[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2040-H2044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      A TRUE DIALOGUE ON TAX CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is 
recognized for half of the time until midnight, approximately 21 
minutes after 11 p.m., as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week we were here on the floor of the 
House talking about the extreme tax proposals being offered by our 
Republican colleagues and the Democrats' record of providing tax relief 
to middle-class families.
  Unfortunately, the Congressional Record incorrectly recorded my 
words. Here is what I said: ``We shouldn't let Republicans get away 
with saying that Democrats are against tax cuts.'' It appeared in the 
Congressional Record that I said Democrats were against tax cuts. That 
is an error, and it has been corrected in the Congressional Record.
  I know this was an innocent mistake on the part of the recordkeepers, 
and I want to say that I have the greatest respect for all of their 
hard work and the long hours, especially during Special Orders like 
this one. But the recorders are human, and in this case, the way my 
words were recorded changed the meaning of what I said to mean the 
exact opposite.

[[Page H2041]]

  As I have said, this has been corrected. But what was interesting is 
that this misprint suddenly engaged our Republican colleagues in a 
dialogue on this issue. If this error is what it takes to engage 
Republicans in a debate on tax cuts, then it is a good thing.

                              {time}  2245

  Because I want to debate tax cuts with my Republican colleagues. That 
is why we were up here last week talking on this issue and why we are 
here tonight.
  I am happy to put the Democratic plan to provide real tax relief for 
working families up against these risky Republican tax schemes any 
night of the week. I understand why Republicans are nervous about the 
American people hearing the details of this plan, and I understand why 
they would rather divert attention and try to make political hay out of 
an obvious misprint. The Republican proposal to, quote, scrap the Tax 
Code and impose a 30 percent sales tax on the American people is a 
radical and extreme proposal.
  Democrats are the mainstream party on tax cuts. President Clinton and 
the Democrats have passed targeted tax relief for middle-class 
families. The Republican party is proposing a 30 percent sales tax 
increase on American families. Just one example, one group that would 
be hit harder than others by the Republican sales tax: senior citizens.
  Senior citizens would gain nothing from the elimination of income 
taxes, since most are retired and pay no income taxes. But a 30 percent 
sales tax would hit seniors on fixed incomes square between the eyes. 
One of the most burdensome expenses faced by senior citizens is the 
price of medication. We have taken a look at five of the most common 
medications used by seniors and looked at how the 30 percent Republican 
sales tax would impact those prices.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just put up briefly this chart. These are five 
medications that seniors continually avail themselves of and how the 30 
percent sales tax would hit them:
  Blood pressure, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease and inhaler all 
would be increased between $24 and $37.50, to create prices that would 
make it incredibly difficult for seniors to have to pay for these basic 
medications.
  The Republicans' other tax plan, the flat tax plan of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), would raise taxes on 90 percent of Americans 
and it would provide a tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans. It 
looks like the GOP is up to their old tricks, helping the very wealthy 
at the expense of ordinary Americans.
  Democrats have more credibility on cutting taxes than Republicans. 
That is why the GOP is left resorting to misquotes to try and change 
the subject from their extreme proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to open up the dialogue with my 
colleagues to talk about the Democrats' record of providing real tax 
relief to working families, as well as these radical tax schemes being 
offered up by our Republican colleagues. Let me yield to my colleague, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who was with us on the 
floor last week and who has been an outstanding proponent of providing 
tax relief to working middle-class families in this country.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I think it is sort of ironic, or maybe kind 
of scary, that the Republicans were so upset that they resorted to 
misquoting the gentlewoman. Anyone who was here that evening or 
listened to the debate, knows that one of the major points that the 
gentlewoman was making, and I think we all were making, is that 
