[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 125 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8613-H8621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




TAXPAYER REFUND AND RELIEF ACT OF 1999--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 
                          OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States; which was read and, 
without objection, referred to the Committee on Ways and Means:
To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2488, the ``Taxpayer 
Refund and Relief Act of 1999,'' because it ignores the principles that 
have led us to the sound economy we enjoy today and emphasizes tax 
reduction for those who need it the least.
  We have a strong economy because my Administration and the Congress 
have followed the proper economic course over the past 6 years. We have 
focused on reducing deficits, paying down debt held by the public, 
bringing down interest rates, investing in our people, and opening 
markets. There is $1.7 trillion less debt held by the public today than 
was forecast in 1993. This has contributed to lower interest rates, 
record business investment, greater productivity growth, low inflation, 
low unemployment, and broad-based growth in real wages--and the first 
back-to-back budget surpluses in almost half a century.
  This legislation would reverse the fiscal discipline that has helped 
make the American economy the strongest it has been in generations. By 
using projected surpluses to provide a risky tax cut, H.R. 2488 could 
lead to higher interest rates, thereby undercutting any benefits for 
most Americans by increasing home mortgage payments, car loan payments, 
and credit card rates. We must put first things first, pay down 
publicly held debt, and address the long-term solvency of Medicare and 
Social Security. My Mid-Session Review of the Budget presented a 
framework in which we could accomplish all of these things and also 
provide an affordable tax cut.
  The magnitude of the tax cuts in H.R. 2488 and the associated debt 
service costs would be virtually as great as all of the on-budget 
surpluses the Congressional Budget Office projects for the next 10 
years. This would leave virtually none of the projected on-budget 
surplus available for addressing the long-term solvency of Medicare, 
which is currently projected by its Trustees to be insolvent by 2015, 
or of Social Security, which then will be in a negative cash-flow 
position, or for critical funding for priorities like national 
security, education, health care, law enforcement, science and 
technology, the environment, and veterans' programs.
  The bill would cause the Nation to forgo the unique opportunity to 
eliminate completely the burden of the debt held by the public by 2015 
as proposed by my Administration's Mid-Session Review. The elimination 
of this debt would have a beneficial effect on interest rates, 
investment, and the growth of the economy. Moreover, paying down debt 
is tantamount to cutting taxes. Each one-percentage point decline in 
interest rates would mean a cut of $200 billion to $250 billion in 
mortgage costs borne by American consumers over the next 10 years. 
Also, if we do not erase the debt held by the public, our children and 
grandchildren will have to pay higher taxes to offset the higher 
Federal interest costs on this debt.
  Budget projections are inherently uncertain. For example, the 
Congressional Budget Office found that, over the last 11 years, 
estimates of annual deficits or surpluses 5 years into the future erred 
by an average of 13 percent

[[Page H8614]]

of annual outlays--a rate that in 2004 would translate into an error of 
about $250 billion. Projections of budget surpluses 10 years into the 
future are surely even more uncertain. The prudent course in the face 
of these uncertainties is to avoid making financial commitments--such 
as massive tax cuts--that will be very difficult to reverse.
  The bill relies on an implausible legislative assumption that many of 
its major provisions expire after 9 years and all of the provisions are 
repealed after 10 years. This scenario would create uncertainty and 
confusion for taxpayers, and it is highly unlikely that it would ever 
be implemented. Moreover, this artifice causes estimated 10-year costs 
to be understated by about $100 billion, at the same time that it 
sweeps under the rug the exploding costs beyond the budget window. If 
the tax cut were continued, its budgetary impact would grow even more 
severe, reaching about $2.7 trillion between 2010 and 2019, just at the 
time when the baby boomers begin to retire, Medicare becomes insolvent, 
and Social Security comes under strain. If the bill were to become law, 
it would leave America permanently in debt. The bill as a whole would 
disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans by, for example, 
lowering capital gains rates, repealing the estate and gift tax, 
increasing maximum IRA and retirement plan contribution limits, and 
weakening pension anti-discrimination protections for moderate- and 
lower-income workers.

  The bill would not meet the Budget Act's existing pay-as-you-go 
requirements which have helped provide the discipline necessary to 
bring us from an era of large and growing budget deficits to the 
potential for substantial surpluses. It would also automatically 
trigger across-the-board cuts (or sequesters) in a number of Federal 
programs. These cuts would result in a reduction of more than $40 
billion in the Medicare program over the next 5 years. Starting in 
2002, they would also lead to the elimination of numerous programs with 
broad support, including: crop insurance, without which most farmers 
and ranchers could not secure the financing from banks needed to 
operate their farms and ranches; veterans readjustment benefits, 
denying education and training to more than 450,000 veterans, 
reservists, and dependents; Federal support for programs such as child 
care for low-income families and Meals on Wheels for senior citizens; 
and many others.
  As I have repeatedly stressed, I want to find common ground with the 
Congress on a fiscal plan that will best serve the American people. I 
have profound differences, however, with the extreme approach that the 
Republican majority has adopted. It would provide a tax cut for the 
wealthiest Americans and would hurt average Americans by denying them 
the benefits of debt reduction and depriving them of the certainty that 
my proposals for Medicare and Social Security solvency would provide as 
they plan for their retirement.
  I hope to work with Members of Congress to find a common path to 
honor our commitment to senior citizens, help working families with 
targeted tax relief for moderate- and lower-income workers, provide a 
better life for our children, and improve the standard of living of all 
Americans.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, September 23, 1999.

                              {time}  1715

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The objections of the President 
will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will 
be printed as a House document.


