[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 111 (Monday, August 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6800-H6809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2488, FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by the 
direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2488) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to sections 105 and 211 of the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2000, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the customary motion to go to the conference 
with the Senate. I understand that the minority has a motion to 
instruct which is debatable for 1 hour, so I would yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
  The motion was agreed to.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rangel moves that (1) in order to preserve 100 percent 
     of the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses for the Social 
     Security program and to preserve 50 percent of the currently 
     projected non-Social Security surpluses for purposes of 
     reducing the publicly held national debt, and;
       (2) in order to insure that there will be adequate 
     budgetary resources available to extend the solvency of the 
     Social Security and Medicare systems, and to provide a 
     Medicare prescription drug benefit,
       The managers on the part of the House at the conference on 
     the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate 
     amendments to the bill, H.R. 2488 be instructed, to the 
     extent permitted within the scope of conference, to insist on 
     limiting the net 10-year tax reduction provided in the 
     conference report to not more than 25 percent of the 
     currently projected non-Social Security surpluses (or if 
     greater, the smallest tax reduction permitted within the 
     scope of the conference).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, few people in the country and a lot of people in the 
House of Representatives are unaware as to what this procedure is in 
terms of going to conference. Civics 101 would dictate that the House 
and Senate conferees are trying to come out in a conference in working 
out their differences so that we can send a tax cut bill to the 
President of the United States for his consideration so that it would 
become law.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, nobody in the House or the Senate, no Democrats or 
Republicans, truly believe that anybody believes the President is going 
to sign such a bill.
  This thing rushed through the Committee on Ways and Means in 1 day. 
And why? Because it was already prepackaged. We already had an offer 
from the majority that we had to refuse. A similar thing occurred in 
the Senate.
  So this evening we meet for the first time. Do we really meet to work 
out our differences in order to have a tax cut bill? No. We meet to see 
how Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate can fashion 
a bill to such an extent that they know that the President of the 
United States will have to veto it. And so instead of talking as 
legislators, instead of talking as tax writers, we are having a 
political meeting to determine the campaign for the year 2000.
  Chairman Greenspan had indicated that he thought it would be best for 
the economy for us just to take a deep breath, to do nothing. To just 
allow hundreds of billions of dollars to pay down our national debt, to 
give a tax cut for everybody by reducing the interest for everybody. 
And then we say that after we take a look at this objective suggestion 
by Chairman Greenspan, we should do what every responsible citizen 
would want us to do, and that is to find out how much money do we owe? 
How much money do we have? And why not pay off some of this debt before 
we move forward?
  The Republicans would suggest, oh, my God, we have to return this 
money to the taxpayers because if we do not, we will spend it. Well, I 
know it is a very small majority that they have, but they still are the 
majority. They still are the leaders. And unless we have an implosion, 
unless we have an exodus, it seems as though they will have the 
majority at least until the year 2000. So what are they afraid of if 
they are the ones that are in control of the spending?
  So we just hope that the motion to instruct the conferees is save 
Social Security, save Medicare, and let the conference say we do not 
need a political statement, but we are going to come back together, 
send this bill quickly to the President to get the veto that you are 
begging for, and then we will not have to debate throughout August what 
the tax bill would have been, but we can work together not as 
Democrats, not as Republicans, but Members of the House and Senate to 
say to America we fixed the Social Security system, we fixed the 
Medicare system, we fixed the prescription drugs that are so necessary 
for our senior citizens. Now we will review and see what in the 
responsible way we can do to reduce the tax burdens on all of America 
and not just the richest among us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion it is almost identical to the motion to 
recommit that was offered by the minority when the tax bill was debated 
on the floor of the House and perhaps we might simplify things by 
simply stipulating to the debate that occurred on that motion and then 
we could just go to a vote.
  But I am not sure that I am quite as eloquent as the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts); but I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the American 
people are caught in a tax trap. The longer they work, the harder they 
work, the more they pay. And that is wrong.
  Now the American people are simply paying too much. Perhaps it was 
unexpected, but they are paying too much. And the strongest proof of 
this is that the IRS is now accumulating more cash and will accumulate 
more cash in the future.
  Americans are sending too much money to Washington and there is 
actually more money than is projected for the government's needs in 
which to operate.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is not that Washington does not have enough 
money. The problem is that Washington does not spend money efficiently, 
prudently, productively. We should begin to cut out the waste instead 
of saying we have got to have more money and more money and more money.
  I know there are those who believe that Washington knows best how to 
spend the people's money and they should not be given the opportunity 
to do it because maybe they might make a mistake; but it is their 
money, not ours and I am proud that the House and Senate on a 
bipartisan basis think this is unfair and have passed good plans to let 
people keep more of their money. Yes, the plans are different, but they 
are both based on the principle that all Americans deserve to keep more 
of what they have earned. After all, it is their money. If we keep it 
in Washington, politicians will most surely spend it.
  That has been the way it has been throughout history. And over the 
last hundred years right here in Washington, over 70 percent of all of 
the surpluses that have ever been generated into the Federal Government 
have been spent by politicians. Unfortunately, the motion before us is 
designed to keep hundreds of billions of dollars in excess taxpayer 
money in Washington to be spent. All along, we warned that there would 
be enormous pressure and great temptation to spend this budget surplus 
on more government programs, and it looks like we were right. But, Mr. 
Speaker, we do not need full-time government and part-time families. We 
need part-time government and full-time families.
  This motion guts broad-based tax relief for the taxpayers who created 
the

[[Page H6801]]

budget surplus in the first place. This motion threatens marriage 
penalty relief. This motion would make it tougher for people who care 
for elderly relatives at home by blocking health and long-term care 
insurance incentives. This motion would stand in the way of pension 
modernization that will help more men and women enjoy retirement 
security.
  This motion would take away education incentives to make college more 
affordable and to give parents the ability to save for their children's 
education and that is what is fair.
  Mr. Speaker, we can save Social Security, strengthen Medicare, and 
provide for prescription drug benefit for needy seniors, pay down the 
debt and provide tax relief for the American people. Mr. Speaker, 25 
cents out of every dollar of surplus is what we are talking about in 
this tax relief bill. There is plenty to do all of these other things.
  I hearken back again when I say deja vu to 1995, 1996, and the 
beginning of 1997 when the same people who offer this motion to 
instruct said, oh, we cannot give tax relief until after we have 
balanced the budget. First things first.