Democrats have been out front on providing tax cuts and the targeted 
type of tax cuts that help families, families particularly with 
children, working families.
  We actually, that evening, recited some of the tax cuts that the 
Democrats have put in place over the last few years that have actually 
made the situation where the tax burden on working class families has 
actually been reduced somewhat as a result of the Democratic efforts 
and as a result of the President's efforts.
  I think what went on since that evening is that the Republicans, 
particularly those who have been advocating this crazy sales tax, this 
30 percent sales tax, were so upset that some of us were really baring 
the truth and explaining how kooky it was, that they sort of 
overreacted I guess is the best way to say it.
  Mr. Speaker, I noticed that when the gentlewoman from Connecticut was 
speaking, that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who is one of 
the authors of the 30 percent sales tax increase, was actually on the 
floor. So he certainly knew what the gentlewoman was saying. It was 
amazing to me, I guess it was the next day, that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) came to the floor as well. They obviously knew what 
the gentlewoman really said. They knew that she was talking about the 
fact that Democrats have been successful in providing significant tax 
relief and tax cuts for the average American family.
  Just to give an idea, this is basically what I said that evening. And 
in a way, I am glad that we have another opportunity to repeat it 
because April, and today is the first day of April, is certainly the 
time when most Americans think the most about taxes because April 15 is 
around the corner. Just some interesting statistics that come from an 
analysis by the Treasury Department that says that the average Federal 
income tax rate for a median income family of four in 1998 will be only 
7.8 percent, down from 10.3 percent in 1984. This is the lowest income 
tax burden for a median income family since 1966, and that is thanks in 
large part to Democratic efforts that this Federal tax burden has 
actually decreased.
  Just to give an example again of some of the Democratic policies that 
have resulted in that decrease: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax 
Credit, which we have been championing for a number of years, beginning 
in 1993 that cut taxes for millions of families with children. My 
colleagues remember how many times Republicans came down to this floor 
and said that they wanted to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit 
when we were trying to expand it. The $500 per child credit that 
Democrats ensured would be available to moderate income families. In 
addition, the HOPE Educational Scholarship tax credit. These are the 
targeted education tax credits that we put in effect. And in 1998, this 
year, Democrats have proposed expansion of the child care tax credit to 
increase the amount of the credit from 30 percent to 50 percent of 
expenses and make it available to more families. Democrats also support 
efforts to reduce the marriage penalty.
  So there is no question that what went on after our last opportunity 
to talk about this is that the Republicans became very scared about 
this 30 percent sales tax that was going to hit seniors, was going to 
be on homes, was going to be on cars, was going to be on almost 
everything that we buy, and they made it their business to basically 
pass out a lot of misinformation about what the gentlewoman and the 
rest of us said, because we were making it quite clear that Democrats 
were providing real tax relief.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think that the American public has every 
reason to be fearful of this kind of a tax scheme, if you will.
  It now gives me pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), who is joining us again this evening.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be here at 5 of 11:00 on a 
Wednesday night.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey and my friend and 
colleague from Connecticut for work on exposing the tax proposals that 
we talked about last week that the Republicans unveiled and which I 
think they are now, as the gentleman from New Jersey correctly stated, 
somewhat chagrined about the fact that people are actually focusing in 
on what they want to do.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut and my friend from New Jersey 
mentioned that we are the people, the party that has traditionally, 
historically helped middle income and working families in the tax area. 
And I think my friend from New Jersey has outlined very well this 
evening the recent issues which we have taken the lead on. The Earned 
Income Tax Credit, which has really lifted literally millions of 
Americans out of poverty, working Americans. The child tax credit, the 
$500 that people will be able to