                      Motion Offered by Mr. Archer

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with the 
accompanying bill, be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking minority member, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the veto message that has been read 
to the House; and I am stunned by the hyperbolic rhetoric and failure 
to relate to the facts of the situation. And I use the word stunned 
advisedly.
  Simply translated, the President's message means I know better how to 
spend the money than you do. He said that in Buffalo, New York, the day 
after his State of the Union address this year when he commented to an 
assemblage of roughly 20,000 people: Now we have this interesting new 
situation of a surplus. What should we do with it? Well, one 
alternative would be to give the money back to you. But who would know 
if you would spend it right? That is quote/unquote from the President 
of the United States.
  All of the verbiage that we heard in the veto message is simply cover 
to keep the money in Washington because he believes that Washington 
knows best how to spend the people's money.
  He vetoed this tax relief plan today, a plan which would downsize the 
power of Washington and upsize the power of people. He vetoed a plan 
that protects Social Security and Medicare; pays down the debt by $2 
trillion; improves education and gives taxpayers only a small portion 
of their money back.
  Make no mistake, it is their money; not ours. We did not earn it here 
in Washington. In doing so, the President said no to new school 
construction. He said no to helping parents save for their children's 
education. He said no to marriage penalty relief for 42 million married 
Americans. He hurt baby-boomers who are saving for their retirement by 
blocking IRA expansions. By his veto, he has prolonged the 
confiscatory, unfair death tax.
  He has made it especially tough on those caring for elderly relatives 
in their own homes who would get tax relief, by blocking health and 
long-term care tax relief for all American citizens. Since the 
President has vetoed this tax relief plan and said no to the American 
people, I challenge him to say no also to the special interests in 
Washington who cannot wait to get their hands on the people's money.
  I have always said that if we do not get this tax overcharge out of 
Washington, Washington will most surely spend it; and now we are going 
to find out if I am right.
  In fact, today I ask the American people to watch very closely what 
happens to their money over the next 60 days. What will happen to the 
projected $14.5 billion surplus in the general treasury next year? And 
that is the non-Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, my guess is 
that Washington will spend the people's tax dollars like some Hollywood 
movie star on a Rodeo Drive spending spree, but unlike the movie stars 
who use their own money Washington will be using your credit card, your 
checkbook and your wallet, and, worse still, your Social Security 
money.
  After this spending spree, Americans should ask themselves if they 
are happy with the way it was spent. Do they think the money was spent 
wisely or would they rather have had that extra $1,000 a year in their 
own family budget? Because in the end, that is what this debate is all 
about. Do the people trust Washington to know better how to spend their 
money as the President says, or do they feel that they know best how to 
spend the money in their own budgets?
  Do they want their excess money going for $200 hammers or do they 
want it to go to their children's education and their own IRAs? We all 
know the answer to those questions, so I again ask the President to 
join with us and find a way to return this tax overcharge to the 
workers of the country.
  President Clinton has once again put the needs of Washington above 
the needs of the American people, and I think that is sad. I think this 
is a sad moment for this country.
  Republicans believe strongly that refunding excess tax dollars to 
American families and workers is a matter of principle. Taxes are too 
high. Government does not need all of the money that is coming in to 
pay government's bills, and the taxpayers should get a refund. Since 
President Clinton killed this reasonable tax relief plan, he has given 
himself a license to spend; and spend he will. Americans should know 
that the big blank check in Washington is drawn on their own checkbook, 
is coming out of their family's budget, is coming out of their 
opportunity to see investment to create better jobs; and they will get 
stuck with the bill.
  I will fight the brewing explosion of government spending and instead 
use

[[Page H8615]]

every chance available to cut taxes and create more opportunity for all 
Americans, because I continue to put my faith and trust in the hard 
work and values of the American people, and I believe that they know 
best how to spend their own hard-earned dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has the right and 
obligation to veto any bill that an abusive Congress sends to his desk 
if he or she believes that the bill, the legislation, is not in the 
interest of the American people.
  The President of the United States has reviewed this piece of 
Republican legislation and has vetoed the bill.
  Now, the Congress on the other hand, has the opportunity to override 
the veto. All they have to do is to indicate that they think the 
President is wrong and then ask for a vote and override the veto.
  Now, the Republican majority obviously do not want a vote to override 
the veto. They would like to make a comment or two but they want to 
avoid having a debate on the floor and exercising their constitutional 
right to say that the President is wrong.
  Now, why would they use this political or legislative tactic? One, it 
could be that they believe the President is right and they do not want 
a vote on this because they have changed their mind. They recognize the 
legislation was abusive. They went home. They tried to sell it to the 
American people, and the American people said they do not want it.
  Or maybe it is two. Maybe they just counted the votes, and they found 
out that all of the Republicans really do not believe in this political 
rhetoric, so they do not have the votes to override the President. 
Maybe that is one of the reasons why they are not exercising their 
constitutional right.
  Mr. Speaker, I really think that the reason that they do not want the 
override is because they never intended to have a legislative package. 
Why would they have worked so hard in the vineyards for a whole day 
among just Republicans in putting together this enormous $792 billion 
tax cut and not send it to the President? Why did they carry this bill 
throughout the hills and valleys of their congressional districts to 
try to sell this political document?
  What they were saying is, we cannot vote for anything in the 
Congress. We do not have the ability to get a bill out for Social 
Security. We cannot get a bill out for Medicare, not for prescription 
drugs, not for patients' rights, not for school construction, not for 
gun safety. Listen, we just do not know how to shoot straight. But 
there is one thing we can say that we want to do and that is reduce 
your taxes. So, Mr. President, please veto the bill so that we can go 
home and say that you were the one that knocked down the Christmas tree 
that we put together in the House Republican leadership and the Senate 
Republican leadership.

