each must make, ere life is flown, a stepping stone 
or stumbling block. Stumbling blocks are in this bill, but there are 
enough stepping stones that we should vote for this bill. This is a 
bill for America. I am proud to vote for this tax bill, because people 
like me and people I represent will be able to count a few more dollars 
in their pockets and get real tax relief. At the same time America's 
business is freer to reinvest in America's economy and create jobs! 
jobs! jobs!
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues in raising 
the flag for the Americans who truly need the tax cuts in this bill. 
Let's not kid ourselves here, this will mean an increase in the 
paychecks for working people that Democrats represent. This bill may 
mean a decrease of Republicans on lines 13 and 14 of their Schedule D's 
after they confer with their lawyers and accountants, But, today 
Democrats can raise the flag for working Americans who bring home a 
paycheck that will see an increase as a result of work on this side of 
the aisle.
  Let's make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the economic engine that 
is driving our expanding economy is being oiled and maintained by 
Americans who carry lunch boxes to work and really do something or make 
something for the paychecks they receive. They don't clip coupons, they 
work for a living. They don't have lobbyists up here on Capitol Hill 
making campaign pledges to us. They are the ones who really deserve the 
break today that this bill is delivering.
  Democrats fought Republicans and won the $500 child tax credit for 
families who need it, families making under $30,000 a year and may have 
depended on the earned income tax credit in the past, the American wage 
earners that the Republican leader characterized as getting welfare if 
they got the child tax credit.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats fought for and won this credit for 15 million 
taxpaying, working families that the Members on the other side of the 
aisle argued vehemently were less deserving than families making over 
$100,000 a year. Republicans failed the fairness test even though they 
originally promised in their Contract With Americans back in 1994 that 
those

[[Page H6651]]

15 million would be included in their targeted tax breaks. Thanks to 
our work, the work of Democrats, those working class Americans are 
included today.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public knows who stood up for the families 
who send their children to our community colleges, to our great land 
grant universities, our venerable State colleges and universities and 
our Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Americans know that 
they will be able to contribute tax-free to State run prepaid tuition 
plans because of the work of Democrats. They know that the HOPE 
Scholarships that give students a tax credit for the first 2 years of 
college worth 100 percent of the first $1,000 of their tuition and 50 
percent of their second $1,000 of tuition has a Democratic stamp on it. 
They know that in the third and fourth years of their college education 
they will get a tax credit worth 20 percent of $5,000 of tuition 
expenses for each year because of the Democrats on Capitol Hill.
  Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about which Members of Congress 
expanded the welfare-to-work tax credit in order to help those 
Americans and their employers who are making the transition from 
welfare to work. This bill gives employers who hire those who may have 
been less fortunate than others and have been on welfare for an 
extended period of time a tax credit equal to 35 percent of the first 
$10,000 in wages in the first year of employment and 50 percent of the 
first $10,000 in the second year. I offered this very same amendment in 
the 104th Congress, I am glad today it passed. The targeted urban 
communities that this part of the bill will help includes the city of 
Houston and the people there and in other urban areas who are making 
the effort to turn their lives around. These are the people for whom 
government can truly make a difference. These are the people who may 
not have anybody in their lives to give them boosts and incentives to 
help them make a better life for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also mindful of the consumers who fly on our 
airlines like Southwest and Continental. America's airlines, both big 
and small, as well as their passengers are winners under this bill, 
although we can do better. The financial reform that begins with this 
bill will insure airline safety in the future, and airline industry 
prosperity.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Democrat and vote for this bill. It 
is good for our country and Democrats have helped those who really need 
our help.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can pick up with the 
passion we just saw, but that is good news. This is an amazing day.
  Mr. Speaker, the firmness and fairness of the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer] brought this deal about. I hope the American people 
understand that. Our Republican leadership team has done a good job, 
but the best decision they ever made was to let the gentleman negotiate 
for us. It has really helped a lot.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is going to vote for this 
bill, I understand. I know this is difficult. I congratulate him for 
making what has to be a difficult compromise, but I think the Nation is 
better off.
  I am not going to talk about the details for the next few seconds. 
The important thing to me is that we are taxed from the time we get up 
in the morning and drink our first cup of coffee to the time we go to 
bed and watch a show on television and pay cable taxes. We are taxed 
from the time we are born until the time we die. Today we get just a 
little bit of our money back, and a little money and power flows out of 
Washington today. We do not need to worry about the details.

                              {time}  1430

  The most important thing that you need to understand about today is 
that, when President Clinton moved to the middle and agreed that money 
and power need to come home in a fair way and said giving money and 
power back to families, businesses, and local government is a good 
thing, the public has rewarded him, and they should, and the Democratic 
Party. But let it be said, as a member of the Contract with America 
class, that our legacy to this country is that new people came to 
Congress and sang a different song, and that tune has been picked up by 
people who have never sung it before and it is music to the American 
public's ears.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for 
yielding me this time. I am going to vote for this tax bill for a 
couple of reasons. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel] and the President for making the child tax credit 
refundable. Somebody making down to $18,000 a year is not on welfare. 
They should share in this tax cut.
  Second of all, the education investment is probably the most 
important investment vehicle that we have in this tax bill to move the 
economy forward. With respect to the capital gains proposal, the final 
proposal actually, I think, is far better than we started because it 
addresses holding periods. I think that is much more efficient 
economically. It allows us to not reward churning of accounts but to 
reward long-term investments that are more productive. With respect to 
some issues in it, I am pleased that you dropped the difficult minimum 
provisions that have been requested by the administration. That is very 
important to State and local governments.
  I regret that we still have the $3 head tax in it that will affect 
short haul carriers such as Southwest Airlines in my State. I think 
that belies the fact that these carriers pay the same capital cost as 
long haul carriers through State and local landing right agreements. 
Overall it is a good bill. Let us just hope that it works.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which is much 
more fair and fiscally responsible than the legislation approved by the 
House on June 26. This conference agreement improves upon the original 
legislation in several significant ways: it provides more tax relief to 
low and moderate-income taxpayers most in need of this assistance; it 
provides more extensive tuition tax credits to help families afford a 
college education; it better targets capital gains tax relief to reward 
economically productive long-term investments; and it eliminates or 
limits provisions that would have caused the cost of this legislation 
to explode over time, resulting in new deficits.
  The child tax credit in this conference report is much more fair than 
in the original House bill. This legislation extends the child tax 
credit to working parents making as little as $18,000 annually who 
would have been denied this assistance under the earlier bill. My 
Republican colleagues claimed giving a child tax credit to families 
earning less than $30,000 per year was the same as welfare. Mr. 
Speaker, this is not welfare. These are working, taxpaying, wage-
earning families who would have been denied tax relief simply because 
they do not earn enough to pay income taxes, although they still have 
to pay substantial and regressive payroll taxes. These are people 
working harder than ever to stay off welfare. Because of strong 
Democratic support led by President Clinton and Ways and Means Ranking 
Member Charles Rangel, we now have a bill that helps these families 
too. As a result, 5.5 million more children from these working families 
will benefit from this tax credit. This is the right thing to do to 
strengthen our families and reward their hard work.
  This legislation also improves substantially on the tuition tax 
credit. The original House bill would have cut the value of the 
proposed $1,500 tax credit in half and provide only 50 percent of 
tuition expenses for millions of students attending community colleges. 
This agreement provides the full tax credit for the first $1,000 of 
tuition costs and a 50-percent credit for the second $1,000 of tuition 
for each of the first 2 years of college. And it provides a tax credit 
worth 20 percent of $5,000 of tuition expenses for the third and fourth 
years. In addition, it allows an income tax deduction of up to $2,500 a 
year for interest paid on student loans, which I have long supported, 
and creates a new individual retirement account specifically for 
education expenses. These are the right investments to make because 
higher levels of education are necessary than ever to succeed in 
today's global, high technology economy. Just last week, we heard 
testimony from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and numerous 
respected economists that, in order to ensure American workers' earning 
power, we must increase their level of education. This bill provides 
for that need.

  I am also pleased that this legislation rewards long-term investment 
by reducing the maximum capital gains rate to 20 percent for 
investments held for at least 18 months and 18 percent for those assets 
purchased after 2000 and held for more than 5 years. The capital gains 
rate would be reduced to 8 percent for such long-term investments for 
taxpayers in the 15-percent tax bracket. This provision moves in the 
direction of legislation I have introduced to reduce the capital gains 
tax on a sliding scale based on how long an asset is held, which I 
believe is both economically productive and fiscally responsible. In 
this way, we will reward patient capital that is

[[Page H6652]]