[[Page H2042]]

take per child when they do their forms this year. We fought for that 
for middle income working people in this last go round on the tax bill.
  The HOPE scholarship, I mean, what a wonderful thing to have fought 
for and been at the vanguard of trying to provide higher education for 
working families' kids, working families' children in this country. 
And, of course, this year the child care tax credit that we are pushing 
very hard.
  So we are very proud of the record that we have on trying to take 
care of the middle-class squeeze. That is where we come from. That is 
what we believe in. And without being too partisan, and I guess there 
is no way to be on the tax issue but partisan, my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle have historically and traditionally provided tax 
relief for those at the very top of the income scale in this country. 
That is who their constituency is. That is who supports them. That is 
what they are about. And they have the theory, though, that if you give 
to the top it will trickle down. Well, it may trickle down to the top 5 
percent or the top 10 percent or maybe even the top 20 percent, but it 
does not go much beyond that.
  Last week we were talking about the Republican tax cut plans to raise 
taxes on working families that they are proudly advocating around the 
country. They are on this tour, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) who sat in the back there. I saw him. He was right in the back 
in that corner as we were talking last week. He was kind of hunched 
down and kind of had his feet up. I was watching him. He had his feet 
up against the back of the chair and he was taking a few notes and he 
was kind of looking over here.
  The gentleman has got this plan that, I mean, I just cannot imagine 
him going out and talking about it. But I guess he is going to be on 
the road again during tax week and I think the American people ought to 
know what he is about.
  The gentlewoman's chart I think indicates it very well. Thirty 
percent sales tax hits people on fixed incomes, i.e., senior citizens. 
If they have a medical problem and they have medication, those are the 
numbers. Their blood pressure medicine will increase by 30 percent from 
$110 a month by $33 up to $143 a month. If they have heart disease, 
they are going to pay an extra $27 a month. For prescriptions that 
normally would cost $90 a month, it is up to $117, and on and on and 
on.
  If they have a grocery bill, that goes from $100 a month to $130 a 
month. If they are a middle income family and they want to buy a 
minivan, a wonderful car that is, by the way, designed and created in 
my district, they go out there and they want to buy a $25,000 mini van, 
forget it. Under their proposal they are talking at least $32,000.
  So what we are talking about here is a tax shift to working and 
middle income people and a tax shift away from those at the very top 
who are doing the best in our society today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to show a chart here and take it out again. I had 
this chart available last week. This is their other proposal. They have 
two. They have this sales tax thing and then they have got this Armey 
flat tax proposal which will raise taxes on working families.
  Now, this chart shows in the green what people are paying now who 
have incomes of $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, a quarter of a million 
dollars and a million dollars. Under the flat tax plan of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), this goes up from less than 4 percent to close 
to 12 percent for people making $25,000 a year. If they are at the 
$50,000 income level, their taxes again will go up. Not quite to 20 
percent, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 and 18 percent from 
less than 13 percent.
  If they are making $100,000 a year, they still go up about a percent. 
Now, if the taxpayer is making a quarter of a million a year, of course 
they are going to get a huge tax cut. That is what they are now. Under 
the flat tax offered by the gentleman from Texas, they go down. Their 
taxes are cut substantially. And for those who are making a million or 
more a year, they are cut even further.
  There is no progressivity here. Those least able to pay will pay 
more. Those most able to pay will get a free ride. And nothing 
surprising there. That has typically been the historical reality of 
their plans.
  In addition to that, Wall Street brokers will pay no, and I the 
repeat this, no taxes on their unearned income from stocks and bonds. 
Now, that is absolutely crazy.

                              {time}  2300

  Actually when you tell people that, they kind of look at you like you 
are making this stuff up. But it is what they are proposing under the 
Armey flat tax. Of course what they are proposing under the Tauzin 
scheme is just beyond reality.
  During the debate last week, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
stated, there was a misprint in the Congressional Record. I think this 
kind of speaks to the problem that we have here. The Republican 
leadership has tried to take advantage of an innocent mistake to twist 
the words into the opposite of their meaning. I think that shows how 
desperate they really are on the issue of taxes, and the lengths that 
they are going to go to. They are trying to distract attention from 
their own plans that are really loony and very indefensible.
  There is no better champion of working men and women in this Congress 
than the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). She has been at 
the forefront of the breaks, the tax breaks that the gentleman from New 
Jersey mentioned a little earlier, the HOPE scholarship, the child tax 
credit that we are discussing right now and, of course, the child tax 
credit and the EITC. So it is kind of sad actually when you really 
think about what they will resort to out here to distort the record, 
and the record speaks very clearly on what you have done in terms of 
providing middle-income people the relief they need from the squeeze 
that they are in and what those folks are trying to do in terms of 
fattening the wallets, feathering the nest, doing all that they can to 
take care of the top, with the hope, I guess, that some of it is going 
to trickle down.
  We know historically that that has not happened. What has indeed 
happened is that the top 20 percent or 25 percent in this country have 
done extremely well. Folks in the middle, about 60 percent of the 
American wage earners today, their incomes have basically been frozen 
or they have fallen. Of course the bottom 25 percent of working 
Americans have had their incomes plummet about 25 or 30 percent over 
the last two decades. So it is that middle-income group, and it is 
those folks that are working that are trying to struggle at the bottom 
that we represent. That is what we are about. That is why we are here.
  We thank you for your vigilance and for correcting the record, and we 
look forward to working with you to make sure that when they take 
offense to what we say, especially when it deals with a question as 
important as this, that we are here and we will continue to be here to 
correct the record to make the American people understand that there 
really is division in this place in terms of who people represent. And 
the clearer that becomes, the better off the American people are going 
to be in terms of making the right decision on who they want to 
represent them.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me say thank you to the gentleman from Michigan and 
the gentleman from New Jersey. I think as we did last week and this 
evening and I venture to say that if we were not leaving tomorrow, 
because the Republican leadership does not want this House in session 
to debate the real issues that people are concerned about, that we 
would be up on our feet every single night trying to expose what are 
two schemes that would seriously hurt working people in this country.
  It is almost like a magical mystery tour that they are running about 
on here and trying just to create some smoke and mirrors, but we are 
going to be vigilant. Whatever it takes, we will stand up every single 
night and talk about what this means to seniors, what it means to 
working families and how in fact Democrats have provided tax relief for 
working families and how clear we stand in supporting tax cuts for 
working families in this country.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentlewoman 
again. I think you are absolutely right. The only regret I have is that 
we unfortunately are going home because I