                              {time}  1730

  Yet, most of them voted for a tax relief bill when we did not even 
have a balanced budget. Most of them voted for a tax relief bill almost 
as big as this one today that they call risky and irresponsible when we 
had no surplus projections at all.
  We heard not one word about Social Security. We heard not one word 
about Medicare. We heard not one word about paying down the debt. My 
how things change.
  To my colleagues on the other side who say we cannot, I simply remind 
them of the Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Bob Kerrey's comment 
about their argument. He said, ``To suggest that we cannot afford to 
cut income taxes when we are running a $3 trillion surplus is 
ludicrous.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple 
observations. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security who has studied the issue of Social Security now for 2\1/2\ 
years, I have to say that there was a lot of misleading information 
passed on by the House of Representatives last week when we discussed 
this bill.
  There has been a lot of talk about a lockbox and $3 trillion. The 
fact that $2 trillion will be put in a lockbox, that in fact is Social 
Security money. That is payroll tax money coming in over the next 
decade, 15 years, the $2 trillion. The problem is that will not 
preserve Social Security.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) said last week that that will 
save Social Security. That will not save Social Security. By putting 
the $2 trillion in a lockbox, all that does is make sure that Social 
Security problem does not get any worse, that it does not get any 
worse. That is what the issue is. But it will not solve that problem.
  In fact, what will be needed, if we do not want to cut benefits, is 
general fund money going into the Social Security system. The bill of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) puts general fund money into the Social Security system.
  Now, we have a $1 trillion dollars surplus that is projected, it is 
only projected over the next decade in the on-budget, non-Social 
Security surplus. If in fact this tax cut goes through and becomes law, 
and we all agree it probably will not, but assuming my colleagues vote 
for this tax bill, that essentially means that they are going to favor 
cuts in benefits over the Social Security system.
  I have to say the purpose of this vote is to put Members on record so 
that the American public in the year 2000 will find out who wants to 
protect Social Security and maintain the level of benefits we have now 
or who wants to cut benefits. Because this vote, if my colleagues vote 
against this motion to recommit, they are saying, in the year 2001, 
when we try to deal with Social Security, that they are going to cut 
benefits, or an alternative, they may want to raise payroll taxes, 
although I do not believe that is true, so they are going to be cutting 
benefits.
  So this vote against the motion to recommit will be to cut benefits 
and Social Security. What we are talking about here is a reduction in 
benefits of 25 percent of the Social Security benefits.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute simply to respond to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and he is my friend.
  This is the same sort of statement that we heard when we passed the 
last tax relief bill: One cannot balance the budget and pass tax 
relief. One will be cutting benefits. One will be doing all these awful 
things. But we did it.
  I say, Mr. Speaker, today we can save Social Security, we can save 
Medicare, we can give a prescription drug benefit, and we can pay down 
the debt, and we can give a small amount in tax relief to the people 
who earned it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the respected gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as Ronald Reagan once said ``Here we go 
again.'' Whenever Republicans want to lower the tax burden on families, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle always say it is going to 
somehow hurt people when they lower their taxes.
  Now, where I come from, people tell me their tax burden is too high. 
Our tax burden today is 21 percent of our economy which is consumed by 
the Federal Government.
  Since 1993, the tax burden has continued to go up. In fact, in 1993, 
the tax burden was less than 18 percent. Today it is 21 percent of our 
gross domestic product going to the Federal Government. That tax burden 
is too high.
  When it comes to Medicare and Social Security, thanks to this 
Republican Congress, we have a balanced budget, the first balanced 
budget in 28 years. It is now projected to provide a $3 trillion 
surplus over the next 10 years.
  Under our budget, of course we do something that Congresses of the 
past and Presidents of the past for the last 30 years have refused to 
do; and that is, we set aside 100 percent of Social Security for 
retirement security to save Medicare and Social Security.
  Now these 3 dollar bills I have, each dollar bill represents $1 
trillion. Under our budget, we set aside $1 trillion, $2 trillion. In 
fact, we set aside two-thirds of the so-called surplus over the next 10 
years for retirement security, leaving one-third for other purposes.
  We believe the vast majority of that extra surplus, the non-Social 
Security surplus, should go to help working families, helping working 
families by lowering their taxes.
  Now, folks complain their taxes are too high. That is a common 
concern. But folks also tell me back home that the tax code is too 
complicated. They are frustrated that they will have to hire someone 
else to do their taxes. They are frustrated about the unfairness of the 
tax code. Frankly, a lot of them are just plain angry that, under our 
tax code, a married working couple on average pays $1,400 in higher 
taxes just because they are married.
  Under this packaged tax relief to help working families, we eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. I have 
an example here of a couple back in Joliet, Illinois, Michelle and Shad 
Callahan. They are schoolteachers in the Joliet public school district. 
In fact, Michelle here is due any day to have a baby, their first 
child.
  They discovered when they got married that they now pay higher taxes 
just because they are married. In fact, they pay the average marriage 
tax penalty of $1,400. Their combined income is about $60,000.
  Under our legislation we passed out of the House, 70 percent of 
taxpayers receive direct marriage tax relief. I believe by the time the 
House and Senate work out their differences, more families like 
Michelle and Shad will receive marriage tax relief.
  We work to address the marriage tax penalty, addressing the 
unfairness in

[[Page H6802]]