so vital to starting and expanding businesses and creating jobs.
  I regret that the bill continues to impose a per segment head tax of 
$3.00 under the airline ticket tax. This is unfair to short haul, low 
cost air carriers such as Southwest Airlines based in Texas. It belies 
the fact that both short and long haul carriers pay an equal amount of 
the majority of capital costs of the Nation's airports through landing 
and gate agreements at the local level.
  Finally, I believe this legislation is more fiscally responsible than 
the earlier bill approved by the House. That bill included provisions, 
such as capital gains indexing, that would have caused the size of the 
net tax cuts to grow rapidly after the first 5 years. The result would 
have been new and larger deficits and increased pressures to cut vital 
programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, education, and environmental 
protection. I remain concerned that this conference report still poses 
that risk. As I stated yesterday during the debate on the spending cut 
bill, there are no guarantees that this plan will work. We must 
carefully track the revenue stream and ensure that the next tax cuts 
remain within the projected cost. And we must be willing to make 
corrections if they do not.
  But on balance I believe this is a good bill that will provide tax 
relief to our families, help more young Americans get the college 
education they need, and reward long-term investment that creates 
businesses and jobs. I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a highly respected, great patriot member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have done what 
some called impossible. We have balanced the budget, provided the most 
significant tax relief in 16 years. Not since Ronald Reagan gave us 7 
years of unprecedented economic growth have we given so much relief to 
the millions of families, small business owners, farmers, and other 
hard-working Americans who deserve to keep more of the money they earn.
  This bill is going to free up dollars, free up money, taxpayer 
dollars, I might add, which previously had been used for wasteful 
government spending. It returns this money to the rightful owners, to 
the people of the United States of America, to those who create jobs, 
economic growth, and wealth. It is going to provide more people with 
the opportunity to achieve the American dream of owning their own home, 
seeing their children go to college, and having enough money to retire 
and just enjoy their grandchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], my good friend, a 
super Texan and a great American for his hard work and determination in 
making sure that Americans get what they so richly deserve, a big tax 
cut. It is long overdue. It is finally time that this Congress has done 
something good for America. God really has blessed America.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], a member of the committee.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me start out by indicating not only my 
strong support for the legislation, but also my pleasure in working 
with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. Not only is the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer] very knowledgeable about the Tax Code, but in 
his dealings not only with myself but other Members, he always was 
very, very fair. He uses a saying in the committee, it is called rifle 
shot. He does not want any rifle shots as it relates to tax policy.
  I cannot agree with the chairman more. I think if we are going to put 
in the tax bill relief or fairness or help to a group, it should be a 
broad group, not one specific corporation, not one group of individuals 
but it should be a broad array of individuals. This bill, I believe, 
reflects that.
  I also want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel], who kept us all honest, especially the Republican 
majority not only in items as it dealt with the education portion but 
also with the EITC and other areas that are so important to his 
constituents, my constituents, and all our constituents.
  The first time the bill came before this body, I could not vote for 
it. There was a very onerous position included in it, the independent 
contractors section, which would have the effect of reclassifying 
hundreds of thousands of current employees who get benefits such as 
unemployment compensation and workmen's compensation. They would be 
denied these by reclassifying them. This bill does not have that 
provision. It was taken out in the conference committee. That is 
probably the major reason why I stand here today in strong support of 
the bill.
  Also, I think one of the criticisms we have all had from time to time 
on the existing Tax Code is that it does not promote savings. With the 
inclusion of three new types of IRA's, we are changing the course of 
this Nation wherein we are going to reward savings and not reward 
spending. I think that is an important feature.
  Another area which I think should be highlighted, which is of vast 
importance to millions of homeowners in the country, is the exclusion 
of sale of your primary residence. Right now you have to save a whole 
ton of receipts to prove you are not making any money on the sale. This 
bill eliminates that.
  Last, since my tax legislative assistant is leaving today to go on to 
school, let me thank Win Boerckel for years of service in helping me 
with my Ways and Means Committee duties.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the tax bill before us today. The 
Taxpayer Relief Act brings us to a balanced budget while also providing 
tax relief to many Americans.
  On balance, I would have liked to have seen across-the-board tax 
relief for everyone, not just those with children, or those selling a 
house or securities. However, this was not to be since my committee 
amendment to increase the personal exemption for all taxpayers was 
defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation may not be perfect, but it is much 
improved over the version that came before us in the House 1 month ago. 
The changes made in conference have earned my support for this measure.
  The House bill contained a provision that could have had a 
devastating impact on workers and their benefits. The measure, 
innocently labeled as a safe harbor for independent contractors, would 
have permitted many employers to reclassify their workers as 
independent contractors and thus deny those workers employee benefits 
and worker protections. This was not only bad policy, it did not belong 
in this tax bill in the first place. Fortunately, the conferees wisely 
removed this language from the conference report before us today.
  Likewise, this conference report provides reasonable capital gains 
relief without triggering massive outyear revenue losses. The original 
House bill contained not only the capital gains cuts, but also a 
measure which would have allowed indexing the value of assets for 
inflation. The final bill leaves out the indexing which could have led 
to large revenue losses 10, 15, or 20 years from now, but includes the 
rate cuts that will provide significant relief to taxpayers today.
  The bill contains relief for parents raising children, small 
businesses being passed on to family members, workers saving for their 
retirement, and people saving to buy their first home.
  In order to help parents make ends meet, taxpayers with children 16 
and under will receive a $400 tax credit next year, and a full $500 tax 
credit in 1999 and thereafter. This credit will be available to single 
parents making up to $75,000 and couples making up to $110,000.
  The bill also provides much-needed help to families with students 
going on to college. The HOPE scholarship will give students up to 
$1,500 a year for the first 2 years of college, and up to $1,000 a year 
for their third and fourth years.
  The agreement allows individuals to contribute tax-free to State-run 
prepaid tuition plans, like the one we have in our State of Wisconsin.
  The legislation also creates education individual retirement accounts 
to which families can contribute up to $500 per year toward college 
expenses. Single parents making up to $95,000 and couples making 
$150,000 can open and contribute to such education accounts. In 
addition, taxpayers will be allowed to withdraw up to 10 percent from a 
regular retirement IRA to pay for the education expenses of a child, 
grandchild, or spouse.
  Starting next year, taxpayers will be able to deduct a portion of the 
interest on their student loans. The allowed deduction will be $1,000 
in 1998, gradually increased to $2,500 in 2001 and thereafter.
  The bill provides significant estate tax relief, increasing the 
amount of an estate exempt from tax from $600,000 to $1 million over 
the next 10 years. In addition, small business gets more immediate 
relief beginning next year when family-owned businesses and farms will 
be eligible for a $1.3 million exemption.
  Under this legislation, more and more Americans will be able to take 
advantage of individual retirement accounts [IRA's] to save for

[[Page H6653]]

their old age, purchase a home, or save for their children's education.
  Single taxpayers making up to $95,000 and couples making up to 
$150,000 will now be able to contribute up to $2,000 a year to new 
back-loaded IRA's. The contributions will not be deductible from 
income, but the withdrawals will be completely tax-free. Withdrawals 
can be made penalty-free not just for retirement, but also for the 
purchase of a first home.
  More taxpayers will be able to contribute to regular IRA's as well. 
Over the next several years, the income limits restricting use of 
regular IRA's will be gradually increased. Those single individuals 
with incomes up to $50,000 and those couples making up to $80,000 will 
eventually be able to make tax-deductible contributions to regular 
IRA's.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that objectionable provisions have been 
removed so that I can support this legislation bringing tax relief to 
many people across this country and in the Fourth Congressional 
District of Wisconsin. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this tax cut 
proposal and to remind my Democratic colleagues that we can accomplish 
what we can accomplish when we stand up and fight for what we believe 
in.
  I want to say thank you to President Clinton and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel] for standing firm for Democratic priorities. Just 
last week our Republican colleagues were on the floor of this House 
calling a tax cut for hard working police officers and kindergarten 
teachers welfare. They stood up and defended a tax bill that included 
only a fraction of the needed funds for children's health care coverage 
and they promoted a proposal which would have raised taxes on graduate 
students and provided nothing at all in the way of relief for college 
juniors and seniors.
  Democrats stood up. We fought for middle class Americans, and we won. 
Democrats fought for tax relief for all Americans who work for a living 
and pay taxes, even if they do not make a lot of money. Democrats 
fought for the full $24 billion to provide health insurance for 
uninsured children and Democrats fought to improve the education tax 
package to give every family in this Nation the chance to send their 
kids to college. What they did not fight for were tax breaks for the 
wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from Gary Hall, dated 
July 4, 1997.
  Dear Congressman, I am sitting here at my dad's grave, missing him so 
much. He was not only my father, financial adviser, supervisor, the 
best farm adviser I know. He was my best friend. Now the family 
attorney says time is getting short. You have to decide what is being 
sold to pay all these taxes.
  The family farm, 1,900 acres, appraised at $5.5 million, estate 
taxes, $4.26 million. He says, why does the Government deserve to 
squander or blow dad's hard work away? The Federal Government taking 80 
percent, 80 percent of the family farm. It is unconscionable.
  But the good news is, we have passed a bill. It will save him a 
little bit of money. But we have a long way to go so America's farmers 
can pass land on to their children without the Government squandering 
it away.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Paxon].
  (Mr. PAXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, before I begin let me tip my hat to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. I know this is an amazingly 
important day for him and his great team. They have worked so hard for 
so long and labored in the minority. And today we have this happen, and 
we just tip our hats and say, thank you for your perseverance and your 
dedication.
  Mr. Speaker, what a difference a Republican Congress makes. Four 
years ago this very month the other body, the other party was enacting 
another celebrated budget. That budget increased taxes on Social 
Security, on gasoline, on income, even Democrats called it the largest 
tax increase in the history of the world.
  It gave us deficits as far as the eye could see and did nothing to 
save Medicare. Today we are prepared to pass another kind of budget. 
There is a difference. Today we are cutting taxes for children, for 
college, for farms and for homeowners.
  We eliminate the deficit and save the Medicare system which saved the 
lives of both of my parents. But you ain't seen nothing yet.
  This Congress intends, under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], to come back again next year and to work harder to 
cut even more taxes for the American people. For example, next year I 
believe we could cut payroll taxes, eliminate the marriage penalty, and 
give a break to families who care for their elderly parents or we could 
do as my hero, Ronald Reagan, wanted to do, which is have even larger 
across-the-board income tax cuts for all American taxpayers.
  Of course, our ultimate goal is nothing short of eliminating the 
entire Tax Code and replacing it with either a flat tax or a national 
sales tax, a debate this country needs and is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the final battle in the war to cut America's 
taxes. This is but the opening shot. What a difference, truly, a 
Republican Congress and leaders like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer] have made and are making for us every day.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], a leader of our Democratic Party and our whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this tax bill because it 
helps working families. In the Republican bill you almost had to be 
wealthy or work on Wall Street or own a big corporation to get a tax 
cut. We said no to that. Democrats said that tax relief should go to 
the teachers, the police officers, the nurses, the family farmers, the 
construction workers. These are the people who make America work. They 
put in a hard day's work, day in and day out, and they needed the 
relief.
  I will never forget the debate we had on this floor over the last 45 
to 60 days. We talked about that police officer in Atlanta, GA making 
$23,000 a year, putting his life on the line every day, has two 
children. And we said in our proposal we wanted him and his wife to 
share with their children and that child tax credit.

