[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 21, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6089-H6101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2488, FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACT OF 1999

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 256

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2488) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce individual income tax 
     rates, to provide marriage penalty relief, to reduce taxes on 
     savings and investments, to provide estate and gift tax 
     relief, to provide incentives for education savings and 
     health care, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended 
     by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendments printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the 
     bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; (2) a further amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules, if offered by Representative Rangel of New York or 
     his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 256 is a structured rule that provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act. This 
fair rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means. With the adoption of this rule, the House will amend the 
bill that was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.
  This amendment, which was printed in part A of the Committee on Rules 
report, will reduce the size of the bill from $864 billion to $792 
billion in an effort to comply with the Senate's interpretation of the 
budget resolution.
  To achieve this reduction, the amendment slows the phase-in period 
for several provisions in the bill, including the 10-percent reduction 
in income taxes, the repeal of the individual alternative minimum tax, 
the repeal of the death tax and the reduction of the corporate capital 
gains tax.
  In addition, the small-saver provision, corporate AMT changes, and 
certain pension provisions are also modified by the amendment.
  More importantly, this rule adds a new title to the Financial Freedom 
Act that strengthens our commitment to debt reduction. Tax relief and 
debt reduction are not at odds with one another and achieving both 
goals simultaneously makes good economic sense.
  For years, Republicans fought tooth and nail to achieve the balanced 
budget we enjoy today. We argued that it was immoral to continue a 
pattern of deficit spending that adds to our debt and places a burden 
of higher interest payments on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren. We stand by those arguments today and will continue to 
pursue our priority of debt reduction through this legislation.
  A vote for this rule will be a vote in favor of reducing our national 
public debt by $2 trillion over the next 10 years, and this is not an 
empty promise. The fact is that we are paying down debt as we speak. 
The Social Security surplus that we have locked away, which is not 
currently being used to pay benefits, is reducing our debt now. 
America's debt is shrinking fast. Debt as a share of our economy is 
rapidly heading toward its post-World War II low of 23.8 percent. This 
is compared to just 5 years ago when debt as a share of the economy was 
above 50 percent.
  So we are making significant progress and by voting for this rule we 
will ensure that we continue down this path of steady debt reduction.
  At the conclusion of the debate on the rule, I will seek to amend the 
rule to further address the issue of debt reduction. My amendment will 
self-execute a change requiring across-the-board tax relief to take 
effect only if specific debt reduction targets are met. In addition to 
these changes, the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote 
on a minority substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) or his designee.
  This amendment, which provides an alternative to the Financial 
Freedom Act, is printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report and 
will be debatable for 1 hour. All points of order

[[Page H6090]]

against the Rangel amendment are waived.
  Finally, the minority will have an additional opportunity to change 
the bill through a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for America. For the first time in 
decades, the Federal Government is living within its means and actually 
spending less money than it has received from the taxpayers.
  Twenty, 10 or even 5 years ago, who would have thought it possible 
that the Federal Government could muster the discipline to curb its 
appetite for spending, slow the growth of government, and actually have 
some money left over at the end of the year? Amazing.
  But we stand here today to tell the American people that it is true. 
This year, there will be a total surplus of $161 billion, and, over 10 
years, we expect a surplus of $2.8 trillion. Even to the government, 
that is a lot of money.
  Let us be clear. We are not just talking about the dollars we have 
locked away in the Social Security Trust Fund. We are also talking 
about an on-budget surplus that has not been identified for any 
specific program or purpose. It is extra money that the government has 
no plans to spend.
  So, today, we say to the American people, we are sorry that we 
overcharged you. We have enough money to run the government and to meet 
our obligations. So we are going to give back some of your hard-earned 
tax dollars. That is what the Financial Freedom Act is all about.
  This comprehensive legislation will provide tax relief for all 
Americans to manage their most important needs at virtually every stage 
of life. We believe that every taxpayer deserves relief. So the bill 
provides a 10 percent reduction in taxes across the board.
  In addition, the bill includes a number of specific tax relief 
provisions that will give people greater freedom to fulfill their 
personal priorities. If one is a student, one will benefit through the 
expanded education savings accounts and more interest deductions for 
student loans.
  If one is married, one can expect relief from the marriage penalty to 
the tune of $250 a year.
  If one is a small business owner, one will get an increased deduction 
for your health care premiums. One will be able to expense more of 
one's office equipment, and one will escape the extra surcharge on the 
unemployment taxes that one pays.
  If one is planning for retirement, the Financial Freedom Act offers 
one a stronger pension system, a 100 percent deduction for the purchase 
of long-term care insurance and capital gains relief.
  If one lives in a low-income community, one will see one's 
neighborhood improved through targeted pro-growth tax initiatives that 
help start-up businesses, encourage revitalization of buildings, and 
help poor families save more of their money.
  When one dies, one's family business, family farm, or personal 
savings will no longer suffer a fate of extinction. This bill phases 
out the destructive death tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I am sure many of my colleagues 
will discuss the details of these many provisions. But the point is 
that all taxpayers deserve a share in the rewards of a balanced budget, 
and this bill seeks to give back to all American taxpayers what is 
rightfully theirs, the overpayment they have made to the Federal 
Government.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues do not share this view. They 
want to hang on to the taxpayers' money, and they are fighting tax 
relief with the rhetoric that relies on erroneous claims that we are 
forsaking our commitment to Social Security and Medicare if we pass 
this bill. Well, I am pleased to have this opportunity to set the 
record straight.
  The Republican budget plan, along with the Social Security lockbox 
legislation which the House passed and the President supports will 
reserve $1.9 trillion for the Social Security and Medicare programs. 
That is far more money than we are devoting to tax relief. In fact, $2 
out of every $3 of the total budget surplus will go to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare. Every dime of payroll taxes will be used 
for these retirement programs, every dime.
  So given the facts which demonstrate an honest commitment to the 
long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare, I have to wonder 
whether my colleagues' protests are heartfelt or if some other issue is 
really driving their opposition to this bill.
  I know it is hard for some of my colleagues to part with a surplus. 
But today, Americans are paying a record high 21 percent of GDP in 
taxes. What is the justification for this financial punishment that we 
are asking the American people to endure? If we cannot provide tax 
relief in a time of peace and prosperity when the Federal Government is 
awash in money and people are being taxed at record rates, then when 
will the time be right?
  I hope I live to see better circumstances, but I believe we have a 
rare opportunity today to return some money and control back to the 
individuals who make this Nation strong so that they can make decisions 
for their families and their futures with the money they have earned.
  By giving this money back, we are imposing additional discipline on 
politicians who will not have the money to spend on bigger government.
  Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud of the part we have played in 
moving our government down a path of fiscal responsibility that has 
contributed to the economic prosperity our Nation enjoys today.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in taking this next step toward 
creating a limited government that meets its core responsibilities but 
then gets out of the way so that the people can be free to pursue their 
personal priorities and seize on the opportunities that will allow them 
to live their American dream.
  I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule so the House can move 
forward to debate and pass the Financial Freedom Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the 
customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, we reported this bill out of Committee on Rules at 12:30 
this morning, and we have been on notice since 6 o'clock. In fact, I 
was clean shaven when I was first given notice that we were going to 
have this bill on the floor. But I am glad we finally do have the bill 
on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, next year, our government will make history. Next year, 
the Federal Government of the United States of America will no longer 
be running a deficit. Even though we still have a debt, Mr. Speaker, 
people are already lining up to spend the surplus.
  Democrats want to save the surplus to protect Social Security. They 
want to protect Medicare which will run into trouble starting in the 
year 2015.
  Republicans, as usual, want to raid the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds to give the huge breaks to the very rich. A tax break will 
actually end up putting us back in the red to the tune of about $3 
trillion. Like so many other Republican proposals, it will benefit very 
few at the expense of very many.
  The top 1 percent of American taxpayers, people making an average of 
$833,000, will each get a tax cut of $37,854. But the bottom 60 percent 
of the American taxpayers, people making an average of $20,000, will 
only get an average of $138.33.