                              {time}  1730

  All I am saying is this: Either you believe in the President by not 
wanting to override the veto, either you do not have the votes to 
override the veto, or either you do not believe in this document that 
you put together anyway.
  Meanwhile, we will await to see what you want to do. We are here, and 
we are not in the majority; and we laud your efforts to attempt to 
convince the American people that you are right. But believe me, the 
American people want legislation, they want it on the floor, and they 
want votes. If you do not like what the President did, for God's sake, 
show it, and let us get a vote and let us try to override. If you do 
like what he has done, but you do not have the guts to say that he has 
it right, sit there, let the hour pass, and then we will move on to 
something else. I hope it is Social Security. I hope it is Medicare. I 
hope it is prescription drugs, but then again, I hope for too much from 
the majority party.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, and 
I thank the ranking member for offering a very interesting 
illustration: When one cannot talk facts and policy, let us return to 
process, and I welcome that attempt at rhetorical subterfuge.
  I would say to the gentleman from New York, and to my colleagues on 
the left, we stand ready. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would remind this 
House that we have reserved H.R. 1 for a plan from the President of the 
United States to help save and strengthen Social Security, but a funny 
thing, and really a tragic thing, has happened down Pennsylvania 
Avenue.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remind this House 
that aside from certain budgetary measures required under the Budget 
Act, this administration has failed to send up any of its proposals in 
legislative language since the attempt to socialize medicine. Perhaps 
that is the reason why they have never sent anything back to us in 
detail.
  So let me say to my colleague, in the best spirit of bipartisanship, 
we welcome you putting your plans on the table. We encourage you, as 
did our Democratic colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) to then Under Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, to have 
the President bring forth his plan to save Social Security; not 
rhetoric from the rostrum in a State of the Union message, but a true 
legislative plan.
  So let me first respond to that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me explain why I must object in the strongest 
terms possible to the veto of our tax relief and tax fairness 
legislation by the President of the United States. First, Mr. Speaker, 
every Member of this House and every American should know that in 
wielding his veto pen, President Clinton today extinguished the hopes 
and dreams of small business owners for quality health insurance for 
themselves and their employees in terms of 100 percent tax 
deductibility. Had this President signed the legislation into law, that 
would have taken effect. The President said no. And in essence, I say 
to my colleagues, what transpired, not content with the largest tax 
increase in American history foisted upon the American people in the 
103d Congress when those who would claim to be such intrepid 
policymakers on this floor, gave us the largest tax increase in 
American history. Not content with that, today the President of the 
United States has, in essence, raised our taxes in excess of $790 
billion over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, he said ``yes'' to a tax increase, ``no'' to health care 
deductibility for small business. He said ``yes'' to a tax increase, 
``no'' to reducing the marriage penalty. He said ``yes'' to a tax 
increase and more spending, and ``no'' to an end to the death tax. He 
said ``yes'' to a tax increase and ``no'' to families who sought tax 
relief to care for an elderly member of the family in their home. He 
said ``yes'' to higher taxes, and he said ``no'' to the American 
people.
  No, you should be punished for succeeding, for investing. How dare we 
reduce the rate of capital gains taxation, even though a noted 
Democratic President earlier in this century said that a rising tide 
lifts all boats in terms of tax relief. This President said no to the 
American people. He said no to the people of rural America and the 
inner city.
  Mr. Speaker, he said ``no'' to the people of the inner city, with our 
American renewal package, incidentally, a bipartisan piece of 
legislation in stand-alone form that curiously was opposed once it 
became part of this overall plan.
  The bottom line is, the President of the United States has again said 
``no'' to the American people, ``no'' to their hopes and dreams and 
aspirations, and a resounding ``yes'' to what is, sadly, flawed logic.
  There are many honest disagreements we have in this chamber, and I 
delight and revel in the fact that as free people, we have a chance to 
continue to thoughtfully debate the different philosophical 
dispensations we may have.
  But one thing that cannot seem to be accepted as fact by the liberal 
minority on the Hill or by the President of the United States is the 
notion that the money belongs to the people who earn it, not to the 
Government itself, not to the Washington bureaucrats. The money belongs 
to the people. That is the message we reaffirm today, and as we went 
through a litany where the

[[Page H8616]]

 President of the United States had a choice to empower the people who 
work and earn and pay taxes, and to use the terminology, Mr. Speaker, 
of the President of the United States, who often says he wants to help 
people who work hard and play by the rules, there was no better 
opportunity to do so than in signing this legislation into law. But 
now, the President says he wants to veto the legislation.
  So, again it sets up this choice, and as he has enacted this veto he, 
in essence, has again raised our taxes. It is worth noting that we have 
two divergent paths here; and indeed, we can harken back to the State 
of the Union address by the President when we welcomed him into this 
chamber, again to hear his legislative priorities, although as we noted 
earlier, Mr. Speaker, curiously, words that come forth in a speech are 
never followed through with legislative language, for whatever reason.
  We again await some sort of tangible product from the administration. 
Every school child learns in civics class: the President proposes, the 
Congress disposes. And we still look for some meaningful relationship, 
some meaningful leadership from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  So it is in that spirit today, on behalf of the American people who 
work hard, who play by the rules, who understand inherently that the 
money they earn belongs to them and not to the Washington bureaucrats, 
that we say in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United 
States was wrong to veto this legislation. We object to that veto in 
the strongest possible terms, and even as we object to this veto, we 
eagerly await tangible legislation offered in a truly bipartisan sense 
from the President of the United States to this body with the active 
help of those members of his party; and together, we will move to work 
out a credible, tangible, productive legislative program that will 
benefit the American people.
  But we fail to benefit the American people, Mr. Speaker, when we hear 
the rhetoric that we heard from this President one day after he spoke 
here in his State of the Union message. He went the Buffalo, New York, 
and there was a statement there that was actually quite candid.
  The President of the United States quoted in the press, saying, and I 
quote now, ``We could give it,'' referring to the surplus that exists, 
``We could give it back to you and hope that you spend it right. But,'' 
close quote.
  Well, the ``but,'' Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there is an inherent 
distrust, sadly, that this President has for the American people and 
their ability to spend their own money. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I have 
heard my friend, the ranking member on many national broadcasts in 
recent days even attempt to defend a recent action by this President, I 
find it curious that in the fullness of time, it has been exposed that 
this President not only, not only cannot trust the American people with 
their own money, but yet, he would trust the promises of convicted 
terrorists from Puerto Rico to whom he granted clemency.
  It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, as we hear on the other side derisive 
laughter. How sad and how shameful that our Commander in Chief would 
trust the word of convicted terrorists over the ability of the American 
people to save, spend, and invest their money themselves. This may be 
honest disagreement, and we come to this chamber expressing that honest 
disagreement, and again, it is in that spirit when I state in the 
strongest possible terms that I must object to the veto of this tax 
fairness legislation by the President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman used 5\1/2\ minutes of the 
time allocated to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 
25 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has 14 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank the President for vetoing this reckless tax 
bill. It was not easy for us to get the deficit down and to get our 
economy growing at a very strong rate. The issue is not whether we are 
going to be spending more money here in Washington. The issue is what 
is our priority, whether our priority is to cut taxes, or whether our 
priority is to reduce the deficit in order to preserve Social Security 
and Medicare so we can meet our obligations in the future.
  When we passed this tax bill over a month ago, many of us said that 
we would be spending the projected surplus before we even produced the 
surplus, and that is still true. We said that the bill would explode in 
costs in the outyears, that we did not pay for it, adding to the 
potential deficits of our Nation. That is still true. We said we had a 
choice, but when those deficits explode, we would not have the money to 
pay for the baby boomer generation, and we would not be able to 
preserve Social Security and Medicare. That is still true. The choice 
is whether we want the tax cut, whether we want to pay down the deficit 
and protect Social Security and Medicare.
  The President made the right choice for the American people. I agree 
with the President.
  Now, the projected surplus was based upon us adhering to the spending 
caps in our appropriation bills, and we were told when we passed this 
tax bill that we were going to adhere to those caps. Well, now, the 
majority has conceded that we are not going to adhere to those spending 
caps. We do not even have the projected surplus that was projected when 
this bill was passed. This irresponsible tax bill was based upon 
adhering to those spending caps.
  So what is going to happen? It is a formula for large deficits. The 
public understands that. That is why there has been no support for this 
tax bill that the Republicans hoped to generate during the August 
recess. Instead, they are looking for gimmicks to meet the spending 
bills of this session. They are calling ``emergency spending'' things 
like the census. They are advancing funding over and over again, 
knowing full well you are just taking from next year to pay for this 
year and having a bigger problem next year.
  And now, the suggestion on using the welfare money. We are going to 
take the money away from the governors this year, but we will give it 
back to you next year when the caps are even more difficult, while what 
we should be doing is reaching a bipartisan agreement with the 
President to put deficit reduction first, preserving Social Security 
and Medicare, and then we can deal with the tax issues and have an 
adequate amount of money to meet the spending needs of this Nation.