                              {time}  1445

  And they said it would be like giving welfare to that police officer. 
Well, they were wrong. We fought them on it and we won.
  Under today's tax bill, 27 million working families will get a child 
tax credit. Homeowners will be able to keep more of their gains when 
they sell their home. Students from working families and people who 
have lost their jobs or want to upgrade their skills will be able to 
get a $1,500 tax credit from their community college, job retraining, 
or a 4-year degree. That will all be supplemented in this bill.
  Now, these are the people that the Democrats fought for, and we won. 
But I must tell my colleagues this afternoon and concede that we have 
paid a price for all of this. This bill is indeed a compromise. In 
exchange for extending the child credit for working families, 
Republicans demanded huge tax breaks for the wealthiest 5 percent, and 
they got them. In exchange for education tax credits, Republicans 
demanded huge tax breaks for America's largest and biggest 
corporations, and they got them.
  I am talking about tax breaks like rolling back the corporate minimum 
tax. So we are now going to go back to the days when some of the 
biggest corporations in America will not pay any taxes at all. It is an 
outrage; a $19 billion outrage.
  So we will be watching and we will be fighting. The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Paxon] comes to the floor and says there will be another 
tax bill next year. We will fight with every ounce that we have against 
this $19 billion giveaway to the biggest corporations. We will be 
fighting to make sure that the tax breaks now going to the wealthy do 
not come out of the pockets of working families in the future.
  We will be fighting for fairness, because working families will not 
stand for it if our Tax Code turns into a picnic basket of corporate 
giveaways. They will not stand for it if the Fortune 500 companies 
reaping huge profits pay no taxes at all. They will not

[[Page H6654]]

stand for it if the CEO's, making 200 times the salary of the average 
worker, squander their capital gains on corporate jets and luxury 
limousines instead of investing in jobs in our communities. And they 
will not stand for it if stock market speculators run off with all the 
benefits while the people who work with their hands pay all the bills.
  Today I am voting for that person. I am voting for that mother who 
will be able to take that $500 credit and buy her daughter books and 
school supplies. I will be voting for that police officer and his wife 
who will be able to get $1,000 for their children. I think of that 
fellow who wants to become a welder who can take a $1500 education 
credit and sign up for a course and land a good job and a good wage. I 
will be voting for him.
  So, no, this bill is not perfect, but my friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel], and all those who worked on this bill to bring 
it to some sense of equity, we have a long ways to go, but we brought 
it from where they started at $245 billion with the Contract With 
America, we brought it home to where at least some of the benefits will 
go to working people in this country who need them so badly.
  No, this bill is not perfect, Mr. Speaker, but these people that we 
fought for cannot wait and I am voting ``yes'' for their future.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I oppose this bill and suggest to my colleagues and the American 
people that it is unfair and unnecessary. The Congress is lying to the 
American people because this does not balance the budget. It cannot 
balance the budget until 2002 unless we make more cuts, and we are not 
going to make those cuts. We have not now and we will not then.
  If we did nothing, the budget would balance this year or next year by 
itself. Government, again led by the Republicans in Congress, is 
mucking up the economy by bringing forward an unnecessary bill.
  These unfair tax cuts, 75 percent of these tax cuts go to families 
with over $150,000 in income. Simmons, the beet king in Texas, gets 
$104 million individually. Sammon Enterprises in Texas gets $23 
million, negotiated in the dead of night in the Republican leadership 
offices, where they probably got those two $500,000 campaign checks 
from the Amway Co., and they gave Amway $200 million in tax deductions 
for their Republican contributions.
  And in the secret of night it harms poor families who will have a $40 
tax increase. And what my colleagues do not know is that it eliminates 
abortion for poor young women. That is buried in this bill. It hurts 
cancer victims. Unknown to any of us here, the tobacco settlement, 
which is not even agreed to yet, $50 billion of the money that should 
come out of the tobacco settlement is being credited because of the 
tobacco tax. That money was supposed to go to cancer victims. The 
Republicans are stealing the money that is supposed to go to cancer 
victims from an unfinished tobacco settlement and using it to fund this 
turkey.
  My fellow colleagues, this is an unnecessary bill with a political 
purpose and it is economic nonsense. It harms the American public and 
only helps 1 or 2 percent of the very richest Americans who make their 
money either through inheritance, not a heavy-lifting job, or through 
stock market activities.
  There are secrets buried in this bill which are undetermined at this 
point and were decided last night in the dead of night. I urge my 
colleagues, in the sense of parity and economic justice to vote ``no'' 
on this tax bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
very briefly refute the statements that my friend on the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], just put 
before the Congress.
  I do not know where his figures come from, but the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, which distributes and scores this bill, has distributed the 
benefit of this bill so that 76 percent goes to people under $75,000 of 
income. Now, with the addition of the change in the child credit and 
other things that were done, it is even more that goes to people who 
are under $75,000, and primarily between $20,000 and $75,000 of income.
  What has added more regressivity to this bill is the fact that those 
who favored the cigarette tax have put in place a tax that is the most 
regressive tax in the bill. Irrespective of how one feels about 
cigarette taxes, when the scoring is done on regressivity, that pushes 
more of the burden onto the very, very low-income people.
  So I wish we would just get the facts before the Congress and before 
the people.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this tax 
package which moves us away from the paramount goal of this Congress--
bringing the budget into balance. This bill also moves us away from two 
other very important goals--tax simplification and tax fairness.


                           deficit reduction

  The historic budget agreement between the President and the Congress 
called for net tax cuts of $85 billion over 5 years and $250 billion 
over 10 years. If we did not pass these tax cuts economists predict 
that we could reach a balanced budget in 2 to 3 years. This agreement 
will push that goal out to the year 2002.
  In addition, the bill before us includes an even bigger net tax cut 
of $95 billion over 5 years and $275 over 10 years. Over 5 years the 
tax cut exceeds the agreement by $10 billion and over 10 years it is 
$25 billion over the line. There is no reason to enact such a large tax 
cut package in excess of the budget agreement. In the 10 years beyond 
2006, the size of the tax cuts will continue to increase. The 
cumulative cost by the year 2017 could go as high as $500 to $600 
billion. It is folly to enact a plan, which will put additional 
pressure on the Federal budget, when we know that the pressures on the 
budget from the growth in Medicare and Social Security will greatly 
intensify over the same period of time. We are in a time of very strong 
economic growth. We should use this opportunity to get our fiscal house 
in order so that we can better deal with the fiscal pressures we know 
are coming.


                           tax simplification

  This legislation will introduce a new and unwelcome magnitude of 
complexity in the lives of ordinary Americans. This at a time when the 
public confidence in the IRS is at an all time low and budget cuts for 
taxpayer services are sure to come. In 1986, we enacted legislation to 
greatly simplify the Code; achieving lower rates and a simplified 
structure. This legislation regrettably moves us in the wrong direction 
and requires that we pay attention to the Tax Code before we made basic 
decisions. In 1996, about half of all tax returns filed were completed 
by paid preparers. The child credit, education, and IRA provisions will 
result in tax relief but at a cost of increased paperwork for those who 
will have to interpret and plan to benefit from these provisions.
  A former Treasury official was quoted as saying, ``Who really wins 
from the tax bill? The tax-return preparers and the manufacturers of 
tax-preparation computer software.'' These provisions could have been 
simplified had there not been so much focus on blessing some behavior 
and striking political compromises. The current Code is already very 
burdensome, this legislation will certainly increase that burden for 
many people.


                              tax fairness

  We must have a fair tax system. Many at the top of the income scale 
have benefited greatly over the last several years. That is commendable 
but we should not enact policies which will accelerate the divergence 
between those at the top and the bottom of our economy. This bill will 
do that at a time when we can least afford it. A recent analysis of the 
bill shows that the average tax cut for middle-income families and 
individuals will be less than $200 under this bill. Top income earners 
will pay over $16,000 less in taxes each year under this bill. Families 
who are in the lowest 20 percent of income are the only group which 
will face a tax hike under the bill.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I must register my objections to 
H.R. 2014's airline tax provisions which levy a $2 per stop fee which 
will be borne mainly by our local short-haul air carriers and their 
passengers.
  I represent the Second Congressional District of Hawaii, which 
includes all of Hawaii's eight major islands. Obviously, the only way 
to travel between the islands is by air. Passengers of Hawaii's inter-
island air carriers--Hawaiian Airlines, Aloha Airlines, and Mahalo 
Airlines--will be adversely affected by the new $2 per stop charges 
under H.R. 2014. A typical round trip ticket from Honolulu to Maui 
costs under $100. Now there will be added a new $4 tax. That flight is 
less than 20 minutes! A 5,000 mile round trip flight from Washington DC 
to San Francisco will also have a $4 stop fee.
  These airline tax provisions are clearly unfair to Hawaii's people.
  I urge this House to quickly revise this matter and allow Hawaii's 
people to be treated equitably.

[[Page H6655]]