the tax code, and also simplify the tax code. Because in the House-
passed tax relief, 6 million couples will no longer need to itemize.
  I would also point out that, under our legislation, since Michelle is 
due to have a baby, like many moms like to do, she is a working mom, 
she may take some time off from being in the work force to be home with 
her baby. Under the legislation we passed out of the House, we are 
going to let Michelle make up missed contributions to her retirement 
accounts with catch-up provisions. That will help Michelle and Shad and 
working families just like Michelle and Shad Callahan.
  This legislation is good legislation. We simplify the code by 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty for millions of working couples, 
by eliminating the death tax which is suffered by family farmers and 
family businesses, by providing alternative minimum tax relief to 
millions of middle class families that now suffer the alternative 
minimum tax. Also, if one is self-employed, an entrepreneur, we give 
100 percent deductibility for one's health insurance, the same 
corporations get. Today, one only gets 60 percent, and we believe one 
should get 100 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, lowering taxes in a time of prosperity is a good idea. 
In fact, let me quote a Democrat on the other side of the aisle, Bob 
Kerrey. He says, ``To suggest we cannot afford to cut income taxes when 
we are running a $3 trillion surplus is ludicrous.''
  Cutting taxes deserves bipartisan support.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to thank the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) making this so personal in sharing 
the happiness of Shelly and Shad Callahan, and I would like to wish 
them well. But if they are really looking for a simplification from 
what is going on in the House and Senate conference, they are in for a 
nightmare.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) in that we do not have a balanced budget. We do 
not have a balanced budget today unless they count the surplus for 
Social Security generated income, and none of us want to do that.
  They talk about $3 trillion over the next 10 years. We do not have 
that. If they look at what is the on-budget surplus that we all 
acknowledge is money that could be used, we have a projected $1 
trillion surplus over the next 10 years; and we have not seen dime one 
of it yet. Yet, the Republicans want to spend the surplus before we get 
the surplus. That is not responsible.
  We are talking about what should the priorities be, and the 
Democratic motion makes it clear that our priorities should first meet 
our current responsibilities under Social Security and Medicare, not an 
expanded role, but they meet our current responsibilities. We think 
that should be our first priority.
  Why do we say that? If they look at the Republican bill to pass this 
House, it not only spends the trillion dollars during the first 10 
years, but then it explodes after that, because it is backloaded. It 
shoots up to $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Just as the baby 
boomers are reaching the age of eligibility for Social Security and 
Medicare, we are not going to be able to meet our obligations for 
Social Security and Medicare. That is why we say they cannot do both. 
We cannot do both.
  Our priority is to protect Social Security and Medicare. And how 
about paying off some of the debt? That will help everybody. The 
Republicans on one hand offer tax relief, they say; and then, on the 
other hand, they are going to increase interest rates because of their 
irresponsibility.
  That couple that was so nice that they are trying to help, they are 
going to lose all that money by increased interest costs if they have 
any credit responsibility under any charge accounts or financing a car. 
They are going to end up paying back more that is in the Republican tax 
bill.
  This is an irresponsible and reckless proposal. That is why our 
motion to instruct is an attempt to try to bring some sanity to what 
left this House as far as the tax relief is concerned.
  Fortunately, this bill will not become law. That is the good news. 
The President is going to veto it if it passes anywhere near its 
current form. We do not believe that we should go back to the 1980s 
when we tried trickle-down economics and we were told that tax cuts 
were going to help our economy, and all it did was grow our debt.
  Now, I understand the Republicans did not support the 1993 economic 
program that brought about our prosperity. We understand that. But do 
not turn the clock backwards and try to accumulate large debt again.
  We do have projected surpluses in the future. Let us use that to pay 
down our debt so that we can continue the economic prosperity that we 
have. Let us meet our obligations under Social Security and Medicare. 
Let us invest in the priorities that are important, including 
responsible tax legislation.
  This bill is irresponsible. The motion to instruct corrects it. I 
urge my colleagues to support the motion.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to look up in the 
web page www.dsausa.org. It stands for Democratic Socialists of 
America.
  In there, the Progressive Caucus, 58 Members of the Democratic party 
belong to that. What do they want, Mr. Speaker? This is their own 12-
point agenda, not mine, but their 12-point agenda. They want government 
control of health care. They tried that when they had the White House, 
the House, and the Senate. They wanted government socialized health 
care. It failed miserably.
  They want government control of education and environmental laws. 
They even want government control of private property. They want union 
over small business. They want the highest possible socialized 
spending, and they want the highest possible progressive tax that they 
can get. The highest progressive tax, income tax.
  That is what the Democratic Party is controlled by, their leadership, 
the Democratic Socialists of America, the Progressive Caucus. Guess 
what, one of their agenda is also to cut defense by 50 percent to pay 
for that spending.
  We fought to save Medicare, and the Democrats fought against it, dead 
fought against it, $100 million of union ads against it. In 1993 when 
they had the White House, they had the Senate, and they had the House, 
they raised taxes. They promised a middle-class tax cut. What did they 
do? They increased the tax on the middle class. They increased the tax 
on Social Security.
  Yeah, they made some cuts, and they showed what their real stripes 
were because they cut veterans' COLAs, they cut military COLAs, and 
they increased the tax on Social Security.

                              {time}  1745

  Now, we have a balanced budget, and we are going to have tax relief, 
not for the rich, as the Karl Marx-Engels class warfare Democrats talk 
about, but we are going to have a tax break for working Americans.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that 
Herbert Hoover is still alive and Herbert Hoover is well. The same 
accusations that were made against President Franklin Roosevelt for the 
Social Security System we hear today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the subject at hand. 
When the Republican leadership was trying to find the votes for the 
bill, the majority leader said this: ``You always know how many horses 
are in the herd, it is just a question of how long it takes to get them 
into the barn.'' Well, I hope that some of the horses that went into 
the barn will take a second look and get out of this barn before we get 
a roaring deficit once again that would burn it down.
  The proponents of this bill like to talk about a $792 billion cost, 
but look at the second 10 years. It would be $3 trillion, $3 trillion. 
And the timing could not be worse, as this chart shows, because at the 
time there would be an explosion, an explosion, in terms of revenue 
loss that same second 10-year period, the Social Security surplus 
begins to fall. During the same period,

[[Page H6803]]