                              {time}  1745

  We can do it all if we want to be reasonable about it. But we first 
must be honest with the American people. This irresponsible tax bill 
was not honest with the American people. I applaud the President in 
vetoing it. I ask my colleagues to sustain the veto so that we can get 
to a bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior member of the committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority here delayed sending this bill 
for over a month so they could go back and sell it. They went home. 
They did not sell this package. The American people spoke by their 
reaction, and they said to the Republicans, keep to the path of fiscal 
responsibility that Democrats started this institution on many years 
before. Do not spend, the Americans said, a surplus not likely to occur 
in a way not helpful to most Americans.
  But the Republicans, as evidenced by what they have said here, they 
do not hear. They are not listening. So, where are we? The Republicans 
cannot even put together a budget and appropriation bills for 1 year, 
the year 2000. How can the American people trust the majority here to 
put together a fiscally responsible bill over 10 years?
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means earlier today said

[[Page H8617]]

this: ``Since President Clinton killed this responsible,'' that is his 
word, ``tax relief plan, he has given himself a license to spend, and 
spend he will.''
  But we all know the President cannot spend a dime without the 
approval of this Congress. Who is in control of this Congress? I think 
it is the Republican majority. Their message has been, help save me 
from myself. I will go recklessly.
  Well, they are in the majority. They should now react by putting 
together, with the President and with the Democratic minority, a new 
package. But they are not doing that. What are they going to do? 
Instead, tomorrow, as we understand it, we get this somewhat by rumor, 
in the Committee on Ways and Means the Republican majority is going to 
put up a bill. It is going to cost, we are told, over $50 billion over 
5 years. It will be paid for at best for 1 year. That is another 
example of fiscal irresponsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have voted for previous fiscally 
responsible bills, deficit responsible bills; to have stood with all 
the Democrats in 1993 for fiscal responsibility.
  This Democratic Party once again says to the Republican majority, 
begin to listen to the American people. They want us to sustain the 
path of fiscal responsibility that has brought low inflation and low 
interest rates. The President vetoed the bill because it would have 
moved us away from fiscal responsibility to irresponsibility.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of August, the strategy of the 
Republican Conference was to return home to their respective districts 
and make an attempt to convince the American people of the merits of 
this tax cut proposal. When they returned from the August break, they 
collectively, I think, would agree that the American people said, we 
prefer fixing social security and Medicare first, then paying down the 
national debt.
  What this journey proves, I think, to the Republican party at this 
time is that they simply cannot sell a bad idea. The American people 
responded overwhelmingly to the message, in this instance, of President 
Clinton and the Democratic Caucus suggesting that, as we flip the last 
pages on this century, we have the rarest of opportunities, the 
opportunity to repair and fix social security, and listen to this 
number, for the next 75 years, and to repair and to fix Medicare for 
the next 35 years.
  We would be hard-pressed to find or discover a responsible economist 
across this country who has suggested once that the Nation desired or 
needed or the current economic growth that we have had would benefit 
from a $1 trillion tax cut.
  The wealthiest businesspeople that I know back in Massachusetts have 
not been clamoring for a tax cut. They argue, instead, and I think 
accurately so, that they prefer and that we prefer low interest rates, 
so that those who are getting into the homebuyer market for the first 
time can purchase a 30-year fixed mortgage at 7\1/2\ to 8 percent, or a 
15-year fixed mortgage at 7 percent. They want stability and 
predictability as they forecast economic growth.
  Let me state another, I think, compelling statistic here. When we 
used that suggestion of a $3 trillion surplus over the next 15 to 20 
years, let us emphasize on this occasion that it is a projected 
surplus, heavy emphasis on the word ``projected.'' Then let me deflate 
the argument that we have $3 trillion to toy with by suggesting that of 
the $3 trillion, $2 trillion comes from social security.
  How can we argue honestly to the American people that we really 
desire this rarest of opportunity, to fix social security for 
generations to come, and in the next breath say that we are going to 
gamble with a projection of a surplus which might not even materialize 
15 years out?
  The President did the right thing on this. I hope that we will 
sustain the President's veto.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts who is 
just now leaving the floor that H.R. 7 was reserved by the Speaker for 
the President to submit a social security bill to this House. H.R. 1, 
H.R. 1 is still vacant.
  I would also remind the gentleman, and I think that he is well-versed 
in the Archer-Shaw plan, it does save social security for 75 years and 
beyond. I would hope to tell the gentleman that we will be sure they 
are marking this bill up, and it is certainly within the limitations.
  If we do nothing on social security over the next 75 years, we are 
looking at a $20 trillion deficit. We desperately need the lead from 
the White House that we have not received. We need to get the 
bipartisan support from the minority side, which we have not received. 
We need to get a bill started. I can assure the gentleman that that is 