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997 (H.R. 2014). This historic legislation 
provides for needed relief for working families. It achieves a goal of 
mine to balance the budget. reduce the deficit, and invest in our 
future.
  This initiative invests in our children and our future hopes for them 
through greater access to health care and educational opportunities. 
The education tax provisions will also benefit their parents who seek 
to improve and expand their own skills to meet new career challenges in 
our global economy. In my community, the metropolitan community 
colleges have excelled in connecting our employers with qualified 
employees through extensive business and community partnership. The 
Vice President visited the business and technology center in my 
district last year to highlight their success as a model for our 
Nation. This initiative will only enhance the potential of elevating 
our work force to the level of competitiveness needed.
  One aspect of the legislation important to the people of the fifth 
district is the brownfield tax credit. Qualified companies would be 
allowed to deduct the costs associated with remediation of contaminated 
sites in order to promote development in these areas. In my district 
both the Westside Industrial Park conversion of an old train yard into 
a useable property, as well as the rejuvenation of the Union Station 
project are now closer to reality. In eastern Jackson County these tax 
credits will allow for completion of the Jackson County Expressway. The 
economic boom created with this new freeway will generate job growth 
and economic expansion.
  One of the major victories which was accomplished with this 
legislation was the rightful return of the dedicated 4.3 cents gasoline 
tax to the Transportation Trust Fund. The previous diversion of these 
funds unfairly masked the true amount of the deficit. The availability 
of these funds for projects in the metropolitan Kansas City area will 
afford the opportunity to improve the safety and efficiency of the 
highway system and complete critical infrastructure projects such as 
the Chouteau Bridge, and the completion of the Bruce R. Watkins 
Freeway, which has been 25 years in the making.
  Reduction of the capital gains tax for middle class Americans will 
keep our economy strong by increasing the capital available to continue 
to grow our economy. Reduction in the inheritance taxes will enable 
small businesses to stay within families.
  We must be vigilant in Congress to ensure that the systems in place 
to guarantee the budget is balanced by the year 2002 remain. Similarly, 
Congress will have to continue to reduce the deficit through setting 
smart spending priorities. Balancing the budget and reducing the 
deficit will yield further rewards for our country; deviating from 
those worthy goals will threaten to erode value which this tax package 
provides for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and 
urge its adoption. Thank you.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2014, the 
Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997.
  This is a proud moment for me--to be able to tell the citizens of 
Arizona that the U.S. Congress has heard their plea to reduce their 
taxes and to balance the budget. In my 13 years here in the House, how 
many times have I made that plea on this floor? And today it is really 
going to happen.
  In terms of the future of this country, the tax incentives for higher 
education may be the most important thing we do here today. As we 
continue to engage in the global marketplace, education is the factor 
that makes our workers more productive and creative. Education is the 
key to higher wages and a better standard of living. Reducing the 
financial burden on families who want to provide that future for their 
children is a step to insuring the viability of our economy for years 
to come. A college tuition tax credit, deductible interest on student 
loans, a credit for continuing education, extension of employer 
provided education assistance--these incentives will be incredibly 
valuable in assuring the educated work force we need for the future.
  As important as the education incentives are, I don't want to 
downplay the $500/child tax credit. An extra $500, $1,000, or $1,500 or 
even more in the pockets of families with children up through the age 
of 16 will make the lives of those families so much richer. We aren't 
giving these parents anything. We are just allowing them to keep that 
much more of the money they work so hard to earn for their families--
for clothes, for piano lessons, for braces, for camp, or vacations. And 
as pleased as I am that we are letting them keep more, I am troubled by 
the fact that I even say those words. Who are we as the Federal 
Government to say that people can keep their own money? How did we get 
to this place? We must get back to having the people tell us how much 
they are willing to give the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when we know we are facing a looming crisis in 
payroll taxes and funding Social Security payments, I am especially 
pleased that we're letting people keep more of their investments. If 
they are thrifty and invest for the future, we are taking less of the 
earnings on those investments. We are dropping the top capital gains 
tax from 28 percent to 20 percent and eventually there will be an 18-
percent top rate for those investments held for 5 years or more. We are 
providing more ways, especially for middle income families, to save for 
those retirement years ahead through expanded IRA's. That will make a 
tremendous difference for our citizens who want to provide for 
themselves after retirement.
  We are helping small business with this tax bill. In addition to the 
capital gains tax relief, we are exempting them from the alternative 
minimum tax. We are phasing in full deductibility for health insurance 
premiums for self-employed persons. And there is an immediate jump in 
the death tax threshold to $1.3 million for small family farms and 
businesses.
  There are many, many other excellent provisions in this bill, but I 
won't take more time now to itemize what many of my colleagues already 
have. I might also say there are a few of the loophole closing 
provisions that I don't like--provisions that actually will create tax 
burdens where none existed before. And there are some provisions that 
will greatly complicate the Tax Code and create still more confusion in 
the IRS administration of the tax law. Such complications are bound to 
create more dissatisfaction with an already controversial agency.
  But, I am pleased that we are taking less in taxes from the American 
people. Some on this floor have decried giving back this money. They 
are treating it as if it belongs to the Government. It doesn't. It 
belongs to the people who pay the taxes and if we think otherwise, it's 
time for us to be replaced.
  Yesterday's accomplishment, passage of the Balanced Budget Act, will 
balance the Federal budget by 2002; save Medicare from bankruptcy, and 
shrink the size and scope of Government. It addresses the short-term 
financing problem of the Medicare trust fund, and establishes a 
national commission to study and make recommendations to ensure the 
long-term viability of the important program.
  It gives seniors choices in the Medicare Program rather than locking 
them into the one-size-fits-all system. Seniors will have the 
opportunity to choose from the traditional Medicare Program, or from 
the alphabet soup of managed care, or take complete control over their 
health and decide what type of medical services best suits their 
individual needs through a medical savings account. And most important, 
this reform attacks waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program. 
The anti-fraud initiative includes a ``three strikes you're out'' 
penalty for the worst abusers of the system.
  Also, this historic reform increase health care coverage for children 
who are uninsured, and gives the States the flexibility to administer a 
child health initiatives which work best at the State and local level.
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and Taxpayer Relief Act are not 
victories of the President or the Congress, they are victories for the 
American people.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as vice chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee and as one of the House conferees on the tax bill, it is with 
great pleasure that I rise today on the floor of the House of 
Representatives to speak in strong support of legislation which will 
provide substantial tax relief for the American people. Most 
importantly, it appears that this bill, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997, will be signed into law and will become the first major tax 
relief package the American taxpayer has seen enacted since 1981. 
Although it was in 1994 that Republicans gained the majority in the 
House of Representatives and started pushing in earnest for a tax cut, 
it took us nearly 3 years to finally convince this President that the 
American people were in need of real tax relief. Mr. Speaker, on behalf 
of the taxpayers of the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois, I'm 
glad the President finally got the message.
  By now everyone should know the story of the middle class taxpayer. 
Today, the typical family devotes more of their family budget to 
combined Federal, State, and local taxes than they do to food, 
clothing, and housing. Considering this statement, it should come as no 
surprise that it is also a fact that Americans are being taxed today at 
record high levels. The time to reverse these trends is long overdue, 
and the legislation before us today is, I hope, only the first 
significant step toward relieving family tax burdens.
  What is in the bill before us today? While time does not permit me to 
discuss every aspect of this bill in detail, let me start by saying 
that families with children will be the big winners. The $500 per child 
credit provided in this bill will begin to rebuild the foundation of 
take home pay for families with children which has

[[Page H6656]]

been seriously eroded over the past few decades. Indeed, had the 
current dependent deduction been indexed for inflation from its 
inception, the per child deduction would be over $8,000 rather than in 
the $2,500 range that we find today. We needed to do something, whether 
it be to dramatically increase the deduction--as I have long 
advocated--or provide a credit--as I introduced at the start of the 
104th Congress. Relief is provided in this bill.
  What else can taxpayers look forward to? The bill will expand 
opportunities for Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA's] and provide 
for penalty free withdrawals for education and first time homebuyers, 
legislation I have cosponsored for years. And the bill provides 
substantial education tax incentives.
  In addition, the bill substantially provides relief from the death 
tax, raising the exempt amount from $600,000 to $1 million by 2007 and 
providing, in 1998, an exemption of $1.3 million for small businesses 
and family farms. As I have said before, the death tax is an extremely 
punitive tax as it penalizes those who have saved, invested, and paid 
taxes throughout their lives in the hopes of leaving something for 
their loved ones. I look forward to the day when I will never again 
hear the story of the family farm being sold to pay the estate tax, and 
that is why I will continue with my legislative efforts to eliminate 
the death tax entirely.
  While allowing the American taxpayer keep more of their hard earned 
money will help spur economic growth indirectly, there are several 
provisions in this bill which will very directly encourage economic 
growth and job creation. The Taxpayer Relief Act reduces the capital 
gains tax rate substantially. Encouraging investment in capital will 
increase the pool of capital which will in turn increase access and 
thus stimulate job growth. another little discussed provision of the 
bill will reduce the burden placed on businesses by the alternative 
minimum tax [AMT]. This legislation exempts 95 percent of businesses 
from having to pay the AMT and it is my hope that members of this 
Congress are finally realizing that when they excessively tax 
businesses, they are simply increasing the price of products to 
consumers, killing jobs and hurting the ability of our businesses to 
compete internationally. As with death taxes, my goal is to eventually 
eliminate capital gains taxes and the AMT altogether; however, this 
bill is a good start in that direction.
  Because of the provisions I have just mentioned, this is a bill well 
worth passing, despite any further improvements or changes that I might 
personally wish to make. While we have certainly heard such rhetoric in 
the weeks leading up to this day, I find it refreshing that the class 
warfare rhetoric that once dominated floor debate on tax cuts has at 
least been toned down to some degree. I would hope that we can finally 
put behind us once and for all the divisive class warfare rhetoric that 
has resonated all too frequently in this House chamber. The politics of 
envy, the politics of division, is simply crass politics that does far 
more harm than good. Following my statement I have included in the 
Record a copy of an article by Thomas Sowell which further exposes the 
shortcomings of the arguments used by those who engage in the class 
warfare debate. Again, the time has come to end class warfare 
demagoguery once and for all.
  Finally, as vice chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and as one 
of the House conferees on the tax bill, I can tell my colleagues that 
there is no one, not one person in either the House or the Senate, that 
has worked harder or deserves more credit for making this day happen 
than my friend, and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill 
Archer. My Chairman, Bill Archer, has worked tirelessly in these past 
months--late nights and weekends--with one goal in mind--to deliver 
this tax relief package to the American people. He never lost sight of 
the goal and he delivered.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help make Bill Archer's hard 
work pay off and deliver this tax bill to the American people with an 
overwhelming majority of the vote.

              [From the Chicago Sun-Times, July 26, 1997]

       Liberals Are Mighty Generous With Definition of `the Rich'

                           (By Thomas Sowell)

       Every year Forbes magazine devotes an issue to the rich--a 
     listing of the millionaires and billionaires who have the 
     most money. Liberals in Congress also talk about ``the rich'' 
     whenever anyone wants to lower taxes. Big taxers and big 
     spenders always like to say that there are ``tax cuts for the 
     rich.''
       The problem is that these two kinds of rich people are 
     almost entirely different. Most of the people whom 
     politicians and the media call rich don't have even a tenth 
     of what it takes to make the Forbes list.
       Millions of Americans who never would dream of considering 
     themselves rich are included in the inflated statistics used 
     by the liberals who claim that tax cuts are for the rich.
       According to a Heritage Foundation study, there are more 
     than 4 million mechanics, repairmen and construction workers 
     who must meet the Clinton administration's definition of 
     rich. So do more than 8 million government employees at 
     federal, state or local levels.
       How do people who are making modest middle-class incomes 
     suddenly become rich? Let me count the ways.
       First of all, the statistics used include money that these 
     people never receive. These estimates assume that income is 
     being underreported and add 20 percent to whatever income is 
     reported. The value of your life insurance and pension fund 
     also is counted as income.
       Anybody can be rich if you add enough fictitious money to 
     his actual income. As a result, anybody in Congress can be a 
     demagogue who says that most of the tax cuts are for the 
     rich. Let's go back to square one. The only people whose 
     taxes can be cut are people who are paying them. Mostly, that 
     is the middle class. When these middle-class people are 
     renamed ``the rich,'' of course there will be ``tax cuts for 
     the rich.''
       The misrepresentation does not stop there. The Clinton 
     administration's insistence that the tax cuts should also 
     apply to ``the working poor'' is a classic piece of 
     disinformation.
       Most very low-income families are not paying federal income 
     taxes in the first place. Extending a ``tax cut'' to them 
     would mean nothing if the words were being used honestly. 
     Used politically, however, what these words mean is that more 
     federal money must be given to them anyway a handout renamed 
     a tax cut.
       None of this addresses the larger question of whether 
     people making middle-class incomes today have always made 
     middle-class incomes. Many of those who are called rich not 
     only are not, they have not even had middle-class incomes all 
     their lives. They just happen to be in the peak earning years 
     of their lives--as many younger people currently in the lower 
     income brackets will be in later years.
       The wife of a prosperous doctor hit the nail on the head 
     when she said she resented people who complained about all 
     the money that doctors make. She asked: ``Where were they 
     when we had three children and $85 in the bank?''
       Most Americans do not start off in a high income bracket. 
     They work up to it over the years and reach a peak somewhere 
     in their 50s or 60s. That is where most of the high income 
     and wealth in the country is. Census statistics for 1990 show 
     families headed by someone in the 45- to 64-year-old bracket 
     earning nearly double the income of families headed by 
     someone in the 25- to 34-year-old bracket.
       When it comes to wealth, the disparity is even greater. 
     Census data show the net worth of households headed by 
     someone in the 55- to 64-year-old bracket to be several times 
     that of households headed by someone under 35.
       Most of the people who are called rich could more 
     accurately be called middle-aged or elderly. They are not a 
     class. They are an age bracket. When they were younger, they 
     were usually in a lower income bracket.
       The facts are fairly simple. It is the demagoguery that 
     gets complicated.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax relief 
and balanced budget legislation which we have long promised and have 
finally achieved. Today we are going to follow through on our promises 
to balance the Federal budget for the first time since 1969 while 
providing the first major tax cut since the early 1980's.
  I realize that the budget agreement is not perfect, but on balance 
its benefits enormously outweigh any flaws.
  First and foremost, the budget accord goes a long way in helping 
working families make ends meet. Families with young children, under 
17, will be able to take advantage of a $500 child tax credit. As these 
children get older and enter college, we are going to continue helping 
these families with a package of college tax credits, deductions and 
other tax incentives to help pay for tuition and pay back school loans.
  Should this family own a small business or family farm, we are going 
to help them pass along their livelihood to their children. Currently, 
many children cannot afford to continue their family business or farm 
because they must sell all or part of their family business to pay the 
enormous Federal estate tax. To help individuals keep farms and small 
businesses in their families, we are raising the estate tax exemption 
on family-owned farms and businesses immediately from $600,000 to $1.3 
million.
  If this family plans on selling their home or some investments they 
have made we are going to help them as well. The tax provisions slash 
capital gains taxes and creates a major exclusion for the sale of their 
principal residence.
  Far too many Americans work their entire lives and struggle to make 
ends meet as they retire. So, we are helping families save for their 
retirement, purchase a home or pay for college through expanded 
individual retirement accounts [IRA's].
  Millions of seniors depend upon Medicare for their health care. 
However, medical inflation and a growing elderly population has