  To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan does not 
extend the life of either the Medicare or Social Security trust funds 
one single day. Instead, it uses the entire on-budget surplus for tax 
breaks for those very wealthy Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this enormous tax break is not without consequences. It 
will cost nearly $3 trillion to give a tax break to the rich while 
Medicare and Social Security crumble before our very eyes.
  This tax break will force Head Start to cut services to 260,000 
children. It will force the Veterans Administration to treat 986,000 
fewer hospital cases. It will force HUD to end rent subsidies for about 
1 million people.
  Mr. Speaker, in the next century, the number of people enrolled in 
Medicare will double from 40 million to 80 million. Unless we do 
something and we do

[[Page H6091]]

something now, Medicare will run out of money in the year 2015.
  Mr. Speaker, the deficit is nearly gone. The economy is strong. The 
baby boomers have not yet retired. The time to fix Medicare is now, 
right now, not a few years down the road when American seniors will be 
hungry and be sick.
  That is exactly what the Democratic plan will do. The Democratic 
substitute will extend the life of Medicare until the year 2027 and 
extend the life of Social Security till the year 2050. It will also pay 
down the debt and provide middle-class families with education credits 
and long-term care credits.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose the bill. As 
strong as our economy is, we can ill-afford to be offering nearly $400 
billion in tax breaks to the richest 5 percent of Americans, while 
Medicare and Social Security fall apart.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
to support the bill.
  This bill, like this debate, is really all about who this money 
belongs to. Does this money belong to the people that sent it to 
Washington? If it does, we should send it back. Or does it belong to 
the people here who many, in many cases, think they are smarter than 
the folks who send it here and work hard for it? If we believe this 
money belongs to the people that send it, we will decide to give this 
money back.
  Certainly, we are about to do something that no Congress has done in 
40 years, and that is approve a budget and an appropriations process 
that is balanced without using a penny of Social Security.
  Even above that, we still have a $3 trillion anticipated surplus. 
What happens with that $3 trillion? The money that comes from Social 
Security, for the first time in 29 years, gets set aside for the 
retirement future of the Americans that sent that money in.
  The other trillion dollars we are saying we would like to take 790-
plus billion dollars of that and let the people who earned it keep it, 
let them spend it for the benefit of their family, let them spend it 
for the benefit of their future, let them spend it for the benefit of 
their small business, eliminate over the course of this time the death 
tax, reduce taxes for every single American that pays taxes, and in an 
important late addition to this rule, even today, have a guarantee that 
there will be a $2 trillion reduction in the debt held by the public 
that the government each and every time that the debt is reissued will 
be competing for less of that debt because we are applying that to the 
future of Social Security.
  Beyond that, there is a requirement that the debt not be allowed to 
increase as this across-the-board tax provision goes into effect. This 
is a good rule. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to remember who 
the money belongs to.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to talk a little bit about procedure and a little bit 
about substance. First of all, I would like to observe that the 
incompetence on the other side of the aisle is appalling. Time after 
time this year, in this Congress, the Republicans have had to amend 
rules after bringing them out of the Committee on Rules, amend them on 
the floor, and even withdraw rules. They simply cannot run this House 
in an orderly manner.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight Americans have the opportunity to see revealed 
in crisp, bright colors the contrasting priorities, the very different 
fundamental values that separate the Democratic and Republican parties.
  Democrats have a fiscally responsible plan that uses the surplus to 
extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, to pay down the 
debt and keep interest rates low and the economy growing, to allow us 
to fund America's priorities like a prescription drug benefit, and to 
provide targeted tax relief for middle-class families.
  On the other hand, Republican leaders want to risk Social Security, 
Medicare, and our economy on a fiscally irresponsible budget-busting 
tax break for the wealthiest that will cost us more than $3 trillion 
over the next 20 years.
  What, Mr. Speaker, does this say about the priorities of the 
Republican Party? Well, it reminds me of another very revealing debate 
we had on the floor a few months ago.

                              {time}  2245

  Then the Republican whip, my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay), gave 
us his party's answer to the epidemic of school violence: stop sending 
kids to day care and start teaching creationism in our schools. That 
was the answer of the gentleman from Texas.
  Today, yet again, it is clear that Republican leaders believe the 
only function of this House is providing red meat for their right wing 
extremists. In so doing today, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are 
asking Members to overlook the dangerous, long-term costs of this 
irresponsible tax bill. It fails to extend the solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare, the twin pillars of retirement security for 
Americans by even a single day; it will blow a hole in the deficit and 
risk driving up interest rates and endangering our economy; and it 
squanders resources we should be using to address America's families' 
priorities, like helping seniors pay the high cost of prescription 
drugs.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the majority could have worked with 
Democrats to pass responsible tax relief on a bipartisan basis, but as 
they have done so many times in this year, Republican leaders have 
chosen political rhetoric over problem solving. For all these reasons, 
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and support the 
Democratic alternative.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and I might just point out that if we 
had had any cooperation or assistance from the minority we would not 
have to amend rules on the floor.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
very fair and reasonable rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this bill in some context. First of 
all, the Federal Government today is bigger than it has ever been in 
our history. We will spend more money this year than ever before, and 
next year more money still, and the year after more money than that. 
Taxes are at a record high level. Not since World War II has the 
Federal Government assumed a larger share of our economic output.
  And let us look at the budget. Our budget has taken Social Security 
totally off the table. Every penny of Social Security revenue is going 
to go to the Social Security program; $1.9 trillion over 10 years. We 
have set aside the money to start rebuilding our defensive forces. We 
have set aside the money to increase spending for primary and secondary 
education, more than the President called for in his budget. And we 
refused to make the cuts in Medicare that the President called for in 
his proposal.
  Now, after paying all those bills, and keeping the budget balanced, 
and setting aside two-thirds of total surpluses for debt reduction and 
Social Security and Medicare, when the American people have paid for 
all that, I say they have paid enough. And that is when we have an 
opportunity and, in fact, a moral obligation to allow them to keep the 
surplus that they are creating.
  Why? Yes, because tax cuts are good for the economy. It will in fact 
increase the growth and opportunity, increase the savings rate, create 
more jobs and more wealth. And, yes, in fact these cuts will increase 
the probability that the revenue and expenditure projections will 
materialize rather than new spending programs, which will most likely 
result in excess of their original projections. But there is a more 
important reason, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in a free society, it 
is people who are sovereign. And it is the people's money, not the 
government's money.
  That is why we have an obligation to let them keep as much of their 
hard-earned money as we possibly can. That

[[Page H6092]]