exactly what is going to happen.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would inform the 
Members that the motion to instruct conferees will be voted on 
tomorrow. There will be no further votes.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, how dare this president go out to the 
common working Joe and common working Jane in this country and veto 
this tax bill, and then go out and spend $42 million, $42 million for 
his little trip to Africa?
  Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats are back to the same old tax and 
spend policies. For 40 years they had control of this House. For 40 
years they ran up the national debt. Now all of a sudden here come the 
Democrats, the liberal Democrats. They like to act as if they are the 
guardian angels of debt reduction.
  Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We had a marriage, a marriage penalty out 
there. It is their Tax Code. They put it in when they had control of 
this House. We, the Republicans, say it is unfair to penalize people 
because they are married. We think we should encourage marriage in this 
country.
  So what does the President do? What does the President and the 
liberal Democrats do? They veto, so now the people who are married can 
expect another marriage penalty for 1 more year of marriage.
  What about the death tax? It is important to the liberal Democrats 
that the day we visit the undertaker, we also visit the tax collector. 
If Members do not think it happens, take a look. Do they call these tax 
and spend policies something they can stand up here and be proud about? 
My gosh, look what they are doing to the American working person. Sure, 
they put out a lot of spin. Oh, we do not need a tax cut. But President 
Clinton should travel to Africa for $42 million, or to China for $40 
million. But they do not need a tax cut, folks. The working slobs 
should just get back out and work and just keep sending money to 
Washington, D.C., because the liberal tax and spend Democrats want and 
think they ought to be working for them. It is finders, keepers.
  Take a look at what Members are doing out here. If we could put 
spending and make it a person, I guarantee that spending would be 
affiliated with the Democratic Party. It would be a Democrat. We on 
this side of the aisle, and frankly some conservative Democrats, happen 
to think that the working man is entitled to more than what they have 
given him today by vetoing the marriage penalty, by vetoing the death 
tax, and by justifying the trips of the President to spend $42 million 
to go to Africa, $40-some million to go to China.
  I do not know what he is going to spend in the next few months while 
he has his last year. He is going to spend that money every time and 
not even think of the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take a look at marriage in this 
country, to encourage it, and to quit penalizing it. I am urging the 
Members, and I have heard some very politely say, let us work in a very 
bipartisan fashion. What more bipartisanship do they want than let us 
get together and get rid of the marriage penalty?
  What about the death tax? Let us say to our president, Mr. President, 
in a time that we are trying to give married

[[Page H8618]]

people a break, we do not need to make $42 million trips to Africa. Mr. 
President, pitch in with something other than a veto.
  Then why do Members not stand up and admit who is really the party of 
principles as far as that debt reduction? It does not belong on that 
side of the aisle, it belongs on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I can understand how so many Members want to deal with 
the President's right to grant clemency or his trips to Africa, but I 
wish they would put their outrage and emotion to override the veto. 
Other than that, then I think what they are saying is either they have 
not got the votes, or they agree with the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this kind of tired old sloganeering that we 
have just heard is a lot of what is wrong with Washington, the 
unwillingness to come together in a truly bipartisan fashion and try to 
address the issue of appropriate tax relief, but to do it in a way that 
does not harm our economy.
  Tax and spend Democrats? That old tax and spend Democrat Alan 
Greenspan, appointed by Ronald Reagan as chairman of the Federal 
Reserve Board, told these Republicans time and time again that he 
thought their tax cut was a mistake, that it would threaten our 
economic prosperity, and the longest running span of economic 
prosperity we have had in this country in a long time.
  They turned a tin ear to him. Fortunately, the American people did 
not turn a tin ear, they listened to that. They recognized that when 
the Sun is shining, as we have it in this great economic prosperity 
today, that is the time to repair the roof, not to borrow more on the 
credit card.
  So it is today that the President has taken his pen out and vetoed, 
yes, this irresponsible tax bill, but it was really the American people 
that vetoed this bill when they had it presented to them because they 
recognized how truly irresponsible it was, that we cannot have it all. 
We cannot have a big tax break benefiting special interests, benefiting 
those at the top of the economy, and save Social Security and Medicare 
and meet the basic needs of the country.
  So we Democrats have proposed that we pay down the national debt, 
that we reduce the debt that has been incurred, and act in a fiscally 
responsible way to provide some targeted tax relief that is paid for, 
but that we meet our social security and Medicare needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I think as Americans look at this Congress, they 
probably recognize that Hurricane Floyd was not the only natural 
disaster to afflict the East Coast in recent days. This House 
Republican leadership has truly been spinning out of control talking 
about this irresponsible tax break.