[[Page H6657]]

threatened the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. With this threat 
hanging over us, the budget agreement takes immediate and decisive 
action to save Medicare while expanding seniors health coverage--both 
noble and essential actions. Seniors will benefit from new services 
which will cover more preventative screenings and diagnostic tests. 
Furthermore, seniors will be able to choose from an array of plans 
including medical savings accounts and private unrationed fee for 
service plans.
  When all is said and done, the American people are the biggest 
winners today. We are ensuring that they will continue to enjoy a 
strong economy, that we will no longer burden future generations with 
our debt, and that in doing so they are going to be able to keep more 
of their hard-earned income. Today is a great new beginning for 
America.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2014, the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It is a pleasure to be able to vote for 
this legislation today.
  First, let me point out that passage of this legislation today has 
only been made possible by the deficit reduction packages of 1990 and 
1993-bills that together reduced deficits by over $1 trillion. Those 
were the real budget balancing votes--they raised taxes and cut 
spending. It was not easy to pass those bills, but it was absolutely 
necessary to produce a healthy economy and promote economic growth. The 
upbeat economic conditions that we are enjoying today are due in no 
small part to those bills, and the tax breaks provided in this balanced 
budget package are the fruits of the seeds that were sown in 1990 and 
1993 by Democratic Congresses.
  As a result of the 1990 and 1993 bills, we can provide tax relief 
today to millions of working families in districts like mine--hard-
working families with incomes of $20,000 and $30,000, families that 
have been struggling with stagnant incomes to make ends meet and give 
their children the educational opportunities that will allow them to 
have a better life. This legislation will help those families to live 
the American dream.
  This bill is a substantial improvement over the bill that was passed 
by the House last month. Many of the worst provisions in the House 
version of this bill have been eliminated or moderated. This 
legislation will, for example, provide the full $500 per child family 
tax credit to millions of moderate-income households that would not 
have received it under the House version of this bill. Students 
attending low cost institutions would receive the full $1,500 HOPE 
scholarship tax credit under the conference report--unlike the House 
bill, where many such students would not have received the full credit. 
The conference report also stripped out the antiworker provisions in 
the House bill that would have imposed burdensome new responsibilities 
on labor unions and allowed companies to classify more employees as 
independent contractors.
  These improvements are the direct results of the unceasing efforts of 
President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress to make this a better 
bill. Democratic efforts made the family tax credit available to 
millions of moderate income families. As a result of Democratic 
persistence and perseverance, the education tax provisions in the bill 
will help mainstream Americans, not just the wealthiest families. In 
short, Democrats are responsible for shifting the benefits of this bill 
from the wealthy to middle-class American families. Likewise, it was 
Democratic insistence that eliminated unwise House provisions like the 
indexing of capital gains--provisions that would have increased 
deficits dramatically in the years after 2002. And Democratic 
insistence eliminated the antilabor provisions in the House bill. In 
short, President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress made certain 
that this legislation contained provisions that will benefit middle-
class Americans.
  The bill contains other important benefits for American taxpayers as 
well. It allows taxpayers to deduct the interest on their student 
loans. It allows parents to deduct their contributions to State-run 
prepaid college tuition programs like the one run by the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania. It allows most homeowners to avoid paying capital 
gains on the sale of their homes. In order to help economically 
distressed communities, the bill contains tax incentives for private 
parties to clean up and redevelop brownfields sites, and it increases 
the number of empowerment zones and enterprise communities.
  No bill is perfect. Budget reconciliation bills typically contain 
scores of provisions, and it would be unrealistic to expect anyone to 
be satisfied with each and every provision. I still have concerns about 
specific provisions of this bill. But I believe that, taken as a whole, 
this legislation will benefit the Nation. Consequently, I intend to 
vote in support of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so 
as well.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the conference 
report on H.R. 2014 includes a provision to add an exception to the 
definition of foreign personal holding company income which would apply 
to income derived in or incident to the active conduct by a controlled 
foreign corporation of ``a banking, financing, or similar business,'' 
provided the CFC was predominately engaged in the active conduct of 
such business. I am also pleased to note that this provision, section 
1175, is based on H.R. 1783, ``The International Tax Simplification for 
American Competitiveness Act,'' of which I was the lead sponsor.
  The growing interdependence of world financial markets has 
highlighted the urgent need to rationalize U.S. tax rules that 
undermine the ability of our financial services industry--such as 
banks, insurance companies, insurance brokers, and securities firms--to 
compete in the international arena. Yet the ability of our companies to 
compete is impeded by U.S. tax rules that subject financial services 
income derived from the active conduct of a business to antideferral 
rules that were originally enacted to reach, and would be more 
appropriately limited to, passive investment activities. Section 1175, 
like the provision of H.R. 1783 upon which it is based, will remove 
that impediment.
  I readily acknowledge that this battle is not mine alone, and I 
gratefully acknowledge the support of many colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle. Section 1175 is a result of the efforts of many members 
of the Ways and Means Committee. On May 14, 1997, 23 Ways and Means 
members--a clear majority of the committee--wrote to Chairman Archer 
stating:

       The inequitable treatment of the financial services 
     industry under current law jeopardizes the international 
     expansion and competitiveness of all U.S.-based financial 
     services companies, including commercial banks, securities 
     firms, insurance companies, insurance brokers, and finance 
     and credit entities.

  By amending the definition of ``foreign personal holding company 
income,'' section 1175 helps each of those types of entities to compete 
in international markets.
  Section 1175 is set to expire after 1 year. I note, however, that the 
sunset is a function of revenue concerns, not doubts as to its 
substantive merit. I look forward to working next year with the 
Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and my committee colleagues to 
make this provision permanent.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 2014, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This bill, combined with 
the Balanced Budget Act which we passed yesterday, is a major step 
toward fulfilling our promise to the American people to put our 
Nation's fiscal house in order while providing modest tax relief 
targeted toward the middle class.
  First, let me make clear that this bill is a vast improvement to the 
version of the bill the House passed last month. This conference 
agreement ensures that these tax cuts are targeted to hard-working 
middle-class Americans and will not explode in the outyears.
  My opposition to the original bill was based partially on the fact 
that the child credit would have been denied to millions of Americans 
who earn under $30,000. These Americans are struggling to make ends 
meet and deserve tax relief just like everyone else. Fortunately, after 
the insistence of both the Democratic Caucus and the President, the 
conference agreement provides these Americans with a child tax credit.
  Furthermore, I was extremely concerned that the original version 
would have exploded the deficit in the outyears, unraveling all of our 
hard work in balancing the budget. While I continue to have concerns 
over the lack of enforcement included in this package, I believe the 
bill we have before us today is more fiscally responsible and, if we 
are vigilant in our efforts to ensure that current estimates translate 
into reality, will not only balance the budget in the near term, but 
maintain that balance for years to come.
  Undoubtedly, the crowning achievement of this tax package is the 
unprecedented commitment it makes to education. We all recognize that 
in order to compete for high-wage jobs in this era of increased global 
competition, our students need more than just a high school diploma. 
This bill takes a solid step toward reaching the President's goal of 
making the first 2 years of college more accessible.
  This bill includes nearly $40 billion of tax credits for hard-working 
middle-income Americans to help offset the tremendous costs of higher 
education. The bill establishes the HOPE scholarship for the first 2 
years of college providing a 100-percent credit for the first $1,000 of 
costs for tuition, fees, and books and an additional 50 percent for the 
next $1,000. The bill also provides a tax credit worth 20 percent of 
$5,000 in tuition expenses for the third and fourth years of college. 
These credits will expand access to higher education for millions of 
Americans and provide relief for American families struggling to equip 
their children with the education necessary to compete in today's 
economy.
  In addition to these tax credits for college, this bill recognizes 
that learning is a lifelong endeavor and with the continuing changes in

[[Page H6658]]

the job market, many Americans are going back to school to enhance 
their chances for achievement. This bill extends section 127 of the Tax 
Code, allowing workers to exclude from their taxable income up to 
$5,250 of employer-provided educational assistance.