is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``yes'' vote on final 
passage of this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are asking us to consider 
trillion dollar legislation that could affect the entire economy, put 
our Nation's jobs and prosperity at risk, sink our country into 
deficits, debt, and red ink, and they drew it all together in a few 
hours, like a patchwork quilt, and it is so ugly that they bring it out 
in the darkest of night.
  Republicans talk about the value of a trillion dollar tax cut for our 
wealthiest citizens. Their idea of family values is to leave a legacy 
of debt and fiscal irresponsibility for the next generation of 
taxpayers to clean up. The Democrats' idea of fiscal responsibility has 
been to resist budget-busting tax giveaways, and the result has been 
the first balanced budget in more than a generation.
  We have shown that fiscal discipline works, and that fiscal 
discipline is giving working Americans the biggest tax break of all: 
low interest rates, so they can afford to buy a home or a car; so their 
savings are not eaten away by inflation; so businesses can invest in 
new equipment and capital and create new jobs; and so workers' salaries 
maintain their value. But ever since they became the majority in this 
Congress, their only real value has been to propose one fiscally 
irresponsible giveaway after another.
  We Democrats believe in a different value: honoring our commitments. 
We believe in honoring our commitment to our senior citizens, who have 
paid into Social Security and Medicare over a lifetime of hard work and 
who deserve security in their retirement. We believe in honoring our 
commitment to our children's education, to make sure that every child 
in this Nation has the opportunity to reach his or her God-given 
potential. And we believe in honoring our commitment to future 
generations by using the budget surplus to truly pay down the national 
debt.
  Republicans, on the other hand, want to give a risky trillion dollar 
tax cut to the very wealthiest citizens that jeopardize all of these 
important commitments. And under their plan nearly half of those tax 
cuts would go to the wealthiest 1 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, the difference could not be clearer. Democrats want to 
honor our commitments to all of our citizens and the next generation. 
Their risk is a risk we cannot afford. Oppose the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules for yielding me this time and allowing me a few minutes to 
respond back to our colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Committee on Rules and on a regular basis 
have an opportunity to hear the minority talk time, after time, after 
time about all the things that Republicans are doing to ruin our 
country; like welfare reform, and a balanced budget for the first time 
in 30 years, tax cuts for the first time in 16 years, our pledge to 
take 100 percent of Social Security dollars and the interest to Social 
Security.
  Over, and over, and over, and over Republican ideas are simply beaten 
up by the minority party. What they want to do is argue every single 
time that government should be better off than the middle class of this 
country. They want to argue that government should be the first one 
with their hand out and paid first. We happen to believe that the 
people who produce the income, the people who get up and go to work 
every single day, the people who are taking care of their families, the 
people who are taking care of their parents and their children, these 
are the people who deserve to get the money back.
  The previous speaker was talking about what it would mean, all these 
things the Republicans would take away. The fact of the matter is that 
in the State of New Jersey, over the next 10 years, the average person 
from New Jersey will get back $3,747. That is money that will go to 
people, the average person in New Jersey, so they will be able to take 
care of themselves, they will be able to take care of their family. It 
is their money and they earned it.
  The bottom line is that day, after day, after day we hear the same 
worn-out statements of what Republicans are doing to ruin this country. 
Let me tell my colleagues, it is all about freedom, it is all about 
economic prosperity, and it is all about more take-home pay. I believe 
that the American public understands the difference. I believe the 
American public will understand that when they get back this average, 
just like in New Jersey, $3,747 over the next 10 years, that they will 
recognize that it is something that they earned, that they will put it 
in their pocket and that it will help them take care of their own 
families.
  The difference between begging and freedom is what we are talking 
about here today.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and the author of the Rangel amendment.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what they put in the 
water over there in the Republican cloakroom, but it cannot be that 
they really think that we are going through a legitimate procedure on 
this floor tonight with this rule.
  It is bad enough that the Committee on Ways and Means got the bill 
already drafted when we got there. I was not disappointed, because my 
Republican colleagues did not know about the bill anyway. I was hoping 
that it had come from the Speaker's office, but he did not know about 
it. And so 2 days later they are still working on it.
  And I would have hoped that perhaps someone might come and share with 
us. Not with a meeting, that would be too constitutional, but certainly 
with just a flyer to say what is in the bill. But, surprise, It is now 
the Committee on Rules that writes the tax bill. Because in the middle 
of the night, while they said that we could go on recess and trust 
them, they went to the Committee on Rules.
  And in the rule it is Greenspan that determines whether or not there 
is a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut. I cannot believe it. Whether 
or not there is going to be a 10 percent tax cut is going to be 
determined by whether or not there is a debt increase. And who 
determines the debt increase? The Congress? The Committee on Ways and 
Means? The Speaker? Oh no, It is in the water that they are drinking. 
Because Greenspan will then tell the American people, yes, the 
Republicans promised a tax cut, but, my God, the interest rate went up, 
as a matter of fact, I made it go up, and now we will have it denied.
  Thank God we have a President that is going to veto this foolishness, 
and thank God we have a Congress that is not going to override that 
veto.
  What the Republicans have done is started their campaign with this 
doggone tax bill. They have done it. And, believe me, it is going to be 
the nails in the coffin that denies them the majority for the year 
2000.
  We tried to work with the other side. We tried to make it bipartisan. 
We reached out across the aisle. And what I am saying to my colleagues 
on the other side is this, it is bad enough that they do not leave it 
up to the Committee on Ways and Means; it is bad enough that they 
exclude the Democrats and Republicans, but it should hurt the very 
nature of this institution to know that we have to go to the Committee 
on Rules close to midnight to find out what else they have put in the 
bill.
  Now, I know the Republicans do not want to circulate it, and I know 
that they are talking about great political statements when they talk 
about the rule, but why do they not talk about what is in the rule? 
Where is Chairman Greenspan in the rule?
  I tell my colleagues this: on tomorrow, and maybe tonight, we will 
find out what Chairman Greenspan thinks about a 10 percent cut across 
the board. He testified in front of our committee. He said it was wrong 
then, it is wrong tonight, and it is going to be wrong when it gets to 
the President's office.

[[Page H6093]]

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, all I would like to say to the gentleman 
from New York and the gentleman from New Jersey, who have commented 
this is in the dark of the night, that it gets dark up here at night 
and we are going to work at night. We are not going to lay out at 6 
o'clock; we are going to keep working. So I would like a unanimous 
consent that we all agree it is dark now, it is night, and so let us 
get started.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses several things that we should not 
put up with in this country. The first: when a brides goes down the 
aisle to meet her groom, the preacher is down there, the groom is down 
there, and the tax man is down there.

                              {time}  2300

  We should not penalize marriages. This bill puts an end to the 
marriage penalty.
  Another thing we should not penalize. We are killing hometown 
businesses. The death tax is death tax not only to family businesses 
but to hometown businesses.
  In my district, we have lost hometown drugstores, hometown car 
dealers, hometown funeral homes. The only funeral home in my hometown 
is owned by a Texas company because they could not pay the death taxes. 
I am for hometown businesses, so I am for ending these death taxes.
  We talked about them killing family businesses. It does that. It 
kills hometown businesses. How often have my colleagues said, I am 
tired of every business in town being owned by some company in another 
country, if not another State? This puts an end to it.
  The third thing, 30 million American families will benefit from this 
plan because it makes college more affordable for their children. How 
many times do we hear people say to the people we represent, how will I 
ever afford to send my children to college?
  This bill, according to the Center for Data Analysis, says 30 million 
American children will be able to go to college, it will be more 
affordable.
  Let us send them to college. Let us give them a chance. Let us invest 
in their future with an education.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said it is the dark of the night. I have 
been here a little longer than him. I remember when this job used to be 
a day job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Maloney).
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule.
  I start by thanking the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) 
for yielding to allow members of the new Democratic Coalition an 
opportunity during this debate to speak about the tax relief proposal 
that we have prepared and that I and my colleague from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) on behalf of 30 other Democratic Members of Congress presented 
yesterday at the Committee on Rules hearing on this resolution.
  The new Democratic Coalition tax bill is pro-family, pro-growth, and 
pro-reform tax relief for American families and businesses. It is 
fiscally responsible and stays within the outlines contained in the 
President's budget proposal to dedicate 12 percent of the surplus to 
targeted tax relief after reserving 77 percent of the budget surplus 
for strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
  Our proposal strikes exactly the right balance, a fiscally 
responsible balance, between paying down the national debt, 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare, providing targeted tax 
relief, and addressing pressing national priorities such as education, 
defense, and the environment.
  We are disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make our 
proposal in order. Our proposal also calls for substantial 
simplification of the Tax Code and specifically calls for the 
establishment of a commission to offer recommendations on 
comprehensively simplifying and reforming our Nation's Tax Code modeled 
on the successful Social Security Reform Commission of 1983.
  We have the opportunity to pass a fiscally responsible pro-family, 
pro-growth, pro-reform tax measure, and we should do so now.
  We are pleased to see that many of the new Democratic Coalition tax 
proposals have been incorporated under the leadership of the gentleman 
from New York (Chairman Rangel) into the Democratic substitute, and we 
look forward to working with our colleagues to enact tax legislation 
that is both fiscally responsible and directed to where it is most 
needed, American families and continued economic growth.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Kuykendall).
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, the point that I am most impressed with 
in this package we bring before my colleagues in the rule and will 
eventually vote on it when we vote on the amendment is the fact that we 
put a trigger in here that is going to protect the fact that we pay 
down debt or we do not do the tax cut.
  That is a very simple premise. This is a responsible premise. There 
should not be anybody in here opposed to that, especially as to the 
fact that the Government is now operating at a surplus and we have now 
designed a mechanism in here to do that. That is the kind of policy 
that makes good politics, and it is good for America.
  We are going to talk about the kinds of tax cuts we have and how much 
of the tax cuts and which ones they are and all that. But we have 
protected the ability to keep getting the tax cuts as long as we are 
responsible with paying down the debt that this Nation has incurred so 
that we can again fight a Cold War that took all of these trillions of 
dollars to win it.
  We may never have to do that again. But if we are not prepared to and 
have the ability as a Government to go back up that course, we would 
never have it again. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, a trillion-dollar tax cut, a third to the 
top one percent, a third to the top 10 percent, and a third to the 
other 90 percent. My colleagues heard me right. A third of it to the 
top one percent. A third of it to the top 90 percent of the American 
taxpayers. This is an irresponsible tax plan that will explode the 
national debt and will wreck the U.S. economy.
  America is enjoying the strongest economy in a generation. 
Unemployment is low. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. And 
because of that, we have a unique opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime 
opportunity, to pay down our national debt.
  Our debt is so big that Americans have to spend $230 billion a year 
just to cover the interest payment. That is money that could be set 
aside to strengthen Medicare and Social Security, to make prescription 
drugs possible for our seniors, to modernize our schools.
  Unfortunately, this trillion-dollar tax scheme is just the beginning. 
The Republicans do not want to tell the American people the true cost 
of their plan. Over time, the real cost would triple to nearly $3 
trillion.
  Remember, Jackie Gleason used to say, ``Va-vavoom, to the Moon, 
Alice.'' That is where this is going, to the Moon.
  Now, I do not call this a tax cut. This is an economic hangover. 
Economists all across the spectrum agree that the GOP plan would drive 
up interest rates, drive up our debt, and drive our economy right over 
the cliff. It could drive Social Security and Medicare straight into 
the ground just when the baby-boomers would be retiring in record 
numbers.
  This is irresponsible. It is wrong. Vote ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