[[Page H2043]]

think that as we lead up to April 15th, if we had the opportunity over 
the next few weeks to get on the floor and really expose this GOP 30 
percent sales tax and what it would mean for the average working 
person, we would really drive the point home. And the Republicans on 
the other side would be very nervous because the truth would come out.
  One of the things that this whole incident with you, I think, points 
to is the fact that I think that many of our colleagues on the other 
side, on the Republican side think that if they keep saying something 
that is false over and over again and keep repeating it, that somehow 
the American people are going to believe it. Perhaps we as Democrats 
have not brought up enough times here on the floor or even out in our 
districts that, in fact, it has been the Democrats that have taken the 
lead on tax cuts for the average working person. I think it is 
unfortunate in a way.
  Perhaps we should be talking more about it because maybe the word is 
not getting out. Maybe when some of these Republicans keep talking 
about the absurd 30 percent sales tax, people start thinking in their 
mind, oh, you know, they are for some kind of tax cut. And they do not 
necessarily pay attention to the specifics of it.
  So I think it is incumbent upon us to point out how we, as Democrats, 
have been the backbone of these tax cuts that have benefited the 
average American over the last few years and that what the Republicans 
are proposing, whether it is the 30 percent sales tax or the flat tax 
proposal, that these things are not going to help working people; that 
they are basically giveaways, if you will, to the rich.
  I just want to thank the gentlewoman again because I think you 
started something here, and when we come back after this break, we need 
to come to the floor and keep pointing out over, and over, and over 
again how crazy and what a lunatic proposal this sales tax is and that 
if there is going to be real tax relief, it has to be more of the 
targeted tax relief that the Democrats have provided that helps working 
families with kids, with education needs, with health care needs. This 
is, with child care needs. These are the kinds of things that we have 
to keep pushing for.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, which is until, as I 
understand it, 21 minutes after 11:00, to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.


          Armenia Concludes Successful Presidential Elections

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to switch to another topic 
tonight, which is totally unrelated to the one that we discussed so 
far, but I think is very important for my constituents and a million 
and a half Armenian Americans around the country who I know are very 
pleased with the election that took place just this past Monday in 
Armenia for the new President.
  The voters in Armenia have elected Robert Kocharian as the new 
President of Armenia. With 99 percent of the ballots from Monday's run-
off election counted, Robert Kocharian, currently the prime minister, 
who has served as acting President since early February, has received 
approximately 59 percent of the vote and his opponent Karen Demirchian, 
who led Armenia when it was controlled by the Soviet Union, received 
about 41 percent of the vote. An estimated 55 percent of eligible 
voters participated in the run-off election.