Medicare runs out of money, 2015. And during that same period, non-
Social Security budget surpluses begin to fall. Look, there could not 
be anything worse in timing. But to make it even worse, the projected 
surpluses do not even include recognition that there may be emergency 
supplementals.
  Listen, I say to the Republicans, to a fellow Republican, Alan 
Greenspan, who serves in a nonpartisan position at the moment. Here is 
what he has said about the Republican bill. ``Hold off for a while,'' 
``the timing is not right for your bill,'' ``allow the surpluses to run 
for a while.''
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means refers to the 1997 
tax bill, $275 over 10 years. This is a $3 trillion tax cut over 20 
years. This is a ridiculous, a reckless, and an irresponsible proposal. 
It would return our country to the days of borrow and spend.
  I heard the chairman of our committee say we can do it all; it is 
easy. We can do everything. Do not worry, be happy. Well, if this law 
ever were enacted, this country would be very sad. The Republican Party 
is becoming the spendthrift party. The spendthrift party.
  This is reckless, it is irresponsible, let us vote for the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentleman from Michigan, I did not say it was 
easy. I did not say it would be easy to balance the budget and give tax 
relief, but we did it. And the President himself speaks over and over 
again about the accomplishment of a tax bill that we pushed, and a 
balanced budget that we pushed. He claims that.
  I did not say it would be easy. It will not be easy. What I did say 
is it is not that Washington does not have enough money to spend, but 
if we get tough and we eliminate the waste and we become prudent and 
productive in the utilization of the taxpayers' dollars, we do not have 
to keep adding bushels and bushels of money by taxing the American 
people more and more and more. They earned it; they produced it; they 
worked hard for it; and Washington is enjoying a windfall. Maybe there 
should be a new windfall profits tax on the windfall to Washington to 
let the people keep more of their money.
  As far as Alan Greenspan is concerned, a lot of what he said has been 
taken out of context and it needs to be set straight. He said, ``If you 
can save the money, save it.'' If.
  And he knows full well what the halls of history teach this country 
and other countries that are democracies, and that is that politicians 
will spend the surplus. Let me repeat again that in the last 100 years 
every surplus generated by the Federal Government, 70 percent has been 
spent by the politicians. That is a history of surpluses that are left 
to ``ride'' unencumbered.
  What does the President do? In his budget, and I now cite from the 
CPO documents, ``The President's proposals would spend most of the 
projected on-budget surpluses.'' Would spend them. And the debt would 
increase by a greater amount than under the budget that we Republicans 
passed this year and is now the congressional budget for the United 
States of America.
  Will it be easy? No, it will not be easy. We need to assure the 
taxpayers that the money that they send here is spent right and not 
wastefully, instead of merely saying we have to throw more money at it. 
And there is more than enough money in the Social Security surplus to 
pay down the Federal debt, to save Social Security, to save Medicare.
  The charts that my friend from Michigan used are a little outdated. I 
am sure he did not prepare them recently, in the last 24 hours. The 
Senate already, by their rules, prohibits any additional revenue losses 
outside of the 10-year window. They are shut off totally. Not $1 is 
permitted to be used for tax relief outside of the 10-year window.
  Besides that, there are no official projections for the years after 
10 years, so one can only guess. There are not official government 
documents, but under the Senate provisions that must be complied with, 
there is not $1 of revenue loss outside of the 10-year window. So the 
gentleman needs to find a new chart for his next speech.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  (Mr. Crowley asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Democratic motion to 
instruct conferees on the Republican tax bill.
  America needs a fiscally responsible tax bill, not an excessive and 
reckless $800 billion tax cut, almost a trillion dollar tax cut. A tax 
bill of this magnitude stands in the way of strengthening Medicare and 
Social Security and threatens the progress we have made in eliminating 
the deficit and reducing the national debt, and it does nothing, it 
does absolutely nothing, to help our crumbling schools.
  My constituents have demanded this Congress strengthen and protect 
Social Security and Medicare as well as to continue to pay off the 
national debt, rather than give tax breaks to the top 1 percent of 
Americans. I am not arguing there are no Americans who need tax relief, 
but let me just add that no one on this side of the aisle has said no 
one in this country needs some tax relief, we are saying just do not 
give it to the 1 percent richest people on this planet. Many middle 
income families would greatly benefit from affordable tax cuts, 
however, these families are not the ones assisted by the Republican tax 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, please listen to the American people. And if my 
colleagues will not listen to them, they should listen to the chairman 
of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan, who has vocally denounced a 
massive tax cut initiative such as the ones passed by the House and the 
Senate as potentially harmful to our Nation.
  This bill does not strengthen Social Security and Medicare and it 
does not assist our school districts with building new schools and 
modernizing their old, outdated, and ofttimes unsafe existing 
structures.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to envision one 
classroom in my district. A single-room classroom with 50 kindergarten 
students in it, two teachers, and no funds under this tax proposal to 
improve the situation in the near future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
because again Mr. Greenspan's comments are taken out of context. He 
said that as between tax relief and spending, he would far prefer tax 
relief. In fact, he said, ``It is not even a close call.''
  The Congressional Budget Office has just certified that the President 
proposes to spend almost all of the projected on-budget surplus. Mr. 
Greenspan would most certainly say that tax relief is better than 
spending from the surplus. In fact, he did say it and he will continue 
to say it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to speak to the last 
gentleman who spoke and say that I also heard Mr. Greenspan in the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I heard what he said, and 
what he said was, ``My first preference is to pay down debt.'' My first 
preference is to pay down debt. Now, maybe the majority knows something 
Alan Greenspan does not, but I do not think so. I do not think so.
  We have a $5.6 trillion debt in this country. We have an opportunity 
for the first time in a generation to do the right thing and put our 
financial house in order. The question is whether we will step up to 
the plate and do that or we will take the money and run and hand the 
debt to our children and grandchildren.
  It is simply not right. It is unconscionable and we should not do it. 
The fiscally prudent and the financially sound thing to do is to use 50 
percent to pay down the debt, 25 percent for tax relief, and 25 percent 
for Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer) has 14 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New

[[Page H6804]]

York (Mr. Rangel) has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I would like to say that he deserves a lot of credit for 
getting this bill through the House and for having spent this weekend 
working with the Senate to come up with a compromise package that will, 
in the end, be able to give taxpayers the relief that they so well 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct. I 
was watching it over in my office and thought I should come over and 
talk about the fact that the Financial Freedom Act that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) and others have put together, so many of us 
have had a part in this, is, in fact, not fiscally irresponsible but it 
is simply taking what is $3 trillion in projected surpluses over the 
next 10 years and allowing the taxpayers to keep a little more of their 
hard-earned money, roughly one-third of that amount, rather than 
spending it here in Washington on new programs.
  It comes down to a philosophical difference, really. The 
philosophical difference is that Republicans believe people should be 
able to keep more of their hard-earned money, and the other side 
believes that it ought to be spent.
  Now, we have talked about Alan Greenspan here a lot today. I heard 
Alan Greenspan testify before the Committee on Ways and Means, and I 
questioned him. He was very straightforward. He said if it is going to 
be spent or it is going to be sent back in terms of tax relief, he 
would far prefer tax relief. In fact, he said it is not even a close 
call.
  Now, Alan Greenspan may believe if it were to stay here in Washington 
that it would be used to reduce the surplus. I find that hard to 
believe when I look at the President's own budget proposal, which in 
fact spends the money. In fact, in this tax bill there is more debt 
relief than there is in the President's proposal, based on what the 
Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, just told us last week.
  Second, I believe that if we look simply at the record of the last 40 
years, we will see that every time there is indeed a surplus in this 
town, Congress turns around and spends it, expanding Federal programs 
already in place and creating new programs.