[[Page H6094]]

  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited to stand here in support of a bill that has 
a theme of simpler, fairer, and lower taxes for Americans. But I want 
to talk about the reforms to the estate tax, which are very important 
to the folks in agriculture, particularly the farm and ranch families 
in my home State of Montana.
  In the suburbs and the cities, the economy is going very well. But in 
farming and ranching today, it is not very lucrative.
  Most family farms and ranches do not show a profit. Few even can 
generate a cash flow. But their land can be quite valuable. Some will 
call that property poor, lots of net worth on paper but not much money.
  But when these families look at the daunting task of trying to find a 
way to transfer these farms and ranches to the next generation, they 
are truly discouraged because it is virtually impossible to pay the 
death taxes and to keep the family farm in the family. So they sell. 
Sometimes they sell to a movie star. Other times they sell to a 
subdivider.
  But what is likely to happen is that family agriculture in this 
country is going to end with this generation. But tonight we can lay 
the foundation to change that. We can phase out, eventually eliminate 
the death tax. We can save these family farms and ranches.
  I urge my colleagues to support this. The Democrats have said they 
have written off rural America. We need to stand for it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my question for my Republican 
colleagues: Time and again, why is it that those who pay the most to 
our society come home with the least?
  I heard my friend from California talk about a woman walking down the 
aisle. This woman walked down the aisle. She is married to a United 
States Marine. This is a photograph from the front page of the 
Washington Post of her picking up used furniture on the side of the 
road so that other Marines will have some furniture in their house.

                              {time}  2310

  What do you do for them? After 5 years of Republican defense budgets, 
what do you do for them? You do nothing.
  For $100 million, we could get every single soldier, sailor, airman, 
marine and coast guardsman off of food stamps. You cannot find the 
money for that. For $1.2 billion, we could fulfill the promise of 
lifetime health care for every single military retiree. You cannot find 
the money for that. But you have got $400 billion for the fat cats, the 
guys who write the $1,000 checks to you and the $10,000 checks to the 
Republican National Committee and that are delivering cases of 
champagne right now over to the Capitol Hill Club and the steaks are 
lined up because they know they are going to get a big tax break, the 
top 1 percent.
  But my question is, what do you do for those who pay the price to 
keep our country free? You do nothing.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, to the previous speaker, I would just 
suggest that he look at the President's suggestions and submission on 
the defense versus ours and he will see that we do a lot for the 
troops, including a pay raise, including money for retention of pilots. 
The President does not do anything.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the last hour, this bill has been made 
obscenely worse, in the dead of night, with very few of the press here.
  We already knew that most of the benefit, two-thirds of the benefit, 
goes to the richest 10 percent of Americans, but now they have added a 
trigger that allows Alan Greenspan to fatally shoot the 10 percent 
across-the-board tax cut provided for the middle class. But no matter 
what Alan Greenspan does, no matter what happens to interest costs, no 
trigger can prevent the huge tax loopholes for the superwealthy.
  This is a bad rule because it prevents us from dealing with the New 
Democratic Coalition proposal to provide a roughly $300 billion tax 
cut. This rule allows only a discussion of the lowest possible tax cut 
or the most extreme and biased tax cut.
  Do not muzzle the moderates. Defeat the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. HASTERT. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a great opportunity. We 
are on the cusp of doing something for the American people that has not 
been done in this House for a long, long time. We are giving the 
American people the opportunity to take more money home to put in their 
own pockets instead of putting it in the pockets of bureaucracies.
  The American people are going to have a choice. They are going to 
have a choice to be able to decide how their kids' education is going 
to be done because they will have education savings accounts. We are 
going to give them the fairness to be able to decide how that is spent.
  We are going to be fair because we are going to treat people who are 
married the same way as people who are single. We are going to try to 
say that those folks who punch a time clock or commute to work or have 
to contribute to the economy will be able to take more of those dollars 
home and put them in their pocket.
  We will have over the first 5 years $800 billion of debt retirement 
and $156 billion of tax relief for the American people. If you look out 
over the next 10 years, American taxpayers will be paying over $28 
trillion in taxes.
  We give the American people the chance to take a little bit of that 
money back home, decide how they are going to treat their kids' 
education, decide what they are going to do with their future and their 
retirement. And also in this bill for senior citizens, who are over the 
age of 65, that decide that they want to be productive and they want to 
work, we take the earnings test penalty away so that they are not 
penalized $2 in their Social Security for every $1 they earn, twice the 
rate that millionaires have to pay.
  This is a tax cut for fairness, it is a tax cut for the American 
working people, and it is a tax cut that the American people deserve, 
not a tax increase like our friends on the other side of the aisle 
would like to give.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
Financial Freedom Act. I urge my colleagues to vote for both. I want to 
commend Chairman Archer for his fine work on this bill.
  Over the last four years, the nation has seen a remarkable turnaround 
in our financial fortunes.
  Four years ago, the President submitted a budget that had 200 billion 
dollar deficits for as far as the eye could see.
  We said that the President was wrong. We said it was time to balance 
the budget, to make the government smaller and smarter, and to give tax 
relief to the American people.
  They said that it couldn't be done. They said our budget plans were 
irresponsible. They said that our tax proposals were unrealistic.
  Well, they were wrong.
  Because of our efforts to cut wasteful spending, because of our 
efforts to move people off of welfare and into work, and because of our 
efforts to give tax relief to the American people, we have the 
healthiest economy in our nation's history.
  Today, we have the largest surplus in history. This surplus gives us 
two options.
  We can do what the President wants. He wants to spend the surplus, 
including a portion of the social security surplus, on more Washington 
programs.
  The President thinks more Washington spending is responsible. He 
believes that giving this money back to the people is risky, because he 
doesn't know how the people will spend their own money.
  Once again the President is wrong. It is not risky to give the 
American people their money back.
  We have a better plan.
  First, we lock away the social security surplus so that is can be 
spent only on retirement security.
  Over ten years, we put two dollars away for retirement security for 
every one dollar of tax relief.
  Second, we allow for government to grow slowly. In fact, the 
government will increase its spending by close to a half a trillion 
dollars in the next ten years, under our plan.