                              {time}  1800

  Meanwhile, the fiscal year, the Federal fiscal year, we have got 6 
working days yet to conclude it. We have one of the 13 appropriation 
bills necessary to the operations of the government. After next 
weekend, one of those 13 has been signed into law.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans really thought that the 
President's veto was outrageous and they really thought that their $792 
billion tax cut made a lot of sense, why would they not demonstrate 
this by moving to override the President's veto?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, that would be the only appropriate action 
if they had the courage behind the rhetoric. But I think, as a 
practical matter, they recognize they would do nothing but embarrass 
many of their own Members, many who have only voted for this measure 
because they were told it would never become law. They recognized and 
said in their own comments that it was irresponsible, but they would 
hold their nose as Republicans and follow their leadership because they 
knew it would never become law. The American people and this President 
would properly reject it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Chair how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New York would like 
to yield time, and I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair and not to the President.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the President was right to veto the Republican tax bill 
today. The President was right to put Social Security, Medicare, and 
pay down the national debt ahead of a tax break for the rich. The 
President was right. The Republican tax bill was wrong, dead wrong. It 
was a step in the wrong direction.
  We must use this historic opportunity to save Social Security and 
Medicare and to pay down our national debt. We should not be wasting it 
on huge tax breaks for America's wealthiest people.
  The Republican tax bill did nothing to save Social Security, nothing 
to strengthen Medicare, nothing to reduce our national debt. It was a 
huge windfall for the rich, pocket change for working Americans. It was 
a mistake. It was irresponsible. It was not the right thing to do. I 
thank the President for vetoing the Republican tax bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. President Clinton has 
imposed more total taxes on the American taxpayer than any President in 
history.
  In 1993, with the help of the Democratic majority in the House, he 
gave the American taxpayer the largest tax increase, in total dollars, 
in this country's history.
  Today, he has been able to impose yet another huge tax hike, $792 
billion, over the next 10 years.
  But my colleagues ask how can this be. Well, as of this morning, the 
Congress had cut taxes on working people. But by the afternoon, with 
the stroke of a pen, President Clinton raised them again.
  I regret that the President has today raised taxes on American 
workers by increasing marginal income tax rates, taxing those who 
choose to purchase health care insurance for themselves and families, 
and by taxing those who choose to buy long-term care insurance. He has 
also reinstated the confusing alternative minimum tax on individuals.
  I further regret that the President has decided to increase taxes on 
American families by reimposing the marriage penalty on married 
couples, taxing educational savings accounts, which we wanted to set up 
for children and grandchildren, and by punishing, through taxes, those 
families who wanted to provide in-home care for senior relatives.
  I also regret that the President has decided to endanger jobs through 
hiking taxes on American employers, by increasing the capital gains 
tax, by complicating retirement programs rules, and, finally, by 
reinstating the death tax which forces the sale of many family farms 
and businesses.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the President believes he knows best what to do 
with the people's money. So he has decided to raise those taxes again.
  He may talk about Social Security, but what he means is bureaucrats' 
job security. We Republicans have done the hard work in protecting 
Social Security and Medicare. Our tax bill not only set aside all 
Social Security and Medicare tax income, but our budget put aside $870 
billion in additional revenues for Medicare.
  The truth is the President wants to spend the positive cash flow. His 
own budget would have busted the caps by $30 billion and turned this 
year's positive cash flow into more debt. That is

[[Page H8619]]

why we wanted to return the money to the safety of the taxpayers' 
pocket. As it stands, it is a $792 billion temptation to spenders, 
spenders on both sides of the aisle.
  I regret that we shall see in the next few weeks and months to come 
spending schemes come out one by one at orchestrated ``program of the 
day'' press conferences. That is no way to treat the hard-earned money 
of America's families.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) to deal specifically with the question of 
Social Security.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we are seeing now is an example of the 
Republicans trying to get themselves out of a hole that they created 
back in February and March and April in this year when they came up 
with their budget. The budget was inconsistent. That is why, with the 
fiscal year ending on Wednesday or Thursday of next week, we only have 
one appropriations bill signed by the President.
  They are struggling. They want us to work this weekend, but then they 
change their mind because some of their folks had fund raisers. So as a 
result of that, now we are going to find ourselves in a crunch in the 
middle of next week. That is exactly what is going on.
  So they are really relieved that the President vetoed this bill, 
because now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) want to bring up a Social Security bill 
sometime before we recess this year. That bill, as we all know, or we 
will find out very soon when they start to move that bill, is about 
$1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. It would wipe out the entire tax 
cut.
  What is also interesting, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said 
earlier that their Social Security bill will balance out in 75 years. I 
hope all of us are alive in 75 years.
  But in the next 35 years, by the year 2035, and I hope that the 
Republican Members know this when they vote for this bill, they will 
have a general fund transfer of money to the Social Security fund of 
$11.7 trillion which, in 35 years, will be in constant dollars only 
about $3 trillion, about twice the Federal budget today.
  So what we can really do is, my colleagues can lament about the fact 
that the President vetoed this, but they are privately very happy 
because then, in the next month or so, they are going to bring up 
Social Security. They will bring that to the floor.
  That will go down in flames because they do not have 218 votes. After 
all, they are in charge of this institution. They should be able to 
pass legislation. But it will fail. Then they will say, well, we tried 
to do all of these things.
  But the only accomplishment, unfortunately, will be to pass these 
appropriations bills. I do not even know if they are going to be able 
to do that. But I hope they are going to be able to do that because we 
cannot afford to have social security checks in the next 2 months be 
delayed because of the incompetence of the leadership.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), 
does he have a plan to save Social Security, and does it save Social 
Security for 75 years? Is he prepared to vote for a plan that would 
save Social Security?
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. For a short answer, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has a 
plan in which will reduce the debt, will actually not cut benefits.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, that is not my question.
  Mr. MATSUI. Will the gentleman from Florida let me finish? He asked 
the question.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
California knows the rules of the House.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman not allow me to answer 
the question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time is yielded. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) has requested his time back.
  Mr. MATSUI. Was the gentleman from Florida asking a rhetorical 
question or asking me an honest question?
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman's trespassing 
on my time would not count against the time that I have.
  I would say to the gentleman, who is the ranking member on the 
committee that I chair, that he does not have a plan that would save 
Social Security for all time. The President's plan does not save Social 
Security for all time. We have reached out across the aisle in order to 
try to formulate such a plan; but so far, we have not received that 
cooperation.
  The Archer-Shaw plan does save Social Security for all time, and it 
has been scored by the Social Security Administration for doing that. 
It does it by preserving existing benefits without cutting one single 
benefit and preserving all of the COLA's. It does not raise the payroll 
taxes. As a matter of fact, it saves the $20 trillion deficit that we 
would be leaving our kids over the next 75 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) for yielding me some time. But I want to express my 
disappointment that the President who gave our country the biggest tax 
increase in history has now vetoed meaningful tax relief for all 
Americans. Why? Because Bill Clinton and Al Gore want to go on a 
spending spree. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican balanced budget sets aside 100 percent of 
the Social Security Trust Fund, payroll taxes, and interest on the 
Trust Fund for Social Security and Medicare. The President only wants 
to set aside 62 percent because he wants to spend 38 percent of Social 
Security on other things. It is about spending.
  The Republican balanced budget sets aside $2.2 trillion over the next 
several years to pay down the national debt, $200 billion more than the 
President calls for. Why? Because the President wants to spend more.
  Mr. Speaker, our balanced budget takes one-quarter out of every 
dollar for tax relief. In fact, over the next 5 years, we pay down $861 
billion of the national debt while providing $156 billion in tax 
relief.
  One of the biggest concerns I often hear in the district that I 
represent in Chicago in the south suburbs is the issue of fairness, 
particularly tax fairness. People are frustrated that taxes are so 
high, but they are also frustrated how complicated they are and how 
unfair they are.
  I have often asked this question, is it right, is it fair that, under 
our Tax Code, married working couples pay more in taxes just because 
they are married? Is it right, is it fair that 21 million married 
working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes?
  I happen to have with me today a photo of a couple from Joliet, 
Illinois, two public school teachers, Michelle and Shad Hallihan who, 
by the way, just had a baby boy named Benjamin just the other day. They 
are celebrating the birth of that child. They are a typical couple that 
pays the marriage tax penalty.
  My friends on the other side, they call Michelle and Shad a special 
interest because we are trying to help them. But these are folks who 
suffer the average marriage tax penalty. And $1,400 is a lot of money 
in Joliet, Illinois. It is 1 year's tuition at a local community 
college, several months worth of day care. It is real money for people 
like Michelle and Shad Hallihan.
  Now, President Clinton says he would much rather spend their money 
here in Washington because he could do it better than they can. That is 
really what this issue is all about. Do we spend Michelle and Shad's 
money, or do we eliminate that marriage tax penalty?
  Of course the President vetoed that effort to eliminate their 
marriage tax penalty today. If my colleagues think about it, their 
little boy Benjamin just born just in the last few weeks, if they were 
able to take advantage of the education savings account tax relief that 
was included in this, which would allow them to set up to $2,000 a year 
in a special account for Benjamin's education,