                              {time}  1800

  So what we are saying is very simple, which is one dollar out of the 
three ought to go back.
  Second, I want to make the point that this tax bill contains a number 
of wonderful provisions for the taxpayer in terms of relief from 
excessive complication of the Tax Code and also in various areas like 
the marriage penalty, and one I really want to focus on is retirement 
security.
  In this bill our provisions are the most fundamental changes in 
retirement security in well over a generation that allow every American 
to have the ability to save more money for themselves for their own 
retirement. It lets everybody save more on their 401(k) account. It 
allows everybody coming back into the workforce at age 50 or above, 
particularly helpful to women who have stayed at home to raise kids, to 
put more into their defined contribution plans, 401(k)s, 457s, 403(b)s, 
and so on.
  It expands all the defined benefit plans. These are plans that are, 
unfortunately, dying on the vine out there. There are fewer and fewer 
of them being offered. We go into these plans. We enable people to save 
more. We enable people to get more in terms of a benefit. We enable 
people who are in multi-employer plans, section 415, to be able to get 
more into their own retirement, taking away some limits that do not 
make any sense. It will help in the end every single American.
  What I love about this is that 77 percent of pension participants are 
precisely the people we are trying to help the most who make under 
$55,000 a year. It is in this bill, and it is precisely what this 
Congress ought to be doing, in the context of tax relief, simplifying 
the Tax Code, increasing the savings rate in this country, and finally 
providing retirement security for millions of Americans.
  Sixty to 70 million Americans do not have any kind of pension at all 
now. Millions of those Americans will be able to get immediate 
retirement security from the legislation that is contained within this 
tax bill.
  Again, I commend the chairman. I hope we can move on from this motion 
to instruct, get this legislation together between the House and the 
Senate, and get it to the President where, hopefully, he will change 
his mind and sign it for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax message is one that we 
cannot trust Congress to act responsibly with the surplus.
  They say, get the money out of town before it even arrives here yet. 
Is it not a little bit ironic to think their theme is one cannot trust 
the Congress to manage money wisely, when they in fact are in the 
majority? Do my colleagues not think that we could be disciplined 
enough just to run one true budget surplus before we spend what we do 
not even have yet?
  If a business had borrowed money from a bank to operate for 25 years 
straight and for the first time in 25 years showed a small profit, 
would we not think we would try to pay down that huge debt?
  Two weeks ago this House had a historic opportunity that every 
businessman and woman understands. That is, when faced with a choice of 
paying down the debt or spending the surplus, we should pay down the 
debt. We had a motion on the floor that would dedicate 50 percent of 
the on-budget surplus to paying down the debt, 25 percent to tax cuts, 
25 percent to priority spending needs such as Medicare and Social 
Security.
  Today we are trying again.
  Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone in the Republican Party? 
Fiscal conservatives do not spend money that we do not even have yet. 
Fiscal conservatives do not ignore the advice of Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan. Fiscal conservatives do not gamble with our 
economic security, our health security, our retirement security. Fiscal 
conservatives understand that paying down the debt means lower interest 
rates. Fiscal conservatives do not pass on debts to our children and 
our grandchildren. And fiscal conservatives do not backload tax cuts 
into an uncertain future.
  The President is right to veto this bill. We can take it up next 
year. What is the rush anyway? There is only $5 billion in tax cuts 
next year out of the $792 billion in the bill, and half of that is 
extenders.
  Only six-tenths of 1 percent of the tax relief will be effective next 
year, fiscal year 2000. The 10 percent across-the-board tax cut, the 
increase in standard deduction to reduce the marriage penalty, those 
could not even happen next year. There is little tax relief in the bill 
next year, so what is the rush?
  I say pay down the debt. Do what is right for our children, right for 
Social Security, right for Medicare, and right for America.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, what is the time proration again, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New 
York has the right to close.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct. I hope we 
will vote for this motion to be responsible and to be prudent.
  We have to remember, we are not at a crap table in Washington, D.C. 
This is not Vegas. And I have seen the trick made with the $3. I hope 
that all Americans understand that the $3 we keep

[[Page H6805]]