[[Page H6095]]

  This means we can keep funding programs that are important to the 
American people, while we keep working to cut wasteful Washington 
spending.
  And finally, we give some of the surplus back to the American people 
by targeting the unfair parts of our tax code.
  We believe it is unfair to tax marriage, so we reduce the marriage 
penalty.
  We believe it is unfair to tax people when they die, so we phase out 
the death tax.
  We believe it unfair to tax people who want to save for the 
children's education, so we include education savings accounts.
  And we believe that it is unfair to tax people at the highest rate 
since the Second World War. We include a 10 percent across the board 
tax cut that phases in over 10 years.
  Our tax relief proposal is responsible and balanced.
  It will keep the budget balanced. It will keep the economy growing. 
And it will return power back to the American people.
  Today, the House has a simple choice: We can give some of the surplus 
back to the people or we can spend it here in Washington.
  I urge my colleagues to make the right choice. Vote for this rule, 
vote for this responsible tax relief measure and vote to give some 
money back to the American people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, we just heard about the GOP bill and what it 
claims to do. It claims to do many things which is not fiscally 
possible or fiscally responsible.
  I proposed a simple amendment at the Committee on Rules. My amendment 
said, no surplus, no tax breaks. We cannot follow the Republicans back 
to the days of budget deficits and uncontrollable spending. When there 
is no surplus, we cannot afford more tax breaks. We must keep our 
fiscal house in order. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility. Let 
us not spend a surplus if it is not there.
  Mr. Speaker, what my amendment said, after we take care of our 
obligations to Social Security and Medicare for this and future 
generations, then certify to us what the surplus is, and then and only 
then do we use that surplus for tax breaks. Unfortunately, the 
Committee on Rules would not make this amendment in order. No more 
raiding of the Social Security trust funds, no more raiding of the 
Medicare trust funds. No tax breaks until there is a surplus. Let us 
take care of our obligations first. Let us be honest. No surplus, no 
tax breaks.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Well, it is tax reduction time and the rhetorical terrorism is at its 
height, designed to scare seniors, children, teachers and the needy. We 
know the Washington bureaucrats are scared because any time we try to 
shrink the size of government, they get frightened. And frightened 
because we want to return more money to the people who earned it.
  This surplus does not exist because of the great wisdom of your party 
which passed the largest tax increase in history. If it did, let us 
pass it again. Let us give people some real relief and do another 
Clinton tax increase. The fact is that is what you are trying to do.
  This is the Joint Tax Committee review of the Democrat Rangel plan. 
After 10 years, this plan, ladies and gentlemen, increases taxes $3.9 
billion. Talk about a Trojan horse.
  Go back to the drawing board, get your folks in the back room to take 
some smart pills, and do not try to increase taxes one more time. We 
know you love it, but do not try to do it. We are trying to honestly 
give back to people who earn the money their money back and you are 
trying to take another hit off of them.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first of all I do not know if the speaker is 
here. Unless he is reading a bill that we have not seen, there is no 
reference to the earnings test. I think that indicates the sloppiness 
with which this matter is being confronted. We have changes at the last 
minute. I want to comment on that.
  But before I do that, I want to say this. We should be giving back 
our constituents some money in the form of a long-term guarantee for 
their Social Security and Medicare and you do not do that one iota. And 
we should also be giving back constituents their money in terms of 
really paying down the national debt, and you do essentially lip 
service to that; lip service to that. You created this national debt, 
at least you ought to get together with us and pay it down.

                              {time}  2320

  Listen, I was here when they passed those budgets.
  Look, this proposal of the Republicans would reduce the revenues by 
almost 800 billion in 10 years and 3 trillion in the second 10 years, 
and I want my colleagues to think about this:
  The second 10 years, according to the actuaries, those are the exact 
years when the Medicare and the Social Security surplus begins to 
decline, and so does the on-budget surplus.
  So essentially, when those revenues begin to decline, they take $3 
trillion out of the budget. It will not work.
  What they are doing, the Republicans, is playing for the next 
election, and what we are doing is planning for the next generation for 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I came here for one reason, eliminate the 
deficit and the decades of runaway spending, and now we have a surplus. 
We do not have a deficit. None of the provisions in this rule; we now 
trigger about half of the tax cut to make sure that the debt really 
does come down. Because of the years of runaway spending we have a 
debt, a national debt of about $5.5 trillion dollars.
  Yes, the deficits are gone every year, but we still have a debt, and 
that debt has got to go down. The triggers that are in place ensure 
that before we see these tax cuts come into play, we see a real 
reduction in the national debt.
  That is fair, that is reasonable, and that is where we ought to be, 
and we ought to be proud of this rule and proud of the tax bill we are 
going to take up tomorrow.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, as the hour grows late and the exaggeration 
and hyperbole rises, let us get down to the facts.
  The fact of the matter is Democrats and Republicans deserve some 
credit for balancing the budget.
  Fact: Democrats and Republicans deserve some credit for some 
surpluses.
  Fact: Democrats and Republicans now have significant and profound 
differences on what to do with those so-called surpluses.
  There are two major differences. One is what to do with the so-called 
surplus, and secondly, the scope of the tax cuts that Democrats also 
support.
  On the first fact:
  Democrats are for drawing down the national debt. Democrats are for 
committing to our obligation to our seniors on Social Security. And 
fact: Democrats are for making sure Medicaid has a longer life for our 
seniors. That is a big difference.
  Now Republicans want to give a trillion dollars in tax cuts to 
defense companies, to utilities, to oil and gas interests.
  Special interests over our obligations and our commitments to Social 
Security and debt relief.
  Now the other profound difference is the scope of the tax cut. The 
Democrats want to draw down the debt and provide lower interest rates 
for every single American. Everybody benefits from that tax cut, paying 
lower interest rates, lower rates on their car payments, better access 
to cheaper capital for small businesses and farmers.
  We Democrats are also for paid-for and responsible tax cuts such as 
estate tax relief for small businesses and small farmers.
  Let us vote for the Democratic proposal for debt relief and for 
Social Security.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

[[Page H6096]]

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the classic battle philosophy in Washington.
  The liberals say it is too risky to give working Americans some of 
their own money back, money they worked hard to earn. They see hundreds 
of billions of dollars slipping between their fingers, money that will 
be gone, gone from Washington, D.C., and the liberals will not be able 
to feed the beast of big government. The beast will have to go on a 
diet.
  Republicans, Mr. Speaker, trust American workers. We trust them to 
love their families better than any Federal program. We trust them to 
spend their own money more wisely than any Federal Government.
  But this is not a new idea. In the 1991 tax relief, ignited the 
largest peacetime expansion in our Nation's history. In 1995, we passed 
tax relief. The Dow Jones industrial average went from 4000 to 11,000. 
Now it is time to do it again, and let us see what the Senator, the 
Democrat Senator from Nebraska, has to say about our Federal surplus 
and our tax relief.
  When we have got 3 trillion coming, it is hardly outrageous or 
irresponsible for this type of move. It was in today's Washington Post, 
Mr. Speaker. This is the right thing to do. Let us vote for the rule, 
let us vote for the bill, let us starve the beast and feed the 
pocketbooks and the family budgets of working Americans.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, or is it morning 
yet, in opposition to this rule. This tax cut is huge and depends on 
surpluses that do not exist yet. I always called this funny money.
  When Americans read in their local newspapers that two-thirds of the 
majority of this trillion-dollar tax cut is targeted to the wealthiest 
10 percent of American public, I do not think my friends on the other 
side of the aisle will be touted as heroes.
  If interest rates and inflation and our national debt rise, eating up 
the benefits of this tax cut by creating higher mortgage payments, 
higher credit card payments, voters will not be pleased with those who 
sent this bill to the floor.
  If Medicare is not strengthened and the fiscal stability of Social 
Security is not extended, I think Americans will ask why did Congress 
not do something about this.
  Finally, if these projected surpluses do not materialize, this tax 
cut begins to do harm, and taxpayers will have a lot more questions.
  Let us provide a balanced approach that protects Social Security and 
Medicare first, pays down the debt and makes tax cuts for those that 
need it the most. Send back this bill to the committee. Defeat the 
rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible 
opposition to the most fiscally irresponsible bill to come before this 
House in the 20\1/2\ years that I have served here.
  I want to be sure that my colleagues understand why I say that. It is 
the second 10 years of the effect on this Social Security bill that 
causes me pain because it is when our children and grandchildren are 
going to regret that which we proposed to do tonight.
  Let me also share another secret with my friends on this side. We 
have already busted the caps, so any moneys that we are going to be 
spending on defense, on veterans, on health care, on education, on 
agriculture, is going to come from Social Security trust funds if my 
colleagues should, by chance, pass that which they propose tonight.