  These tax provisions, combined with the increase for Pell grants and 
the protection of funding for Head Start we passed yesterday, represent 
a massive reallocation of our limited resources to education, an 
investment that will pay dividends for everyone in our country. 
Clearly, this bill, together with the Balanced Budget Act, proves that 
we can both balance the budget and invest in our future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this package of 
tax cuts because it represents a reasonable compromise on many issues 
and provides relief to millions of hard-working Americans. Including 
targeted estate tax relief, an expanded exclusion on the sale of a 
home, reinstatement of the home office deduction, and an overall 
capital gains tax cut, this package embodies the principles of basic 
fairness and will help continue the economic growth which is essential 
to balancing the budget.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring attention to the fact 
that low-income families in search of tuition assistance benefit very 
little from this bill. On the other hand, we have provided substantial 
education tax cuts and credits for middle-income and higher income 
families. One section of this bill provides a 3-year extension of a tax 
exclusion for undergraduate students who are fortunate enough to have 
their employers provide them with educational aid. This type of tax 
break positively affects the students who are struggling to get a 
postsecondary degree and working to pay the bills at the same time. The 
bill I introduced in May would have permanently extended this section 
and permitted both undergraduate and graduate students to take 
advantage of this tax exclusion. I still believe it is important to 
include graduate students in this section because they are far more 
likely to have employers pay for their education than undergraduates. 
It is also imperative to permanently extend this exclusion because our 
Nation's students who have their tuition paid for by their employers 
need the security that they will not ever be taxed on their education. 
It is indeed unfortunate we have not included more education tax breaks 
to low-income Americans in this bill who are in just as much, if not 
more, need of a tax break as middle- and upper-income Americans.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, in June, I voted against the Republican 
budget reconciliation bill in the House because I had several concerns 
about how the legislation would negatively impact many American 
citizens. I was especially concerned about the impact on children, 
seniors, the poor and hard-working Americans who have difficulty making 
ends meet each month or who worry about health care for their families. 
The House-passed bill proposed to cut Medicare by $115 billion and 
Medicaid by nearly $14 billion over 5 years. I could not in good 
conscience support such cuts knowing that the burden would fall 
disproportionately on those least able to afford it.
  However, I voted for the budget reconciliation conference report 
because I believe it represents a far more fair and rational plan to 
balance our Federal budget by the year 2002. While I am not pleased 
with the level of cuts retained in the agreement for Medicare and 
Medicaid, I consider this bill a significant improvement. This 
agreement restructures and preserves the Medicare program. It improves 
the original plan for Medicare and extends the life of the part A trust 
fund for at least 10 years. The agreement provides $1.5 billion to ease 
the impact of increased Medicare premiums on low-income seniors. 
Negotiators also agreed to eliminate several controversial provisions 
from the original bill, including increasing the eligibility age from 
65 to 67 and a copay for home health care.
  Medicare benefits are also expanded to include mammography coverage, 
prostate cancer screening, bone density screening to identify and 
prevent osteoporosis, and diabetes management care. In addition, the 
conference agreement expands the types of health plans under Medicare 
seniors may choose which ensures that seniors have the same health care 
choices that other Americans do. It protects Medicare's future by 
allowing the kind of choice and competition that has brought down 
health care costs in the private sector. Such modernization of Medicare 
will help ensure its long-term solvency.
  The agreement is also an improvement for Medicaid. Under the original 
plan in the House, hospitals in our distinct would have faced serious 
threats to their ability to operate efficiently. In fact, at least one 
rural hospital in the 12th District of Illinois indicated it may have 
been forced to close its doors due to the substantial cuts included in 
the reconciliation bill. Many of the hospitals in southern Illinois are 
classified as disproportionate share hospitals [DSH] meaning they 
receive compensation because a majority of their patients are Medicare 
and Medicaid beneficiaries. The Medicare and Medicaid cuts included in 
the House version of the budget would have endangered these hospitals. 
However, the agreement provides that no State will lose more than 3.5 
percent of its DSH payments. In subsequent years the reduction will be 
less than 2 percent.
  The conference agreement continues Medicaid coverage as an 
entitlement for disabled children who are losing their Supplemental 
Income benefits as a result of the stricter definition of disability in 
the new welfare law. Unlike the House bill which made coverage optional 
for States, the conference agreement requires States to continue 
Medicaid coverage for these disabled children.
  It is a tragedy that 10 million children in this country are without 
health coverage. One in three children in Illinois goes without any 
health insurance--the majority of these children are from two-income 
families. This bill creates a $24 billion program to expand health 
insurance coverage for children. Under this initiative 5 million more 
children will have access to health care.
  The agreement also provides a $500-a-child nonrefundable tax credit 
for each child under age 17. Single parents with incomes up to $75,000 
and couples with incomes up to $110,000 would be eligible for this tax 
credit.
  Children and families will also have more educational opportunities 
under this agreement as students could receive a tax credit worth 100 
percent of the first $1,000 of their college tuition costs, and a 
credit worth 50 percent of the second $1,000 of tuition. In the third 
and fourth years of college, the student would receive a tax credit 
worth 20 percent of $5,000 of tuition expenses.
  Children will also benefit from the reduction in estate taxes 
included in the tax portion of the reconciliation agreement. I support 
this provision because it allows small business owners and farmers $1.3 
million in tax-free assets to their heirs. This means family farms and 
family businesses can be passed from generation to generation without 
heavy tax burdens.
  For families and retirees, the agreement lowers the top capital gains 
tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and lowers it further to 18 
percent for assets held for 5 years after 2000. This is important as 
more and more Americans from all income brackets invest their 
retirement savings in 401(k) plans or other stock market investment 
plans.
  In summary, I believe this spending and tax plan will help American 
families prosper. As a supporter of a Balanced Budget Amendment, I also 
believe this agreement will put our Nation firmly on the path to a 
fiscally sound future. A balanced budget by the year 2002 will enable 
us to focus on protecting and educating our children and ensuring the 
health and retirement of our Nation's seniors and aging baby boomers. 
Sound national fiscal policy will also allow our Nation to continue to 
be competitive in a growing international marketplace. The initiatives 
included in this agreement will help us reach these goals.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, when I came to this House in January 1995, 
my single most important objective was to obtain real Federal tax 
relief for working families in Long Island, and across this great 
Nation. Today I will vote to reduce America's tax burden by $94 billion 
over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, $94 billion may seem like a large 
tax reduction, but it pales in comparison to the $600 billion in tax 
increases that Americans suffered during the first 4 years of the 
1990's. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is simply a modest 
step in the right direction.
  Three years ago, when I asked the people of Brookhaven, Smithtown, 
Riverhead, Southold, Shelter Island, East Hampton, and Southampton for 
the privilege of representing them in the House of Representatives, I 
promised them I would work to cut taxes. Indeed, many Members of this 
House were elected because of that promise. With this historic, 
bipartisan agreement to cut taxes for America's working parents, 
students, and senior citizens, we are keeping our promise to the 
American people.
  This legislation provides tax relief for more than 40 million middle-
income taxpayers with children; cuts capital gains taxes to promote 
economic growth; and helps America's children realize their dreams by 
making education more affordable. These tax cuts for America's working 
families were made possible because the Balanced Budget Act restrains 
Federal spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. This 
bipartisan tax cut package is a good start in that direction, reducing 
the tax burden on working families.
  Mr. Speaker, the parents of 102,096 children in my district in 
eastern Long Island will save a total of $46,050,924 thanks to this 
legislation. Parents earning up to $110,000 will feel the benefit of 
this bill almost immediately. This agreement includes a child tax 
credit that will reduce their total tax bill by $400 for each of their 
children under 17 in 1998, increasing to $500 per child in 1999. To 
make higher education more affordable for America's families, this 
legislation creates a $1,500 HOPE

[[Page H6659]]

Scholarship for all students who attend the first 2 years of a college 
or other postsecondary institution. Also included is a 20-percent 
tuition tax credit for college juniors, seniors, graduate students, and 
all Americans who take college classes to enhance their skills and 
advance their careers.
  With the newly created Education Savings Accounts [ESA's], parents 
can save for their children's education by making $500 tax-free annual 
contributions to an ESA; increasing to $1,000 in 2000. Interest on the 
ESA's will accumulate tax-free, and funds may be withdrawn for any K-
12, undergraduate, post-secondary vocational, or graduate education 
expense. Finally, there is a student loan interest deduction for up to 
$2,500 per year of interest on higher education loans.
  Capital gains tax relief is an important victory for many Long Island 
homeowners. The budget agreement provides married couples with a 
$500,000 capital gains exemption when they sell their homes, with 
single-filers eligible for a $250,000 exemption. Many Long Island 
homeowners have seen inflation increase the value of their homes over 
the years. This much-needed increase in the exemption for home sales 
will protect the value of the most important increase that most Long 
Islanders will ever make. The budget deal also provides help for 
Americans just starting out, by allowing them to make penalty-free 
withdrawals from their Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA's] to 
purchase their first home.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former Regional Director of the Small Business 
Administration, I can appreciate the benefits this legislation contains 
for the more than 82,000 small businesses on Long Island. An immediate 
$1.3 million estate tax exclusion is provided for the heirs of family-
owned small businesses and farms; and the general inheritance tax 
exclusion is gradually raised from $600,000 to $1 million over 10 
years. On top of the increased exclusion from inheritance taxes and 
capital gains tax relief, self-employed small business owners will be 
able to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs, where they 
were able to deduct only 40 percent in the past. We also expanded the 
income tax deduction for home offices.