hearing about, these $3 which represent $3 trillion, when we talk $2 
trillion being saved for Social Security, we are not saving it for 
Social Security; we are just telling all the people who contributed 
this money, the Social Security contributors, the taxpayers who give 
out of their payroll taxes that money, that we are going to reserve it.
  Because that is what it was supposed to go for. It was never meant to 
be spent for tax cuts or something else. So when my colleagues talk 
about the three, take the two off the table. Because no one would want 
us to play with that money.
  When we take out of people's paycheck every month Social Security 
taxes, we do not tell them it is for tax cuts or anything else. We tell 
them it is for their retirement.
  So we are left with $1 trillion, this $1 bill. Most of that, under 
this Republican bill, would go to tax cuts, some $800 billion dollars.
  Now, if we take that $800 billion tax cut, two-thirds of all that 
money, two-thirds of this $1 trillion is going to go to 10 percent of 
all of America. The 10 percent wealthiest tax filers get two-thirds of 
this dollar. That means the remaining one-third is left 90 percent of 
America. That is what we get with this tax bill.
  But forget about all that because all this is just projections. We do 
not know what kind of surplus we will have. The projection is we will 
have a large surplus. But this is all like playing craps on a crap 
table. They are shooting and hoping and praying that they win.
  But what happens if they do not? Let me put it to my colleagues this 
way: the average tax cut for someone who earns about $50,000, a couple 
who earns about $50,000 under the Republican tax bill is about $200 per 
year. And that is when we have got some of these provisions fully 
phased in. Because, by the way, in the year 2000 no one is going to get 
$200 in tax relief if they earned about $50,000. They have got to wait 
until all these provisions are phased in.
  But say they are all phased in. They get about $200 in tax cuts. They 
are not going to have it. Because all they have to do is save that 
money, use it for debt relief; and if they have a $20,000 debt, 
interest rates go down by one percent, they will save $200. Do not vote 
for the tax bill. Vote for this motion to instruct.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have so many speakers, perhaps the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means might yield 
some time to us so that we could allow the Members to speak out.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield adequate time to 
anyone on the side of my colleague who wants to speak against the 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that does not sound 
fair.
  Let me say this. Would the chairman want me to have all of the 
Democrats speak and then close the argument debate?
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
served in the minority for 24 years, where I was greatly outnumbered. 
So I feel very comfortable today being by myself here.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, I guess that makes sense. But what I am trying to 
do is to find out whether or not my colleague intends to be the last 
speaker before I close the debate. Because I have half a dozen people 
here and I just want to know, with the time being what it is, I have 8 
minutes and my colleague has 11, I do not know how to space it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
when he gets to his last speaker, then I will be glad to yield the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Very good. I understand.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this Republican tax bill has declared 
Christmas while it sizzles.
  On this Christmas tree that has been erected here in Washington, one 
will find a package wrapped up for anyone who has a lobbyist and a 
political action committee.
  There is one break after another. They think nothing of having the 
taxpayers subsidize 80 percent of the cost of a $100 bottle of cabernet 
or a two-martini lunch. They want the taxpayers to subsidize our 
defense contractors to go out and start more arms races around the 
world. And these conferees will even be considering a tax subsidy for 
chicken manure, something that many people have said symbolizes this 
entire bill.
  Instead of simplifying the Tax Code, this bill makes the Tax Code 
even more complex, and it certainly does not reduce the abusive 
billions of dollars that occur in corporate tax shelters that all the 
rest of us end up having to pay. And of course when it comes to 
fairness, this Christmas tree, while it sizzles, is one that provides a 
third of its proposed individual tax benefits to the wealthiest one 
percent of Americans.
  It is truly amusing to listen to this debate about Alan Greenspan. 
After all, what difference does it really make? Well, the difference I 
think centers on the fact that he is a President Ronald Reagan 
appointee, an admitted Republican, who has been given credit by many 
people, Democrats and Republicans, for the success of our economic 
expansion.
  It has been said he would prefer tax cuts to spending. My guess is he 
prefers tax cuts to death, as well. But that is not the alternative 
that he was presented. There is the alternative instead of this massive 
tax cut bill of reducing the Federal debt. When he was asked last week 
about this House and Senate Republican approach to taxes, he said it 
would be ``creating a risk that I don't think we need.''
  We do not need to jeopardize either Social Security or our economic 
success. And the leading Republican economic expert in this country is 
the one who said we ought not to do it. If he were here tonight, he 
would be endorsing the motion of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), which is only a motion to assure a fiscally responsible 
bipartisan alternative; and it ought to be preferred over this tax 
break and borrow-more scheme that is being advanced by our Republican 
colleagues.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth), A respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the esteemed 
chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me the 
time.
  As I walked onto the floor, Mr. Speaker, I was greeted by the 
familiar incendiary rhetoric of my friend from Texas. While I 
appreciate his ability to frame in the most extreme terms what is a 
reasonably prudent bill and action to give the American people more of 
their hard-earned dollars, give it back to them, I do find it 
interesting that my friend from Texas supported tax reduction in 1997 
when this government was still in a deficit and yet he would use all 
matters of extreme rhetoric to try and mischaracterize the essence of 
what we are doing here as the responsible majority in the United States 
House of Representatives as we prepare to go to conference with our 
friends from the other body.
  I think the motion offered from my good friend from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking member of the committee, shows the length to which 
the minority will go to separate the American people from their hard-
earned money. It is sad but true, and the rhetoric indicates it and so 
does the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have documented before, we talk so much about 
billions and trillions of dollars in this body and on the airwaves 
across America that sometimes we tend to lose focus about what it is 
our common sense majority proposes.
  I think the best way to characterize it, Mr. Speaker and my 
colleagues, is to ask us to take a look at these $3 bills and let them 
represent the $3 trillion of surplus that this government will have in 
the years to come. This is what we propose to do, to lock away almost 
$2 trillion dollars to save Social Security and Medicare. And that 
leaves the remaining trillion dollars.

[[Page H6806]]

  This is the crux of the question, when we get through all the 
legislative legerdemain and the name calling, this question remains at 
the end of the day.

                              {time}  1815

  To whom does this money belong? We would say, in the common sense 
majority, this money belongs to the people who earned it, not to the 
Washington bureaucrats. Let us take this money and return it to the 
hardworking taxpayers who have been called on again and again and again 
to feed the gaping maw which is this insatiable Washington bureaucracy.
  And so the gentleman's motion to instruct conferees again asks us, 
after we have seen the largest tax increase in American history, so 
extreme a tax increase that over 10 years' time it asked for an 
additional $800 billion from the pockets of every American, we are told 
somehow that is responsible, a tax increase so extreme that it was 
retroactive, to take money from taxpayers beyond the grave in terms of 
the death tax.
  What we simply say is, Americans have had enough of this. We should 
put the death tax to death, we should reduce the marriage penalty, and 
I am glad my friend from Texas mentioned the special interests. 
Because, as we have seen throughout the years, no one accedes to the 
special interests more than the previous liberal majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand with my friends on the right. Reject the motion 
to instruct conferees.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York for yielding me this time. I rise to support the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish we had time for a philosophical debate as was 
just given by my esteemed colleague, but we have business to do. I 
would simply tell him that from the far reaches of my district and the 
people that I have spoken to, businesspersons, they say they do not 
want a tax cut that is so enormous that it damages Social Security and 
Medicare, they do not want a tax cut that will increase the national 
debt by $1 trillion over the next 10 years, will increase the national 
debt by an additional $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. What they 
want is a family-friendly, middle-income tax cut and what the Harris 
County citizens want is the ability to be able to support the Harris 
County Hospital District with Medicare and Medicaid dollars so that we 
do not have to cut 165 beds, cut the treatment for AIDS and cancer, and 
I would imagine the public hospital systems around this Nation are 
crying now because we are taking $800 billion away from treating sick 
people, closing beds, denying them service.
  What we want is a motion to instruct to protect Social Security, 
Medicare, and provide more Medicaid dollars. I would hope my colleague 
from Texas and all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will 
come down on the side of middle-income tax cuts and saving Social 
Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the one thing that has not been debated tonight yet is 
what is in the Democrats' motion to instruct.
  One thing that is not in it is a 10 percent across-the-board tax 
relief to all working Americans and families, men and women who made 
this surplus possible. What is not in it is marriage penalty relief for 
millions of Americans who are being punished simply because they got 
married. That is not in their motion to instruct. They do not include 
education incentives on student loan interest payments, education 
savings accounts, and making prepaid college tuition plans tax-free. 
Those education provisions are not in their motion to instruct. Health 
care provisions, providing a tax deduction for people who buy their own 
health insurance, and for long-term care, including help for people who 
take care of their elderly in their own homes. Our plan has those 
provisions. It is nowhere to be found in the Democrats' motion to 
instruct. The Democrat motion has no strengthening of our pension 
system to help more American workers, particularly women, get a pension 
and have greater retirement security. No, that is not in their motion.
  To 100 million American investors, the Democrats say, ``Sorry, you've 
got to keep paying taxes on your savings every time you sell an 
asset.'' To 68 million Americans who have small savings accounts, the 
Democrats have no provision in their motion to instruct to help. And 
the Democrats' tax hike, because that is what they proposed in their 
substitute, and this motion does not even lessen the unfair death tax 
or the punitive alternative minimum tax. This motion is a turnback to 
the days of more taxes and more spending and away from the days of 
economic growth and opportunity for every American.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think the biggest problem with 
this tax cut is that it is built upon a false assumption, a false 
assumption that at least the majority party is not willing to admit, 
and, that is, that of the $792 billion tax cut, $720 billion is 
attributable to cutting the existing level of Federal spending by 29 
percent below today's current spending level. It is not going to 
happen.
  The majority party is not going to cut veterans spending by 28 
percent, agriculture by 33 percent, the FBI by 28 percent. Are you 
going to cut transportation by 23 percent, are going to cut defense by 
$68 billion? You are not going to do it.
  The Committee on Appropriations met last week. It did not do it. It 
will not do it. And so if you do not do it, $720 billion of the $792 
billion tax cut is not there. It evaporates because it is built upon a 
false assumption. You know it and we know it and that's why you should 
support this truthful instruction to the conferences.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that we are here 
talking about this measure only after we have a balanced budget. We 
have passed legislation to set aside the surplus to save Social 
Security and Medicare. We have locked that Social Security surplus away 
in a lockbox, and we are talking about part of what is left.
  I think it is important to point out that the average American 
family, and I repeat, the average American family today pays double in 
taxes what it paid only in 1985. Today's tax burden is the highest ever 
in peacetime history.
  I think the key question is, should your hard-earned tax dollars stay 
here in Washington to be spent on new Federal programs? Or should they 
be returned to you, the taxpayer, who sent them here in the first 
place? I think the answer is pretty clear that you, the taxpayer, 
deserves the money.
  We have over $1 trillion in non-Social Security surplus, and I think 
we absolutely must return the taxpayers' money to the people who sent 
it here. Our bill means that the average Michigan factory worker and 
his family will save $1,000 in income taxes. Our across-the-board rate 
reduction will save the seniors who live in my district over $500 in 
income taxes, and, if that senior has a mutual fund, will cut her 
investment tax rate so that more of her savings can stay with her, not 
the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe tax relief is needed. There is no doubt about 
that. We have balanced the budget, we have set aside money for Social 
Security which pays down the debt, and I think now is the time for the 
American people to reap the rewards of their hard work. I urge that we 
vote against the motion to instruct.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas left off a few other 
things that are not in the motion to instruct. There is not a $200 
billion increase in the national debt over the next 5 years. There is 
not a $3 trillion increase in our national debt from 2011 to 2020, or 
$4.5 trillion of additional debt when you add in interest. That is also 
not in the Democratic motion to instruct.