                              {time}  2330

  On the deficit side of the question, the Blue Dog proposal that will 
be in the motion to recommit will reduce the national debt $1,650 per 
man, woman and child in the next 20 years over what my colleagues 
propose in their revised, extended version of that which they propose 
tonight. Please deal with the facts. Let us stop the rhetoric. We 
cannot afford this kind of a tax cut. What we ought to do right now is 
pay down the debt, solve Social Security and Medicare, and then deal 
with tax cuts.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  (Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is wrong for America 
for three reasons. First, it spends money we do not have. The 
Republican theme is return it, but we cannot return what we do not 
have. Mr. Speaker, the $2.9 trillion surplus is an estimate of future 
revenues not yet seen, not yet collected, not yet in the bank.
  The Federal Government has run up an annual deficit for 30 years. 
Only next year will we see a true, on-budget surplus. Do we not think 
we could wait for at least one real actual surplus before we spend one 
not here yet, only in the forecast estimated surplus.
  Secondly, the best tax cut we can give the American people is lower 
interest rates for all Americans. Eliminating the debt would mean that 
no longer would we spend more on interest than we spend on national 
defense.
  Finally, the Republican tax bill puts our economic security, our 
economic health, and our retirement at risk.
  The Republican tax bill gives it back, all right, and more. On-
budget, zero for Social Security, zero for Medicare, zero for national 
defense, zero for veterans, zero for reducing the national debt. Do we 
not think it is time to be fiscally conservative?
  The Republican tax reduction bill is wrong for the American people 
for 3 reasons:
  First, it spends money we don't have. The Republican theme is 
``Return it.'' But you can't return what you don't yet have. The 2.9 
trillion dollar surplus is an estimate of future revenues not yet seen, 
not yet collected, and not yet in the bank. In addition, the 
assumptions and economic predictions on which the surplus number is 
based may not turn out to be true.
  What if federal spending merely increases with inflation (even at 
today's low rate) rather than going down 8% over the next three years 
as projected in the surplus estimate?
  What if Medicare spending grows just 1% faster than projected?
  What if our nation's productivity grows at 1.1% annually the average 
rate since 1993, rather than at 1.8%, the projected rate in the surplus 
estimate?
  What if the unemployment rate is just one quarter of 1% more than the 
projected rate?
  If all 4 ``what ifs'' occur--there is no surplus. In fact, there 
would be a deficit over the next 10 years, not a surplus. If we spend 
our projected surplus on an 800 billion dollar budget-busting tax cut 
and the surplus never shows up, we will generate an even bigger 
national debt for our children, and we will have bankrupted Social 
Security just when the bulk of the baby boomers begin to be entitled to 
their benefits. The federal government has run up an annual deficit for 
30 years. Only next year will we see a true on-budget surplus. Don't we 
think we could wait to see at least one real, actual surplus before we 
spend a not-here-yet, only-in-the-forecast, estimated 10-year surplus.
  Secondly, this budget-busting tax cut is not the best use of any 
surplus for working families. The best use of any surplus is to pay 
down the 5.6 trillion dollar national debt rather than to pass this 
debt on to our children.
  The best tax cut we can give all Americans is paying down the 5.6 
trillion national debt. Less debt means lower interest rates for 
working families, lower mortgage payments, lower car payments, lower 
student loan payments. Each percentage point decrease in interest rates 
means over $200 billion in lower debt payments over 10 years for 
working families. Eliminating the debt would mean that no longer will 
we spend 25% of all individual federal income taxes collected just to 
pay the annual interest on the federal debt and no longer would we 
spend more on interest payments than the combined total of all spending 
on national defense.
  Finally, the Republican tax reduction bill puts our economic 
security, our health security, and our retirement security at risk. Our 
generation has a historic opportunity to put America on a stable 
economic path by continuing down the road of fiscally conservative, 
pro-growth economics by paying down our debt rather than passing it on 
to our children, by keeping interest rates down, by protecting Social 
Security and preparing for the demands of the baby boomers' retirements 
that begin in earnest in 2014, and by restoring our Medicare system to 
future solvency, building a

[[Page H6097]]

strong national defense and keeping our commitments to our veterans.
  The Republican tax bill gives it all back alright and more.
  On-budget:
  Zero for Social Security.
  Zero for Medicare.
  Zero for national defense.
  Zero for veterans.
  Zero for reducing the national debt.
  Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone? Fiscal conservatives 
don't spend money they don't have. Fiscal conservatives don't return it 
until they earn it. Vote no on the Republican tax bill and yes for the 
future of America's children.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this irresponsible tax bill is wrong for 
Arkansas. I have a dozen reasons why I will not vote for it: World War 
I veterans, World War II veterans, Korean War veterans, Vietnam 
veterans, Gulf War veterans, veterans of the Balkans, Cold War 
veterans, all other veterans. Social Security recipients, Medicare 
recipients, future recipients of Social Security, and most importantly, 
future generations.
  At the very time we are debating an irresponsible tax cut, we have 
not begun to solve the long-term challenges of Social Security and 
Medicare. We fail in our duty to future generations by not paying down 
the $5.5 trillion national debt, and worst of all, we have not even 
adequately funded this year's veterans budget, much less future 
budgets.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to give my constituents a tax cut, but I want to 
do it without saddling future generations with debt, without 
threatening the future of Social Security and Medicare, and most 
important of all, without breaking promises to all of our Nation's 
veterans.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which 
will return us back to the deficits of the 1980s.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this risky tax scheme and 
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Through the hard work of America's families and with responsible 
fiscal policy, our nation has produced an economic engine that would 
have been unimaginable a few short years ago. Just this week, officials 
in my state reported that the unemployment rate is the lowest it has 
ever been. And this risky tax scheme would cut the legs out from under 
that accomplishment and deny us the opportunity to address the 
challenges we face in the years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to save Social Security and Medicare for today's 
senior citizens and for future generations, but this bill would prevent 
us from doing that. We need to invest in education, research and 
technology to keep this nation's economy strong. This bill would return 
us to the bad old days of massive deficits, crushing inflation and a 
weak economy. We need to pass balanced targeted tax relief for hard 
working middle class families, and this bill benefits the wealthy 
special interests at the expense of the middle class.
  Now that we have balanced the budget, we must provide for a sound 
future for America's families. We need to save Social Security and 
Medicare for our seniors, provide targeted tax relief for middle class 
priorities like school construction and pay down the national debt to 
keep our economy strong. The Rangel substitute achieves these goals, 
and we should support it. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
risky tax scheme.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, more than two-thirds of this extravagant 
bauble of a tax cut has been unceremoniously transferred from programs 
that were put on a starvation diet in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, 
which included hospital cuts, cuts to home health care and visiting 
nurses, and cuts to Medicare benefits. That is why we have this 
surplus.
  Do the Republicans say, let us now replenish home health care? Let us 
now replenish Medicare? No. This is the pluperfect form of the 
Republican Robin Hood in reverse. The wealthiest Americans get huge tax 
breaks, and the vast majority of ordinary people get nothing. No money 
for Medicare, no money for Social Security, no money for over-crowded 
schools, no money for the environment.
  Our Republican reverse Robin Hoods could not be more proud. It is tax 
cuts for the wealthy and nothing for the unhealthy, and the longer we 
go, the worse it is going to get.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 2 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how many speakers the 
gentlewoman has remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have one speaker remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is rather fitting 
that we are here late at night, because for weeks we have heard from 
conservative Republicans how they were upset about the failure of their 
bill to provide for debt reduction. Then we heard from the moderate 
Republicans how they were concerned about the size of the tax cut and 
the failure to meet deficit reduction and some of the programs they 
were worried that were going to be sacrificed on the alter of this 
trillion dollar tax cut. Somewhere tonight, they lost the courage of 
their convictions. On the way to the Committee on Rules, they lost 
their convictions.
  But I should say to them, do not fear. The leadership will respect 
you in the morning.
  The Speaker said that tonight we are doing something to the American 
people that has not been done to them in a long, long time. He is 
right. It has been 18 years since the last time in the middle of the 
night we passed a Republican tax bill that set this Nation on a sea of 
red ink, unlike anything we have ever seen. Never had we had a deficit 
larger than $70 billion, and until Bill Clinton came to office, we were 
headed for $400 billion deficits every year, each and every year, each 
and every year.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess the Republican Party has not learned from 
history, but the American family has, because they have experienced in 
the last 8 years the greatest economic recovery since the Second World 
War, maybe in our history. More of them are working, earning more 
money; they are buying more houses, more automobiles; they are able to 
educate their children, because interest rates and inflation are low.
  But my Republican colleagues have decided tonight, after beating 
their Members around the head, that they will take out the dice and 
roll them. They will play dice with the American economy. They will 
play dice with people's ability in the future to refinance their homes, 
to pay for their college educations, to take care of their parents, to 
take care of their children, to provide a first-class elementary and 
secondary education.
  That is what my colleagues put at risk tonight with this trillion 
dollar and soon-to-be $3 trillion tax cut. That is the sea of red ink 
that my colleagues threaten to launch in this Nation again, and my 
colleagues should not be allowed to do it. They should take care of the 
people's money. They should take very good care of the people's money.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party should take care of the American 
people's money.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate, and 
we are poised to make history. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, 
Speaker Hastert stood right here in this well and made a very eloquent 
speech. He came from the Speaker's chair down here to address the 
House, and he said that he had several things that he wanted to see us 
address.
  My colleagues will recall that improving public education was a top 
priority. We earlier passed the Education