[[Page H8620]]

Michelle and Shad, if we were to eliminate their marriage tax penalty, 
could put that marriage tax penalty into that account and, in 18 years, 
be able to pay for much of Benjamin's college education.
  That is a choice we are making here today. Do we follow President 
Clinton's lead and spend it here in Washington, or do we let Michelle 
and Shad Callahan keep it by eliminating the marriage tax penalty? That 
is what we should be doing.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, how many times have I stood in this well 
and have been reminded by others, as I remind tonight, Presidents do 
not spend money. Congress spends money. All of the rhetoric that I have 
heard about spending will only occur if a majority of this House votes 
to spend the money.
  I have reached out in the hand of friendship to the gentleman on the 
other side, as he knows, regarding Social Security. I can honestly say 
we do have a plan.

                              {time}  1815

  My disappointment, and why I very strongly support the President's 
veto of this bill today, is that Congress has chosen not to lead on 
Social Security. It was our responsibility. It was the responsibility 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, in my opinion, obviously not shared 
by the majority, to come up and fix Social Security and Medicare and 
Medicaid first and then deal with the question of marriage tax relief, 
of capital gains tax relief.
  And I have said it many, many times. I am for tax cuts. I am for tax 
cuts. There are many good proposals in the bill which is vetoed which I 
support philosophically. But I do not support tax cuts when they are 
the equivalent of taking candy from a baby, and that is what we are 
talking about today.
  It is true that these dollars that we hear talked about are the 
American taxpayers' dollars, American people, all of us, but it is also 
true that the $5.6 trillion debt is our debt. And I believe very 
strongly the President is correct in saying we should pay down that 
debt first before we spend additional dollars for any purpose. That 
debt will need to be paid back to the Social Security program. We 
should not be carelessly spending Social Security dollars.
  And as we have discussed many times on the floor of this House, and 
why I have said in my opinion this bill that is vetoed today is the 
most fiscally irresponsible bill, because what it proposed to do in the 
second 10 years, precisely at the time Social Security was going to 
need some additional help, this bill proposed to take money from our 
children and grandchildren. If responsible tax cuts are brought for a 
vote, tax cuts which are paid for by today's dollars, I will gladly 
consider their merits. But I will not steal from children and senior 
citizens.
  The President is right to veto this irresponsible bill, and I support 
his action today. And I am glad to hear that finally, after September 
22, we will have serious discussion of Social Security and Medicare and 
Medicaid, and I will certainly reach out and accept the hand from the 
other side. But in the meantime, let us stop this debate and this 
ceaseless rhetoric regarding this tax cut and openly acknowledge that 
if we are truly concerned about the future of Social Security and 
Medicare and Medicaid, do it first and then do these other things, that 
amount to what most of us would call the dessert.
  That is why I support this veto, and I think now let us get on with 
doing what we should have been doing at the first of this year, and 
that is fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  My colleagues, President Clinton vetoed the Republican tax plan for 
one simple reason. It uses the surplus on special interest tax cuts 
instead of investing it in the future of America. I call on the 
Republicans to go back to the drawing board and to produce a bipartisan 
tax and budget plan, one that addresses the needs of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate how to divide up this budget surplus that 
is being projected, our primary goal should be to maintain the strong 
and growing economy that has benefited millions of Americans. Reducing 
the national debt is clearly the best long-term strategy for our U.S. 
economy, and, in fact, not only Mr. Greenspan but many economists from 
all political spectrums have said let us reduce the national debt.
  There is a plan to do that. It is called the Blue Dog Budget. Imagine 
this: We are projected to spend about 15 cents of every dollar next 
year on interest for the national debt. Fifteen cents. That is 15 
percent. If a family had a credit card and they were paying 15 percent 
or 18 percent or 19 percent interest rates, and all of a sudden they 
had more money than they thought they had at the end of the month, what 
should they do with it? If they are smart, they would pay down that 
credit card debt. Why? Because when they do not, the debt gets more and 
more and more.
  This is the time to pay the debt down. The Blue Dog Budget saves the 
entire Social Security surplus for Social Security, and it locks up 
half of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction. This approach will 
help ensure that our economy remains strong today and for our future.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before we hear from our next Speaker on this subject, I would like to 
reiterate that if the Republicans are so outraged about this veto, I 
hope when the arguments are closed that they will explain to the 
American people, and some of the young students of the Constitution, 
why they are forfeiting their right to override the veto. When we do 
not like what a President has done in terms of legislation, either we 
accept it or we override it.
  I am afraid what we are going to find, however, with this Social 
Security plan, is that perhaps the money that is going to be used in 
their plan for Social Security would be the very same money that they 
would have used for the tax cut. But who knows.
  I think they are going to spend the rest of the time wondering when 
the President is going to come forward with a plan. And I think the 