[[Page H6807]]

  The motion to instruct is truly a debate about priorities and values. 
The priorities, we believe very strongly this is the time for us to use 
that which we have the opportunity to do, and, that is, to pay down our 
national debt. We do have a surplus. This is the time for us to be 
fiscally responsible and pay down the national debt. This is the time 
for us to be dealing with a very serious problem of 2014 and Social 
Security, of which the gentleman from Texas certainly knows and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) here knows that unless we do some 
things of a responsible nature soon, we will have deeper problems in 
2014. That is what we ought to be doing. That is what the motion to 
instruct is all about. Do not have a tax cut today. What we should be 
debating this week before we go home is Social Security reform. What we 
ought to be dealing with is Medicare and Medicaid reform. We ought to 
have the debate on this floor right now dealing with the problems of 
our hospitals around the country that are saying to me, ``Unless you 
deal with some of our problems by October the 1st, we must close.'' 
That is what we ought to be doing.
  Really and truly what this motion to instruct is all about is just 
saying ``no'' to a tax cut first, let us deal with Social Security, let 
us deal with Medicare first and then let us bring a tax cut to the 
floor.
  If we would only do that, we would send the kind of message to our 
children and grandchildren that they need to hear. We should not be 
spending their future inheritance today based on our desires and all of 
the wonderful things that we say today. We ought to be paying down the 
debt so that they will have an opportunity for the same kind of future.
  Although a lot of numbers get thrown around in the budget 
discussions, this is really a debate about priorities and values. This 
motion to instruct is based on the value that has guided generations of 
Americans: the value that we should leave our country stronger for 
children and grandchildren. This motion simply says that meeting our 
obligations for Social Security and Medicare and first reducing the 
debt burden on future generations should be a higher priority than 
current consumption for tax cuts or new spending.
  We should put our fiscal house in order before we talk about tax cuts 
or new spending. We should agree to lock up a substantial portion of 
the surpluses outside of the Social Security trust fund to pay down 
national debt and deal with Social Security and Medicare before we 
start talking about how to carve up the surplus between tax cuts and 
new spending. How can we talk about having surpluses to spend when we 
still have a $5.6 trillion national debt and huge unfunded liabilities 
facing Social Security and Medicare?
  The tax bills passed by the House and Senate do not deal with these 
obligations and do not reduce the burden on future generations at all. 
Even if we stick with the lock box and save the Social Security 
surplus, this will not reduce the total national debt--it just shifts 
the debt from one part of the ledger to another.
  While my Republican colleagues are correct when they say that the 
lockbox requires us to use the $2 trillion in Social Security surpluses 
to pay down the debt held by the public, they forget to mention the 
rest of the story: that we will be accumulating $2 trillion in IOUs to 
the Social Security trust fund at the same time. If the lockbox is 
successful in requiring us to save future Social Security surpluses, it 
will prevent us from digging the hole deeper, but it won't do anything 
about the $5.6 trillion hole we have already dug for ourselves.
  Despite all of the talk about the debt reduction trigger added to the 
tax bill, the debt left for future generations to pay would not be one 
dime smaller than the tax bill passed by the House. In fact, the 
national debt would increase by $200 billion over the next five years 
under the Republican tax bill according to their own numbers.
  My Republican friends will say that the President's budget will 
increase the debt as well because his budget uses some of the surpluses 
for new spending. I agree with much of those criticisms, but that is 
not what we are talking about today. The motion before us today 
provides that we should reduce the debt and deal with Social Security 
and Medicare before we talk about tax cuts or new spending.
  The only way to truly reduce burden on future generations is to lock 
up a significant portion of the non-Social Security surpluses to reduce 
debt held by public. That is what this motion to instruct calls on our 
conferees to do.
  Paying down the national debt is the most important thing Congress 
can do to maintain a strong and growing economy with low inflation and 
providing working men and women with a tax cut in the form of lower 
mortgages, lower credit card payments, etc. Reducing our $5.4 trillion 
national debt will reduce the burden left to future generations by 
reducing the amount of the federal budget that will be consumed by 
interest payments.
  The motion to recommit will provide an opportunity to begin a 
bipartisan process to achieve a responsible budget agreement. Members 
on both sides of the aisle have said they agree with the Blue Dog 
budget approach of paying down our national debt, dealing with Social 
Security and Medicare, and then dealing with tax cuts.
  Voting for the motion to instruction would send a strong message to 
the conferees, the leadership in Congress and the President that we are 
committed to a fiscally responsible, bipartisan budget that is based on 
the principles of paying down the national debt and dealing with our 
obligations before agreeing to tax cuts or new spending.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  (Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to 
instruct on the Republican tax cut bill. This motion will urge 
conferees to take responsibility and commit to reducing the debt. I am 
for a tax cut. I think we all are. But not with funny money. We should 
be sure that we really have a surplus before we commit to these tax 
cuts, put the budget on a long-term path, take the so-called surplus 
and pay down the debt, deal with Social Security and Medicare first, 
and then talk about tax cuts. Do not spend projected surpluses that may 
not ever exist and certainly do not exist today.
  Let us take this terrible burden of a $5.6 trillion national debt off 
our children. Vote for the motion to instruct.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  In looking at what is before us and the guidelines in which the tax 
bill that is presently going to conference is drawn, and looking at 
that in comparison with the motion to instruct, these tax bills, both 
the House and the Senate, were very carefully drawn and crafted within 
the budget limitations. I think it is very important for this House to 
realize that the budget that passed this House and the Senate and, 
under which this tax bill is tailored, pays down the debt more than the 
President's budget.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric this afternoon regarding Social 
Security.