[[Page H6098]]

Flexibility Act, and just earlier we passed the Teacher Empowerment 
Act. He said that he wanted to save Social Security and Medicare. What 
have we done? Well, with bipartisan support we passed a Social Security 
lockbox, and we also had a very strong commitment to rebuild our 
Nation's defense capability. And what have we seen from that? Well, we 
have seen, obviously, very strong support in a bipartisan way for the 
Department of Defense authorization bill and at the same time, we are 
now getting ready to proceed with the defense appropriations bill, with 
bipartisan support.

                              {time}  2340

  Today we are going to, in just a very few minutes, pass the rule that 
will lay the groundwork for us to pass this very, very important 
opportunity to do exactly what we did back in 1981, say a little bit of 
money should be able to stay in the pockets of the American worker.
  The fact of the matter is this rule, under which we are considering 
it, is a very generous rule, much more generous than rules that have 
been used for consideration in the past. We are giving the Democrats 
not only the substitute that my friend, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), will offer, but we are also allowing them a motion to 
recommit with instructions, something that they did not often give us 
in the past.
  So we are being overly generous in this rule, even though many of 
them have come down here and criticized us on it.
  When we think about this issue of debt reduction, my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), is right, we want to deal with 
the issue of debt relief. In the first 5 years, what is it we are going 
to see? For every one dollar in taxes reduced we are going to see $6 in 
debt reduction. That seems to be a very strong commitment that we have 
been able to work out.
  We have to work only on our side because we get no cooperation on 
legislation like this. We do not get any support or help for what it is 
we are trying to do here.
  Now, I guess they are trying to help us. It sounds like they want to 
step forward and help us, Mr. Speaker, and we welcome it.
  The fact of the matter is, if we were to walk down the street and 
find a wallet that had an identification in it and some cash, we would 
return those dollars. Similarly, as we look at the issue of an over 
charge that is there, we would return it. Well, I am very proud of the 
fact that since we have had Republican Congresses, it has been the 
Republican Congress that has brought us this surplus. We have a 
responsibility to turn dollars back to the American people, and we are 
going to do that. We are going to do that.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and proceed with strong 
support for the Archer bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentlewoman from Ohio has 
30 seconds remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a 
description of the amendment that I will offer in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The description previously referred to follows:

Description of Proposed Modifications to H.R. 2488, as Reported by the 
           House Committee on Ways and Means on July 16, 1999

       Section 101 (10-percent reduction in individual income tax 
     rates) would be modified to phase in the 10-percent across-
     the-board rate reduction as follows: 1.0 percent for 2001 
     through 2003, 2.5 percent for 2004, 5.0 percent for 2005 
     through 2007, 7.5 percent for 2008, and 10 percent for 2009 
     and thereafter. Beginning in 2002, the reduction in rates 
     would be contingent upon no increase in interest outlays for 
     the public debt and trust fund debt of the Federal 
     government.
       Section 121 (repeal of individual alternative minimum tax 
     on individuals) would be modified so that, during the period 
     when the individual alternative minimum tax (``AMT'') is 
     being phased out, taxpayers would pay the following 
     percentages of individual AMT liability: 80 percent in 2005, 
     70 percent in 2006, 60 percent in 2007, 50 percent in 2008, 
     and 0 percent in 2009 and thereafter.
       Section 201 (exemption of certain interest and dividend 
     income from tax) would be modified to provide the following 
     exclusion from income: $50 ($100 in the case of a married 
     couple filing a joint return) for 2001 through 2002, $100 
     ($200 in the case of a married couple filing a joint return) 
     for 2003 through 2004, and $200 ($400 in the case of a 
     married couple filing a joint return) for 2005 and 
     thereafter.
       Section 301 (reduction in corporate capital gain tax rate) 
     would be modified to reduce the tax on capital gains of 
     corporations to 30 percent in 2005 and thereafter.
       Section 302(a) (repeal of alternative minimum tax on 
     corporations) would be modified to allow AMT credit 
     carryovers to offset the current year's minimum tax liability 
     as follows: 20 percent in 2005, 30 percent in 2006, 40 
     percent in 2007, 50 percent in 2008, and 100 percent in 2009 
     and thereafter.
       Section 601 (repeal of estate, gift, and generation-
     skipping taxes) and section 611 (additional reductions of 
     estate and gift tax rates) would be modified to phase in the 
     repeal of the estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes as 
     follows: in 2001, repeal rates in excess of 53 percent; in 
     2002, repeal rates in excess of 50 percent; in 2003 through 
     2006, reduce all rates by 1 percentage point per year; in 
     2007, reduce all rates by 1.5 percentage point; and in 2008, 
     reduce all rates by 2 percentage points.
       Sections 1205 (reduced PBGC premium for new plans of small 
     employers), section 1206 (reduction of additional PBGC 
     premium for new and small plans), 1243 (missing 
     participants), and section 1254 (substantial owner benefits 
     in terminated plans) would be deleted.
       A new provision would be added to Title XII--Provisions 
     Relating to Pensions--to provide that the 100 percent of 
     compensation limitation does not apply to multiemployer 
     defined benefit pension plans. The modification would be 
     effective with respect to years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
       A new Title XVII--Commitment to Debt Reduction would be 
     added. This title contains a provision regarding the 
     commitment of the Congress to debt reduction. The provision 
     would reflect the sense of the Congress that: (1) the 
     national debt of the United States held by the public is 
     $3.619 trillion as of fiscal year 1999; (2) the Federal 
     budget is projected to produce a surplus each year in the 
     next 10 fiscal years; (3) refunding taxes and reducing the 
     national debt held by the public will assure continued 
     economic growth and financial freedom for future generations; 
     and (4) the national debt held by the public shall be reduced 
     from $3.619 trillion to a level below $1.61 trillion by 
     fiscal year 2009.
       A new Title XVIII--Budgetary Treatment would be added. This 
     title contains a provision that would provide that, upon 
     enactment of the Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall not make any estimate of the 
     changes in direct spending outlays and receipts under section 
     252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 resulting from the enactment of the Act.


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. 
     Pryce of Ohio:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 2488) to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce individual income tax rates, 
     to provide marriage penalty relief, to reduce taxes on 
     savings and investments, to provide estate and gift tax 
     relief, to provide incentives for education savings and 
     health care, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended 
     by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendments printed in section 3 of this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto final passage 
     without interviewing motion except: (1) two hours of debate 
     on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part B of House Report 106-246, if 
     offered by Representatives Rangel of New York or his 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with our without instructions.
       ``Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2488, 
     notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
     Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill until 
     the following legislation day, when consideration shall 
     resume at a time designated by the Speaker.
       ``Sec. 3. The amendments specified in the first section of 
     this resolution are as follows:

                  Amendments to H.R. 2488, as Reported

                     Offered by Mr. Archer of Texas

       Page 10, strike the table after line 18 and insert the 
     following:


[[Page H6099]]