  According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of 
American families own assets such as stocks, bonds, homes, real estate, 
and businesses that realize capital gains. Last year, nearly two-thirds 
of all tax returns that reported capital gains were filed by taxpayers 
with incomes less than $50,000 a year. The agreement provides overall 
capital gains tax relief by reducing the top rate from 28 percent to 20 
percent, with the rate dropping to 10 percent for couples with taxable 
incomes under $41,200. After the year 2000, investors who hold their 
assets for at least 5 years, will see their rate drop to 18 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that these tax cuts were all delivered to 
the people immediately, rather than being phased in. We can celebrate 
today, but tomorrow we cannot rest. Mr. Speaker, I support this step in 
the right direction, but we still have alot of work ahead of us.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is extremely pleased with the 
recently-agreed-to historic budget agreement which provides the first 
Federal tax relief in 16 years in a balanced and fair manner. The 
taxpayer Relief Act, which we are considering today, is part of a very 
important budget agreement that provides major tax cuts to middle-
income Americans, just as we have always said it would. It is a 
balanced, equitable measure that will give direct, immediate tax relief 
to low-middle and middle-income Americans.
  This Member is especially pleased that H.R. 2014 includes the capital 
gains provisions in a balanced tax relief package that will benefit 
low-middle and middle-income American families. Also, the $500-per-
child tax credit, a variety of education-related benefits, and 
significant increase in inheritance or ``death'' tax exemptions mean 
that low- and middle-income families are direct beneficiaries of the 
legislation before us. Furthermore, the tax relief package provides for 
expanded IRA's which remove some of the barriers imposed by the Tax 
Code to private savings, thus encouraging financial planning for 
education and first-time home purchases.
  This Member would also like to thank his colleagues who assisted in 
ensuring that efforts to repeal the ethanol tax exemption have been 
defeated. We have stopped the assault on ethanol, and we have kept our 
promise to farmers and ethanol producers.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member's only regret is that the Taxpayer 
Relief Act does not include prospective indexing of capital gains for 
inflation. This provision would have allowed middle-income Americans in 
the future to invest with confidence that inflation would not devour 
the return on their investments. However, prospective indexing of 
capital gains could be accomplished in subsequent legislation and this 
Member will support such efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member supports the Taxpayer Relief Act and urges 
his colleagues to join him in voting ``yes.''
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, we surely have come a long way. After 2\1/
2\ years, the Republican Congress and the Democratic administration 
have finally agreed on a plan to balance the budget and provide for 
America's future. But it was neither the Democrats nor the Republicans 
who emerged the victors in the budget battle. It was the American 
people. Hard-working, tax-paying citizens have finally won a major 
victory. Tax relief has become a reality because the American people 
have spoken loudly and we have listened.
  Last year, both Republicans and the President made campaign promises 
which included tax relief for working Americans and a balanced budget 
for America's future. After 2\1/2\ years, we can be proud to say that 
together we have fulfilled our promises to the people. A balanced 
budget which includes significant tax relief is in hand. This is the 
first balanced budget in a generation and the first tax relief in 16 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we can all rest easy knowing that the President 
and the Congress were able to work together to provide a brighter 
future for all Americans. Partisan politics were pushed aside; the 
people emerged as the big winners.
  The specifics of our budget agreement will put more money in your 
pockets. Reductions in the capital gains tax, a child tax credit, 
educational tax credits, and a decrease in the estate tax rate will 
help all Americans live out the American dream. In fact, our plan will 
refund to you one-third of the largest peacetime tax hike ever--the 
President's 1993 tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, by the end of the 104th Congress, the scorecard on the 
Contract With America was impressive: two-thirds of the contract had 
become law. Tax relief for families was the crown jewel of the Contract 
With America. It didn't happen until this week. But it was well worth 
the wait.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report onthe Taxpayer Relief Act which will reduce significantly the 
Federal tax burden for the first time in 16 years. Although the 
balanced budget agreement promised net tax relief of $85 billion, the 
final compromise bill provides for $94 billion in net relief over 5 
years and more than $260 billion over 10 years. I applaud Ways and 
Means Chairman Bill Archer and ranking member Charlie Rangel for their 
leadership and hard work, and the heavy lifting of the entire 
committee's staff, I making the tax package a reality.
  It is important to remember that there virtually has been no tax 
relief since 1981, when President Ronald Reagan lived up to his 
campaign promise and delivered a tax cut measure that led us to one of 
the biggest economic expansions in our history. In contrast, just 4 
years ago, President Clinton gave us the largest tax increase ever, 
reversing the progress former President Reagan worked so hard to 
deliver. After assuming control of the House and Senate in 1995, the 
Republican-led Congress rolled up its sleeves and began the difficult 
work of bringing real tax relief to the American people. I like to 
think of it as returning to the taxpayers their own hard-earned 
dollars.
  As has been reported widely, the major benefits of this tax package 
will go to families with children. Although it has been a number of 
years since my wife and I had children in our home, I see through the 
experiences of my daughters the financial challengers of today's young 
families. I am pleased that the conference report on the Taxpayer 
Relief Act gives parents a $500-per-child tax credit beginning in 1998. 
Under this provision, parents with children under the age of 17 will be 
eligible for this benefit, providing help to 11 million more children 
than what the President wanted since his tax package only provided this 
benefit to parents with children 12 years old and under. The second 
largest benefit to most families will be the tax-free education savings 
accounts which will help them with college or other post-secondary 
education for their children.
  The conference report on the Taxpayer Relief Act also reduces the 
capital gains tax rate from 18 percent to 20 percent for those with 
incomes above $41,500 per year and from 15 percent to 10 percent for 
those earning below that amount. This measure would benefit three-
quarters of American families who own homes, property, or other capital 
goods. Equally important, it would greatly benefit those people who 
have worked hard and invested in retirement accounts because their 
money now will be taxed at a lower rate.
  I also am pleased by the conference report's many contributions to 
the owners and employees of America's small businesses. As one who many 
years ago started a small business, I can attest to the hard work, 
sacrifice, and risks involved in earning a living this way and creating 
jobs for others in the community. Today, small business men and women 
face more regulatory challenges that I did when I started out. As such, 
I believe it is all the more important to minimize the negative effect 
of the Tax Code on this engine of the economy

[[Page H6660]]

of my district and the entire country. I wish to acknowledge the work 
of Small Business Chairman Jim Talent in promoting the important small 
business tax relief which was advocated by the delegates to the most 
recent White House Conference on Small Business. I joined in signing 
Chairman Talent's letter to the conferees in support of: the home 
office deduction; accelerated phase-in to 100 percent of the health 
insurance deduction for the self-employed; and estate, capital gains 
and alternative minimum tax [AMT] relief for small businesses. Many of 
my constituents also will welcome the additional delay in penalties for 
electronic filing under the electronic Federal tax payment system.
  Finally, I am especially grateful for the ways in which this tax 
package clarifies certain of the important pension reforms in last 
year's Small Business Job Protection Act. In particular, I was 
supportive of provisions in the House and Senate versions of this 
measure which were needed to enable subchapter S corporations to 
establish employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's], giving the employees 
of these small businesses another retirement option. As a long-time 
cheerleader for ESOP's, I am enthusiastic over these positive steps to 
boost employee ownership which have been taken by the 105th Congress.
  Clearly, the Taxpayer Relief Act for 1997 is not a ploy to give a tax 
break to the rich, as some of my colleagues would have us believe. It 
is a long overdue effort to ease the ever growing tax burden that falls 
primarily on middle class taxpayers, robbing these families of their 
freedom. While I view this measure as a great start, I will continue to 
work with my colleagues to deliver more tax relief and a leaner and 
more responsive Federal Government in the future.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
to H.R. 2014, the Taxpayers Relief Act. This measure provides a tax 
reduction for our Nation's working families, including a $500-per-child 
tax credit, $1,500 education tax credit, and a reduction in the capital 
gains tax.
  I commend my friend and colleague the gentleman from Texas, the 
distinguished chairman of our Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Archer as 
well as our leadership for producing this bipartisan tax measure.
  I would like to highlight a provision of the bill which will benefit 
our Nation's police officers and firefighters. Title XV, section 1527 
includes a measure, H.R. 1795, which I introduced earlier this session 
to rescind the dollar limitation on police and firefighter benefit 
plans--allowing these employees to collect the money that they have 
rightfully earned by contributing to their pension fund.
  Currently, under section 415 of the Tax Code, police officers and 
firefighters are not eligible to collect the funds that they have 
earned and instead are required to retire with benefits that force 
officers to work past their general retirement age in order to afford 
the high cost of living on the East Coast and other large metropolitan 
and suburban areas throughout the country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's be fair to middle 
American working families, and to those, who day in and day out, place 
their lives on the line for our protection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 2014 
albeit with some reservations. This legislation is the product of great 
compromise by both sides. I am pleased that my Republican colleagues 
recognized the need to include some tax relief for middle-class 
Americans in the final version of the tax plan. However, I am deeply 
concerned that this may still explode the deficit in the out years.
  The $500-per-child tax credit will be available to low-income 
families and the education tax breaks will be fully implemented. We, as 
Democrats, fought hard to ensure all families will receive some benefit 
from this tax package. Low-income American families deserve the $500-
per-child tax credit just as much as a family whose earnings exceed 
$110,000. The HOPE scholarship and the student loan interest deduction 
will make higher education more affordable and accessible for all 
Americans.
  I am still troubled by the distribution of the tax cuts. The capital 
gains reductions will allow CEO's to cash in their stock options and 
pay less in taxes than a family earning $30,000. It is the unfortunate 
nature of compromise that we must cede these generous capital gains tax 
breaks to the Republicans to provide some relief for hard working low-
income Americans.
  We should defer the self-congratulations until such time as the 
budget is actually in balance. The conference agreement is imperfect 
and there is a definite possibility that it will destroy the Democrats 
work on deficit reduction which began with the 1993 budget agreement. 
Nevertheless, I will not stand in the way of the good to reach the 
perfect. Insomuch as hard working lower-income American families stand 
to benefit through the $500-per-child tax credit and the $31 billion in 
education tax cuts, this tax package is good.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we are today proudly returning to 
Americans more of their hard earned money. I am honored to help provide 
the people of San Diego County some long-overdue tax relief, through my 
enthusiastic vote for H.R. 2014.
  For families with children, we provide relief through a $400-per-
child tax credit next year, and $500 per child in the following years, 
and relief to save for college and education and a better future.
  For homeowners, we exempt the sale of couples' homes up to $500,000 
from the capital gains tax. This will help spur home sales, and 
simplify recordkeeping for thousands of San Diego County homeowners.
  And for families who save and invest, we have expanded the 
availability of IRA's and slashed the capital gains tax. Together, 
these initiatives spur more savings and more economic growth.
  Together with the bill we passed yesterday, saving Medicare and 
controlling Government spending, we are balancing the budget after 
years of debts and deficits. What a difference it has made for America 
to have a fiscally responsible Republican Congress. Back in 1993, 
President Clinton enacted the largest tax increase in American history. 
This Republican Congress has brought sense to the Federal budget by 
restoring respect for the budgets of the families and businesses that 
make America strong and free. And America wins.
  As I did when this measure passed the House in June, I want to draw 
attention to one particular provision of this package: the 21st Century 
Classrooms Act. This provision provides expanded tax incentives for 
companies to donate computers and technology to K-12 education. I want 
to address why this is so important to our children and our future.
  By the year 2000, some 60 percent of U.S. jobs will require technical 
skills, twice as many as today. But, as the GAO has reported, our 
classrooms lack the technology our children need to succeed. This 
measure will spur private enterprise to get involved with local 
schools, and to provide them a new source of up-to-date computers and 
technology. It ensures that companies have an incentive to donate to 
schools, to private foundations involved in education, and to 
organizations that refurbish computers for schools so that they are 
ready for educational uses.
  Just as computers and technology have transformed private enterprise, 
they can transform our schools and the education of our children. With 
the click of a mouse, a child can go anywhere in the world. With 
computer proficiency, a young person can transform a wide variety of 
information into a multimedia presentation. With the technology 
available today--to say nothing of the technology available tomorrow--a 
student can compose music, write and illustrate a short story, study 
images of distant worlds, and help dream bigger dreams and build a 
better world for the next generation of Americans.
  I am optimistic that the 21st Century Classrooms Act can help 
transform American education. It will help prepare our young people for 
tomorrow. And when this House votes for this tax relief today, it will 
help bring new opportunity to the classrooms of America's young people.
  We are indebted to the men and women who assembled this package of 
tax relief for the American people, including Speaker Gingrich and the 
Republican House leadership, Chairmen Archer and Kasich and their 
staffs. But we are most indebted to the Americans who pay the way of 
this Government. For them, we are providing a tax cut.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on 
the Taxpayer Relief Act, and I commend the conferees for making 
substantial improvements to H.R. 2014, the original bill that was 
considered by the House.
  I was unable to support H.R. 2014 because it did not provide ample 
benefits for the middle class and it would have exploded the deficit in 
the outyears. But this conference report is truly a fiscally and 
socially responsible tax cut plan. Its costs are controlled in the 
coming years because the capital gains indexing has been stripped, and 
the Individual Retirement Account benefits have been targeted to 
middle-class savers. It is more equitable than H.R. 2014, as it extends 
the child tax credit to more families earning under $30,000 a year, 
protects the employment status of workers, and provides more help to 
families working to pay for their kids' education.
  I am particularly pleased that this tax bill contains brownfields tax 
incentives and an expansion of the Empowerment Zone program. In 
addition, I am grateful to the bipartisan group of over 60 Members of 
the House who joined me in urging the conferees to adopt these 
initiatives. Although these provisions were not in the House or Senate 
tax bill, I applaud the conferees and the administration for agreeing 
to include them. Both the brownfields incentive and the Empowerment 
Zone expansion will help to spur economic growth and