  Mr. Speaker, I think this is significant because this really was a 
free election in Armenia. President Kocharian, who I have met, and who 
has been here to the United States, is a free market advocate who has 
pledged to revitalize Armenia's industrial sector and to track more 
foreign investment. I believe he is a strong leader, a consensus 
builder and someone who is committed to democracy and economic 
development.
  The election has been judged as peaceful, well-organized and 
legitimate by the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent 
States and other international observers. Even the organization for 
security and cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, which was harsh and, in 
my opinion, unfairly so, in its criticism of the first round election 2 
weeks ago, even the OSCE has not questioned the outcome.
  Mr. Speaker, allow me to read a quote from Lord Russel-Johnson, head 
of the Council of Europe's monitoring mission in Armenia. It says, 
``The second round of the Presidential voting was well organized; the 
elections were passed peacefully and in accordance with law. This is a 
steady step along the path toward Armenian accession to the Council of 
Europe.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report this very positive endorsement of 
Armenia's democratic system by a respected and objective international 
election observer. Unfortunately, the OSCE, of which the United States 
is a member Nation, has been somewhat more stingy in its praise for 
Armenia's tremendous progress under very difficult conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that the OSCE has seemed to lean more heavily 
on Armenia, a democracy, than Azerbaijan, which is for all intents and 
purposes a dictatorship. The OSCE has thus far taken an unrealistic 
approach to solving one of the region's most important diplomatic and 
political challenges. That is the resolution of the conflict over 
Nagorno Karabagh, the Armenia ethnic enclave that Joseph Stalin gave to 
Azerbaijan, but which has been Armenian territory for centuries.
  The people of Karabagh won their independence in a war with 
Azerbaijan. A cease-fire has been in place since 1994, but Azerbaijan 
still claims Karabagh as its own. And the international community, the 
OSCE, and, I am sorry to say, the United States continues to side with 
Azerbaijan over Karabagh.
  I raise this issue of Karabagh because it has been an important 
backdrop to the elections just concluded in Armenia. Most observers 
believe that the decision of former President Levon Ter-Petrosian to 
resign was based on the widespread criticism he received within Armenia 
for accepting the OSCE peace plan for Nagorno Karabagh, which was based 
on unilateral concessions in favor of Azerbaijan without safeguards for 
Karabagh's security. Now that that has become clear that the OSCE plan 
is a nonstarter in Armenia, I hope the OSCE, with strong Armenian 
leadership, will work with the parties to the conflict to develop a 
serious plan for resolving the conflict.
  Furthermore, President Kocharian is the former President of Nagorno 
Karabagh and he has been outspoken in his view that the OSCE Minsk 
Group negotiations must include the democratically elected government 
of Karabagh.
  Mr. Speaker, the important thing for us to bear in mind now is that 
the voters of Armenia have elected Robert Kocharian to a 5-year term as 
their President. The entire process of the last 2 months, former 
President Ter-Petrosian's resignation, acting President Kocharian's 
interim service until elections and Mr. Kocharian's victory in the 
legitimate elections just completed, was conducted in the spirit of a 
civil society governed by the rule of law and democracy.
  I want to congratulate Robert Kocharian on his election and I want to 
salute the people of Armenia for making amazing democratic progress 
despite tremendous obstacles.


        25th Anniversary of the American Brain Tumor Association

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention one more thing. 
This is somewhat personal, but also I think important for the American 
public as well. That is that just this weekend, March 28, marked the 
25th anniversary of the American Brain Tumor Association, an 
organization devoted to funding brain tumor research and providing 
information to patients and families about their health care options.
  I know a number of Members of Congress died suffering from brain 
cancer and my own father-in-law, Andy Hospodor, passed away 3 years ago 
in March as a result of a brain tumor. I wanted to say that at the time 
when my father-in-law was suffering from a brain tumor, we received a 
lot of help from the American Brain Tumor Association. We received help 
in identifying physician specialists so that he received better 
treatment for his particular type of brain tumor.
  After his death, they helped establish a memorial fund in his name. 
The association also provided a lot of information. Every question we 
had they were

[[Page H2044]]

able to answer or find someone who had an answer. They have a network 
of support groups that work with the various relatives of brain tumor 
victims.
  I know that since I have been in Congress at least two of my 
colleagues, who I considered very good friends, Paul Henry and also 
Mike Synar, unfortunately died from brain tumors. I just wanted to take 
a little time tonight to recognize the American Brain Tumor Association 
for the dedication and service to patients and families with brain 
tumors. They provide information to their members with the latest 
medical breakthroughs available on brain tumor treatments. In addition, 
they furnish information on support services to help families deal with 
the issues that they face when a loved one is found with a brain tumor.
  While the association has done a lot, there is a lot more that can be 
done, Mr. Speaker. As Congress determines the fiscal year 1999 spending 
priorities, funding for research needs our continued support.
  I am committed to the doubling of the National Institutes of Health 
funding increase for 1999 and urge every Member of Congress to do the 
same. Every dollar that we commit to life-saving treatment oriented and 
basic research is an investment that will have an enormous return in 
terms of saving and improving lives, as well as saving health care 
dollars in the future.
  I just wanted to say tonight, in closing, to the American Brain Tumor 
Association, thank you for a job well done over the last 25 years. To 
my colleagues in Congress, I say, we still have a lot that we must do.

                          ____________________