gentleman from Texas pointed out, it is the Congress that legislates 
and it is the President that executes. If there is going to be any 
legislative plan, do not be running around howling at the moon asking 
for the President's bill.
  They are part of the majority. They should assume the majority and 
legislate. Not that they have had a great history for it so far this 
session. But maybe they should try it. They might like it. It may work. 
Something may happen. But I cannot think of anything that has been done 
to give any evidence that they have appeared to lead. They did not lead 
in the tax bill, they did not lead in Social Security, they do not lead 
in Medicare, they do not lead in a patient's bill of rights, they do 
not lead in gun safety, and they do not lead in education.
  So I do not know how much time they have to close, but I will be glad 
to yield some time to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I have been over in my office listening to some of this rhetoric, 
and I was not going to come over here, but let me just say this.
  I could agree with almost everything that the Republicans have said 
were it not for the fact that there is not a $3 trillion projected 
surplus. There is only a $1 trillion projected surplus. Because all of 
us have agreed that $2 trillion of that $3 trillion is Social Security 
money and ought to stay in the Social Security System or retire the 
national debt.
  I could agree with almost everything that has been said were it not 
for the fact that we have a $5.6 trillion debt, a $3.8 trillion hard 
debt. Now, to ask us to take 80 percent of the on-budget projected 
surplus over the next 10 years and obligate it now is something that I 
do not think any prudent business person in this country would do.

[[Page H8621]]

  And, furthermore, I was thinking about this. This bill, if we want to 
call it that, is asking basically for me to say to my children, I am 
going to go buy a new car, but, Mr. Banker, when I borrow the money 
from you for that car, I am only going to pay the interest on it. And 
when my children become 21, send them the bill for the car. Or I am 
going to buy a house, but, Mr. Banker, I am only going to pay the 
interest on it. Send the price of the house, the money that I borrowed 
to buy the house, send the bill for it to my children when they get to 
be 21.
  We are not against tax cuts. We had in our budget a $250 billion 
piece. That is a pretty sizable sum. But let me tell my colleagues how 
irresponsible I think this is and how far the American people are ahead 
of us on this. When they have got an $800 billion tax package that has 
got something for almost every citizen in this country in it, and they 
cannot sell it and they cannot override it, they know it is 
irresponsible. The American people know that it is irresponsible, and 
that is why I am glad the President did what he did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Time of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) has expired.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is really humorous tonight to 
listen to this debate. For 40 years the liberal spending Democrats had 
majority in this House. When I got here, in 1994, we had a $5 trillion 
debt. Now, they had control of spending for 40 years. How did we get a 
$5 trillion debt?
  For 40 years they did not mind spending out of the Social Security 
Trust Fund for every kind of program they could think of. They did not 
worry about balancing the budget then. They did not worry about paying 
down the debt. Now, all of a sudden, they are worried about it. That is 
very, very funny. Very strange.
  Well, our plan, the Republican plan, sets aside $1.9 trillion, 100 
percent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus money, to protect 
Social Security. One hundred percent. What are they setting aside? 
Twenty-seven trillion dollars is going to come into the Federal 
Government over the next 10 years. What is wrong with allowing the 
American people to have $792 billion back of their money?
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, all time has expired on the 
minority side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
say to my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), who has asked several 
times why we do not move to override the veto, that he knows as well as 
I do the very simple fact is that we do not have enough Democrats to go 
in with the Republicans to raise the two-thirds majority necessary to 
give the American people the relief from the marriage tax penalty, 
relief from the death tax, and relief from so many of the other taxes 
that we have.
  I think, too, that the Members on the other side are well aware of 
the fact that we have got locked away, as the gentleman from Kentucky 
just said, locked away sufficient dollars from the Social Security 
surplus in order to more than repair Social Security, more than take 
care of the problems that we are facing in Medicare. Indeed, it would 
be irresponsible to be spending that money, and that is why we passed 
the lockbox legislation, and that is why we have this in our budget, 
that was passed by the House, in order to prevent this type of 
spending.
  But putting all this aside, and Members can say anything on this 
floor and it goes out like it is the truth, but the facts and the 
figures are there and they are there for all of us to see. But what I 
want to see is what is going to happen now next week as the spending 
bills, the appropriation bills, come to the floor. Are my friends on 
the other side of the aisle going to vote against them because we do 
not spend enough? I suggest that they will. Will the President veto 
them because we do not spend enough? I suggest that he will. And I 
wonder, when he does that, and as they vote and explain their votes on 
the other side of the aisle, how they will explain how they are saving 
this money for Social Security and saving Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 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.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________