[[Page H6661]]

spark the redevelopment of distressed communities across the country.
  Washington has been home to partisan sniping for decades, and in 
recent years it has been consumed in a political war of attrition. In 
the winter of 1995/1996, when the Government was shut down and it felt 
like animosity and distrust were the only things that the political 
parties had in common, it seemed unthinkable that we could come up with 
a budget that would be supported by the President and nearly three 
quarters of Congress. But this week we have.
  No one will find this to be a perfect agreement, and everyone will 
agree that there are various changes which we will need to work for 
later. For example, I would like to revisit some of the education 
provisions, notably the tax increase on TIAA-CREFF pensioners and the 
failure to extend employer provided education assistance to graduate 
students.
  Despite some flaws, I am proud of this budget reconciliation 
legislation. This is the most significant accomplishment we have made 
since I came to Congress almost 3 years ago. In fact, it is the most 
significant accomplishment that Congress has made since most of the 
Members of this body have served here. However, it is crucial that we 
all recognize that this is not the time for us to sit back and 
congratulate ourselves. We have shown what can be accomplished when we 
recognize that our shared interests outweigh our political differences. 
Now we must push ahead with the momentum we have built with this budget 
agreement. There are many great challenges ahead of us, and we are in a 
perfect position to work in a bipartisan manner to overcome them.
  I urge everyone to look at this not as the end of the game, but as 
the beginning. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, and I invite all Members to make this only the 
first of many bipartisan achievements.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the tax bill before the House, the 
first in 16 years to cut taxes, is one small step for America's 
families, one historic leap for freedom.
  It reverses the Nation's direction and points us down a path toward 
restoring individual responsibility and accountability.
  Can there remain any doubt that individual citizens and their 
families are far more capable of making effective decisions for 
themselves than can a distant bureaucracy?
  Freedom begins with us, with each individual citizen, each family.
  On behalf of the people who have sent us here, we today reclaim their 
right to decide, to control more of their lives, to direct more of 
their children's development and their own futures.
  Today we celebrate another step on what remains a long, historic 
journey for mankind.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Taxpayer 
Relief Act.
  When I first ran for Congress 4\1/2\ years ago, the goals of 
providing long overdue relief to the American taxpayer and balancing 
the Federal budget were my paramount priorities. It gives me great 
satisfaction to know that, with the action this Congress is taking this 
week, we are accomplishing these goals.
  With passage of the bill before us today, for the first time in 16 
years the American people will be getting the tax relief that they 
deserve. This legislation will provide families with a $500-per-child 
tax credit; give the economy a boost through capital gains tax 
reductions; offer tax credits and other means to help Americans meet 
the costs of higher education for themselves and their children; expand 
home office deductions; increase contribution limits for Individual 
Retirement Accounts; and establish new IRA's that Americans can use to 
save more for retirement, education costs, medical expenses, or the 
purchase of a first home. It also will provide long awaited death tax 
relief, which will help preserve family businesses and farms.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill is the product of much work on the 
part of our leadership, the chairman and members of the House Ways and 
Means Committee, their counterparts in the Senate, and the White House, 
which came to this effort belatedly but in the end accepted that the 
needs of the American people were paramount. First and foremost, 
however, I believe it springs from the renewed commitment to fiscal 
responsibility and relief for the overburdened American taxpayer that 
the Republican majority has championed. I am proud to be a part of the 
Congress that has finally brought about this outcome, and urge my 
colleagues to support this historic legislation.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this landmark 
piece of legislation to reduce the taxes of hard-working Americans. 
Just as yesterday, I was proud to vote for a balanced budget and a 
program to save Medicare, today we continue to fulfill our promise to 
the American people.
  Congressional Republicans have kept their word. For the first time in 
a generation, the Congress has passed and will have signed into law a 
balanced Federal budget. More important, this historic agreement 
extends well beyond the Washington beltway; it truly will benefit our 
Nation's children, working families, and senior citizens. It provides 
middle-class tax relief and saves Medicare while giving seniors choice. 
The American people are the real winners in this budget accord.
  We've saved Medicare through the early part of the 21st Century. As 
one of the budget negotiators on Medicare, I'm particularly pleased 
that we've been able to preserve the health care system relied upon by 
nearly 40 million older Americans. We do so without raising the 
retirement age or cutting benefits. Instead, our plan increased 
services and benefits so seniors can choose the best health care plan 
to fit their own personal needs. No more one-size-fits-all Washington 
approach. And, this is just one of the positive changes in this budget 
agreement.
  We've following through on our commitment of tax relief for hard-
working Americans. Not sine 1981 has the Congress passed and the 
President signed into law tax relief for working families. And, why 
not? Families can decide how to spend their money better than Uncle 
Sam. By standing up to the tax man, we're standing up for hard-working 
American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a few moments to point out the 
particular features of this comprehensive tax relief package which will 
help all folks get ahead in their pursuit of the American dream.
  Families will benefit through the child tax credit--the cornerstone 
of our tax relief package. This helps young folks like the working 
mother in Dixon who called my office this week. She explained how she 
desperately needs the child tax credit to help pay for food, clothing, 
and health insurance for her four kids. With a $400 child tax credit in 
the first year, she'll be able to write off $1,600 from the family tax 
bill. In the second year, the kid credit bumps up to $500 per child 
which means her family can then write off a whopping $2,000 from their 
tax bill. Now that's much-needed and much-deserved tax relief as the 
conservative Congress continues to change Washington.
  Farmers and small businesses also will benefit from this balanced 
budget. By reducing the death tax and providing capital gains relief, 
we'll end triple taxation, expand economic opportunities, and bring new 
jobs and stable prosperity to working folks around the country.
  Finally, I simply want to point out how far we've come in a few short 
years. Since Republicans took the majority in 1994, we've been able to 
cut Federal spending by $100 billion in 3 short years. We've also 
reformed the Nation's welfare system by giving a handup as opposed to a 
handout to our neediest citizens. We've also encouraged personal 
responsibility on the able-bodied by placing time limitations and work 
requirements on any future benefits.
  Now, we take another giant leap for smarter government and 
conservative, common sense solutions. Instead of talking about 
balancing the budget, saving Medicare, and providing tax relief, we've 
turned the discussion into how to do it. This is a significant 
development and conservative achievement, but there's still a long way 
to go. We must continue to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare 
and Social Security. We must ensure continued tax relief for America's 
families and employers. We must continue to ensure that the budget 
stays balanced and that we begin to pay off our enormous national debt. 
I look forward to continuing my commitment to get the job done right as 
I was elected to do because this is the people's agenda and much work 
remains.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the majority leader of the House, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me begin by paying my compliments to all the Members of the 
House, particularly those on the Committee on Ways and Means that 
worked so long and hard on this bill. Let me appreciate what they have 
done.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a day when this Congress has an opportunity to 
stand up and say, ``Mr. and Mrs. America, we know who you are, we 
understand your goodness and we respect your decency. And, Mr. and Mrs. 
America, we know who we are. We are not the ones who govern you but, 
instead, we are those who represent you. In short, Mr. and Mrs. 
America, we are you. It is our job to know who you are, to understand 
your hopes and dreams, to share with you your hopes for this great 
Nation, and to care with you your hopes for your children.''
  It is our job to appreciate all that this great Nation does to not 
only build itself into a great Nation but to support a great government 
that is determined to act on behalf of these great people. And today we 
do that with this bill.

[[Page H6662]]

  We start off by saying to all the working men and women of this 
country, ``We understand it is your money. You let us use your money on 
your behalf. We hope that we do with your money things that you 
understand must need be done and should be done, as a reflection of 
your compassion, your generosity, your sharing and your caring for your 
neighbors and for the greatness of your Nation.''
  And we have done these things. But now we find ourselves at a time 
where we can say it is time to let the American people keep more of 
their money and for us to take less of it.
  It is time for Mr. and Mrs. America, as they struggle with the needs 
of their family which they desire and hope and must put first, that 
they would have a $500-per-child tax credit so that they can do the 
things for their children that they know must be done, whether it is 
buying the diapers; whether it is, in fact, paying for some 
kindergarten, some preschooling; whether it is that day when they are 
13 and the Department of Agriculture says the cost goes up by $1,000; 
when they take them for their braces. Whatever they decide they must do 
with their money, they should have $500 more back for themselves and 
their children.
  It is time that we recognize that they truly do want to save for and 
provide for their own children's education, and they should be rewarded 
and encouraged in the effort that they make with the expansion of IRAs. 
It is time that we understand that their dream is in fact to own their 
own house, and they should be facilitated in that with this tax law.
  More importantly, their dream is the day when their youngsters come 
home and say, ``Mom, Dad, I got the job, and I am going to have my own 
house and I will have my own life.''
  And it is time, then, that we realize they need an economy with the 
vitality, the generosity, the creativity and the energy to give their 
children a chance to work out, in their own lives, their hopes and 
dreams in accordance with the training, the education that we have been 
so generously giving them.
  We pass today a tax bill that says to the men and women of this 
country who work hard, who play by the rules, ``It is your money. You 
keep more of it, you know better what to do with it,'' and we honor and 
respect that.
  This is a bill that we must vote ``yes'' for. We must take pride in 
our willingness to do that. To vote any other vote than ``yes'' is to 
say to the men and women of this country, ``We do not know you, we do 
not appreciate you, we do not respect you.'' And nobody given the 
privilege to represent the good people of this Nation, in good 
conscience, can vote ``no'' and make that statement.

                          ____________________