``For taxable years beginning in calendarThe applicable percentage is--
      2001 through 2003............................................1.0 
      2004.........................................................2.5 
      2005 through 2007............................................5.0 
      2008.........................................................7.5 
      2009 and thereafter........................................10.0. 
     In the case of taxable years beginning in calendar year 2001, 
     the rounding referred to in the preceding sentence shall be 
     to the next highest tenth.
       ``(9) Post-2001 rate reductions contingent on no increase 
     in interest on total united states debt.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2001, paragraph (8) shall apply only to 
     taxable years beginning after the first debt reduction 
     calendar year.
       ``(B) Delay of further rate reductions if increase in 
     interest on total united states debt.--For each calendar year 
     after 2000 which is not a debt reduction calendar year, the 
     table in paragraph (8) shall be applied for each subsequent 
     calendar year by substituting the calendar year which is 1 
     year later. The preceding sentence shall cease to apply after 
     the earliest calendar year with respect to which the 
     applicable percentage under paragraph (8) is 10 percent 
     (after the application of the preceding sentence).
       ``(C) Debt reduction calendar year.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `debt reduction calendar year' means any 
     calendar year after 2000 if, for the 12-month period ending 
     on July 31 of such calendar year, the interest expense on the 
     total United States debt is not greater than such interest 
     expense for the 12-month period ending on July 31 of the 
     preceding calendar year.
       ``(D) Total united states debt.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `total United States debt' means 
     obligations which are subject to the public debt limit in 
     section 3101 of title 31, United States Code.''
       Page 16, line 24, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
       Page 17, line 7, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2004''.
       Page 17, line 8, strike ``2008'' and insert ``2009''.
       Page 17, strike the table after line 13 and insert the 
     following new table:

``For taxable years beginning in calendarThe applicable percentage is--
    2005...........................................................80  
    2006...........................................................70  
    2007...........................................................60  
    2008........................................................50.''  

       Page 18, lines 18 and 19, strike ``2007'' and insert 
     ``2008''.
       Page 20, strike lines 1 through 6 and insert the following:
       ``(A) in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2001 or 
     2002, $50 ($100 in the case of a joint return),
       ``(B) in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2003 or 
     2004, $100 ($200 in the case of a joint return), and
       ``(C) in the case of any taxable year beginning after 2004, 
     $200 ($400 in the case of a joint return).
       Page 38, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 
     40, line 17, and insert the following:
       ``(2) a tax of 30 percent of the net capital gain (or, if 
     less, taxable income).
       ``(b) Cross References.--For computation of the alternative 
     tax--
       ``(1) in the case of life insurance companies, see section 
     801(a)(2),
       ``(2) in the case of regulated investment companies and 
     their shareholders, see section 852(b)(3)(A) and (D), and
       ``(3) in the case of real estate investment trusts, see 
     section 857(b)(3)(A).''
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1445(e) are each 
     amended by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``30 
     percent''.
       (2)(A) The second sentence of section 7518(g)(6)(A) is 
     amended by striking ``34 percent'' and inserting ``30 
     percent''.
       (B) The second sentence of section 607(h)(6)(A) of the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1936, is amended by striking ``34 
     percent'' and inserting ``30 percent''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2004.
       (2) Withholding.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(1) 
     shall apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2004.
       Page 41, strike line 16 and all that follows through the 
     end of the page and insert the following:
       ``(2) Corporations for taxable years beginning after 
     2004.--In the case of a corporation for any taxable year 
     beginning after 2004 and before 2009, the limitation under 
     paragraph (1) shall be increased by the applicable percentage 
     (determined in accordance with the following table) of the 
     tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.

``For taxable years beginning in calendarThe applicable percentage is--
    2005...........................................................20  
    2006...........................................................30  
    2007...........................................................40  
    2008..........................................................50.  

       Page 42, line 17, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2004''.
       Page 42, line 24, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
       Page 85, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 
     88, line 7, and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 611. ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RATES.

       (a) Maximum Rate of Tax Reduced to 50 Percent.--
       (1) In general.--The table contained in section 2001(c)(1) 
     is amended by striking the 2 highest brackets and inserting 
     the following:

$1,025,800, plus 50% of the excess over $2,500,000.''..................

       (2) Phase-in of reduced rate.--Subsection (c) of section 
     2001 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Phase-in of reduced rate.--In the case of decedents 
     dying, and gifts made, during 2001, the last item in the 
     table contained in paragraph (1) shall be applied by 
     substituting `53%' for `50%'.''
       (b) Repeal of Phaseout of Graduated Rates.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 2001 is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     redesignating paragraph (3), as added by subsection (a), as 
     paragraph (2).
       (c) Additional Reductions of Rates of Tax.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 2001, as so amended, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Phasedown of tax.--In the case of estates of 
     decedents dying, and gifts made, during any calendar year 
     after 2004 and before 2009--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     the tentative tax under this subsection shall be determined 
     by using a table prescribed by the Secretary (in lieu of 
     using the table contained in paragraph (1)) which is the same 
     as such table; except that--
       ``(i) each of the rates of tax shall be reduced by the 
     number of percentage points determined under subparagraph 
     (B), and
       ``(ii) the amounts setting forth the tax shall be adjusted 
     to the extent necessary to reflect the adjustments under 
     clause (i).
       ``(B) Percentage points of reduction.--

                                                          The number of
``For calendar year:                              percentage points is:
      2003.........................................................1.0 
      2004.........................................................2.0 
      2005.........................................................3.0 
      2006.........................................................4.0 
      2007.........................................................5.5 
      2008.........................................................7.5.
       ``(C) Coordination with income tax rates.--The reductions 
     under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall not reduce any rate under paragraph (1) below 
     the lowest rate in section 1(c), and
       ``(ii) shall not reduce the highest rate under paragraph 
     (1) below the highest rate in section 1(c).
       ``(D) Coordination with credit for state death taxes.--
     Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) shall apply to 
     the table contained in section 2011(b) except that the 
     Secretary shall prescribe percentage point reductions which 
     maintain the proportionate relationship (as in effect before 
     any reduction under this paragraph) between the credit under 
     section 2011 and the tax rates under subsection (c).''
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Subsections (a) and (b).--The amendments made by 
     subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to estates of decedents 
     dying, and gifts made, after December 31, 2000.
       (2) Subsection (c).--The amendment made by subsection (c) 
     shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, 
     after December 31, 2004.
       Page 278, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     282, line 6.
       Page 334, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     336, line 13.
       Page 345, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     349, line 15.
       Page 358, after line 2, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1264. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 
                   415.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) (relating 
     to limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(11) Special limitation rule for governmental and 
     multiemployer plans.--In the case of a governmental plan (as 
     defined in section 414(d)) or a multiemployer plan (as 
     defined in section 414(f)), subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
       At the end of the bill insert the following new titles:

                TITLE XVII--COMMITMENT TO DEBT REDUCTION

     SEC. 1701. COMMITMENT TO DEBT REDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the national debt of the United States held by the 
     public is $3.619 trillion as of fiscal year 1999,
       (2) the Federal budget is projected to produce a surplus 
     each year in the next 10 fiscal years, and
       (3) refunding taxes and reducing the national debt held by 
     the public will assure continued economic growth and 
     financial freedom for future generations.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the national debt held by the public shall be reduced 
     from $3.619 trillion to a level below $1.61 trillion by 
     fiscal year 2009.

                    TITLE XVIII--BUDGETARY TREATMENT

     SEC. 1801. EXCLUSION OF EFFECTS OF THIS ACT FROM PAYGO 
                   SCORECARD.

       Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget

[[Page H6100]]

     shall not make any estimate of changes in direct spending 
     outlays and receipts under section 252(d) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 resulting 
     from the enactment of this Act.
       Conform the section numbering and the table of contents 
     accordingly.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that section 3 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
be considered as read and printed in the Record, and that this request 
not be considered a precedent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent 
request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid the full reading of the 
rule, my parliamentary inquiry is that are there any provisions in this 
rule that restricts the tax cut from taking place based on the amount 
of the debt, the Federal debt? That is my only question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) may repeat her unanimous consent and, under a reservation, 
someone may yield to her to explain or to answer the question of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) 
to renew her request. Because my reserving the right to object is only 
to find out whether or not someplace in the rule is the provision that 
I made inquiry of the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Absent a unanimous consent request, the 
Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that we suspend with the reading of the bill 
until my colleagues are done writing the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.
  Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that we dispense with the reading of the rule in view of the fact that 
the majority really does not want to tell us what is in it. Then there 
is no sense reading it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.
  Mr. LEACH (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the section be considered as read, printed in the Record, and that 
the request not be considered a precedent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
amendment and the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce).
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 208, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               AYES--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

[[Page H6101]]



                             NOT VOTING--7

     Engel
     Kennedy
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Sabo

                              {time}  0012

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________