                              {time}  1830

  There is a bill, that will be filed shortly, that the people on both 
sides of the aisle are fully versed in, that is the Archer-Shaw bill 
that could save Social Security for all time. There is ample money to 
save Social Security and save Medicare and pay down the debt and give 
the taxpayers some relief.
  The previous speaker, I know he did not mean to be flip, but he 
talked about funny money. This is not funny money. This is the 
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, and I think when my colleagues find 
that we are moving forward, that we have created a surplus, I think it 
is important that we not only pay down the debt, which I agreed with, 
the accumulated debt must be reduced; But I think it is also important 
that we let the taxpayer keep some of their own money.
  This is hard-earned dollars. The taxpayers are paying far too much 
money today, and when we put all the taxes together that the taxpayers 
pay, let us reject this motion to instruct, and let us let the 
conferees go about their task of conferencing this most important bill 
and give the taxpayers some relief that they so richly deserve.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) to close the debate on the 
motion to instruct the conferees.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the 
items that have been brought up in debate. Let me start out by saying I 
support the motion to instruct, and my Republican colleagues know full 
well that

[[Page H6808]]

after their tax bill is vetoed, we are going to be back to precisely 
what we are talking about today, a tax cut which would give back about 
25 percent of the projected, projected surplus.
  My good friend from Florida talks about funny money. The thing that 
is funny about the money is it is not here yet. I have heard this 
afternoon Members come up and say, give it back, it is not easy to 
balance the budget, but we did it. My friends and colleagues, as we 
close out this fiscal year, the budget is not in surplus, but in a $5 
billion deficit, and for those who say, give it back, we do not have 
it. It is a projection over the next 10 years based on some very rosy 
assumptions, very low inflation. One economic downturn, Mr. Speaker, 
and those dollars will not be here.
  In fact, I said it before, and I will say it again. I have a better 
chance at winning the lottery than this government having a trillion 
dollars surplus over the next 10 years.
  We have had unheralded economic success over the last 4 years. To 
think it is going to continue for 14 and then for another 10 to make it 
24 is totally absurd.
  The motion before us says, let us pay down the debt. The gentleman 
says already we are paying down the debt. If the Congress will go home 
for 2 years, that debt would be paid down because it is a double 
counting of the Social Security surplus. Do not kid a kidder. That is 
going to happen with or without the Congress doing anything.
  But what we are saying in our motion is let us take it down even 
further. It is in excess of $5 trillion. The Republican tax bill 
expands all the money and leaves no room for modernizing Medicare. What 
happens to the extra dollars that are there? We spend it on increase on 
the national debt. So to say that we are doing Social Security and 
Medicare is totally false.
  The bill will be vetoed. I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion 
to recommit, vote for the motion to instruct because in October that is 
exactly what we are going to do any way.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my extreme concern 
over the President's threat to veto H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom 
Act of 1999. This legislation offers nearly $800 billion in tax relief 
for America's families, including eliminating the death tax, reducing 
the marriage penalty tax and capital gains tax, a 10 percent across the 
board income tax reduction for all Americans.
  The President opposes the Financial Freedom Act because he claims 
this legislation does not secure Social Security. This is false. The 
fact is, H.R. 2688 leaves more than $2 trillion for Social Security and 
Debt Reduction, which exceeds the amount requested in the President's 
own budget.
  Mr. Speaker, tax relief is the right thing to do. H.R. 2688 gives the 
surplus back to those who created it, the American taxpayer. Over the 
next ten years, the government will receive an average $5,307 more in 
taxes from each American family than it needs to operate. If families 
continue to overpay the federal government in taxes, Washington will 
just spend it on more big government programs. Mr. Speaker, it is time 
we let those who worked for the money spend it as they see fit.
  I urge the President to reconsider his position against American 
taxpayers and support the Financial Freedom Act. Government should do 
more for its citizens than raise their taxes and feed the federal 
bureaucracy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The Chair announces that proceedings will resume immediately 
following this vote on two motions to suspend the rules postponed from 
earlier today. The first vote on the motion to suspend the rules and 
pass H.R. 747 will be not less than 15 minutes in length, followed by a 
5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1219.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 213, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 356]

                               YEAS--205

     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
     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
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     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
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     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
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     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

                               NAYS--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     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
     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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     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
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     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
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller

[[Page H6809]]


     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Abercrombie
     Bilbray
     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Lantos
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Peterson (PA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Reyes
     Scarborough
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  1855

  Messrs. TANCREDO, VITTER, and LaHOOD changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the motion to instruct conferees was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 356, I was detained at the 
airport. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The Chair will announce 
conferees at a later date.

                          ____________________